God Entranced

Song of the Week

2012-01-23T13:51:00.002-05:00

I'm preaching on Sunday night from 1 Corinthians 5 on the topic of church discipline. I think this song fits so well (though not intended to be about church discipline). Cowper wrote:

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence,
He hides a smiling face.

Jeremy Riddle, "God Moves in Mysterious Ways"

Theosis: what we gain in Christ is more than what we lost in Adam

2012-01-23T10:41:00.005-05:00

The question that will be driving me for the next two weeks, especially in the evenings after we get the kids to be and I am free to read/write, is this: "If Adam and Eve were in perfect union & communion with God in the Garden and still fell, what makes us so sure that we won't experience a 'second fall' in the New Heavens and New Earth? What will be better about our relationship with God in eternity than Adam's in the Garden?"

I will be investigating, the concept of 'theosis', or 'deification' as the answer to this question. Put simply, we will partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:44) in eternity in a way that surpasses Adam's experience of union with God in the Garden. This deeper level of union would have been Adam's too if he had maintained his faithfulness in the Garden, passing the test and being confirmed in righteousness, partaking of the Tree of Life. As it stood, Adam's union was sweet and made it possible for him not to sin; but, it wasn't as profound as the union held out to us as our reward, for our union with God in eternity will be so intimate, so transformative, that we will move from beyond Adams initial position prefall (posse peccare/posse non peccare: possible to sin/possible not to sin) to a condition far better - non posse peccare (not possible to sin).

If you have thoughts, I'm open! I think this is a productive line of investigation for a few reasons:
- it helps understand Adam and his fall.
- it helps us understand and appreciate that what we have in Christ is better than what we lost in Adam, and this should add fuel to the fires of our worship!
- it helps us appreciate the security of our position in Christ even more.

Looking forward to digging in!

Union with Christ, a Few Books

2012-01-17T13:40:00.002-05:00

Calvin wrote, "we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from Him, all that He has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us...For, as I have said, all that He possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with Him. It is true that we obtain this by faith” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3.i.1). Exploring this doctrine of our union with Christ has been a joy for the past three or so weeks, and I look forward to posting more here as I continue to think through implications for how I understand the story of the Bible, my salvation (including my right standing before God and my living this salvation out daily), and the ministry of the church.

Here's a few of the books I've read recently on Union with Christ, and a couple I'm diving into now.

1. Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, by J. Todd Billings. This book was an easy read with good practical reflection on what the doctrine of our union with Christ means for life and ministry. Maybe a little lean on exploration and explanation, but great on reflection. 175 pgs.

2. Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology, Robert Letham. This one makes a good companion to Billings as he doesn't reflect much on practical implications, at least not as richly as Billings. On the other hand, he explores different aspects of our union with Christ and does a good job Biblically. He does, however, skirt the debate on the priority of justification vs. the priority of union. 150pgs.

3. All Things Made New: A Theology of Man's Union with Christ, by Lewis Smedes. Smedes does a good job of explaining how the doctrine of our union with Christ has been formulated in different traditions throughout the history of the church. It's hard reading, and I think his faults are glaring. He seems to conflate the Spirit and the Son in unhealthy ways and is so anti-mystical I think he misses some important streams of truth. I'd stay away unless you really want to dive into the deep end. 250pgs.

4. Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Studies in Christian History and Thought), by William Evans. I haven't tackled this yet, but it's on my list for this month, mainly because he interacts with Nevins and Hodge and explores their debate regarding the doctrine of union with Christ and how it plays out in the church. Not for those who want in intro to the beauty of this doctrine. 270pgs.

5. Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers, Donald Fairbairn. He was quoted so heavily in my class that I felt compelled to pick it up for myself. I appreciate any book that helps me explore doctrines through the eyes of the early church. I haven't opened it yet, and probably will only read the chapters that relate to my research, at least initially. 225pgs.

6. Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Julie Canlis. I'm really excited about this book. I haven't read it yet, but was introduced to Canlis' research through the class. Canlis seeks to 'place Calvin within the mystical tradition', which sound good to me! Starting it tonite! 250pgs.

Song of the Week

2012-01-16T11:56:00.003-05:00

I heard this song for the first time at Connexion last night. I like it a lot, partly because the theme of our union with Christ, which is in the forefront of my mind, is clear in it. Trust me, you'll be hearing a lot more about Union with Christ in the next few weeks!

Matt Maher, "Christ is Risen"

Best Paragraph this Week

2012-01-11T16:29:00.002-05:00

I haven't had time to post anything real this week as I'm out in St.Louis taking another class. It's a great class on our Union with Christ. Lewis Smedes writes a wonderful paragraph, my favorite in all I've read the past two weeks. Commenting on Ephesians 1:1-3 he writes (and where you read 'Paul' insert 'we'),

"There is no reason in heaven or earth why we should be so blessed. It is a gift. Paul ran from Christ; Christ pursued and overtook him. Paul resisted Christ; Christ disarmed him. Paul persecuted Christ; Christ converted him. Paul was an alien; Christ made him a member of the family. Paul was an enemy; Christ made him a friend. Paul was 'in the flesh'; Christ set him 'in the Spirit'. Paul was under the law; Christ set him in grace. Paul was dead; Christ made him alive to God. How does one give reasons for this? He does not give reasons; he sings: "Blessed be God who blessed us...even as he chose us in him." (All Things Made New: A Theology of Man's Union with Christ, pg 119)

Iowa Caucuses, Apartheid and the Church

2012-01-05T10:00:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I heard a reporter say that the Iowa Caucuses could come down to which candidate the evangelical pastors in Iowa backed on Sunday morning from their pulpits. I'm not sure that's how it played out or not, but the idea is repugnant to me (I think there should be disciplinary procedures for pastors who back candidates from the pulpit much like this young corporal will be in trouble for backing Ron Paul while in uniform). Kidding. Kind of.

Last night I was reading the excellent book by J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church and my disdain for churches backing political candidates or agendas was confirmed, though admittedly in a roundabout kind of way. The fourth chapter of Billings book, "The Gospel and Justice," explores the failings of the Reformed Church in South Africa during the apartheid era and it's attempts to set the ship right in the Belhar Confession.

In 1857 the General Assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church (in South Africa) received a request from some white members of its church to celebrate communion separately from black members of the church. This request was clearly out of keeping with the Reformed doctrine and polity as set out in the Synods of Dort, and the 1857 Synod said there was no biblical basis for segregating races when coming to the Lord's Table. However, the Synod accommodated this request, arguing that 'due to the weakness of some' (meaning white members), communion and worship can be segregated according to race.

This move eventually led to the separate, racially based denominations under the broad umbrella of the Dutch Reformed Church - the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (1887), and later the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (1951). In addition, what began as a matter of polity and accommodation to some weaker members developed into a full blown ideology with its accompanying theology that "sought to ground the separation of the races in creation." With this theology, the DRC became an "avid advocate of apartheid as a government policy in 1924".

Thus, the sin of the church's 'broken theology' and its horrific implications for the church were compounded as the church lent it's support for a broken and unjust social program. And, it was done with the idea that it would be good for both whites and blacks! Billings establishes that apartheid was rooted in an overly optimistic, not pessimistic, view of humanity. It was "an impossible pipe dream built on unfounded optimism that it would safeguard racial and cultural identities in an equitable way, establish economic stability, and secure neighborly peace." (quote in Billings from Phillipe Theron's "One Savior, On Church:Reconciliation as Justification and 'New Creation').

I think that is an important point. The church didn't separate the races in their worship and later support the separation of races in society out of spite or hatred - at least not on the surface. It was a hateful thing, to be sure, but it was masked with good intentions. In the churches, it was a pastoral accommodation that was thought would make people feel more comfortable (at least the 'weaker members') and would thus contribute to the growth of the church. Billings points out "it was rationalized on grounds of missiology and practical necessity."

These good intentions were out of step with the truth of the gospel and the Lord's establishment of one common meal to nourish his church. The church, acting out of fear or hatred, deceived itself into thinking it was doing the loving thing. And then, it took it's broken though well meaning theology and supported a horribly sinful social policy with it. It's happened a few times in history. Robert Lewis Dabney shouldn't have supported slavery...but he did. The church shouldn't have supported racial segregation in the South...but it did. The church shouldn't be so quite to support a candidate who is unquestioningly pro-Israel...but many are. Examples could be added ad nauseam.

What does this have to do with Iowa and North American Pastors? Pastor Joe Cornfed endorses Candidate NotSoBad. Later, candidate NotSoBad shows his true colors - he's corrupt and unjust. Now the church is in a pickle. Or Pastor Hawkeye endorses Legislation SeemsGoodAtTheTime, but he hasn't really read it and doesn't know the far reaching ramifications of said legislation economically or socially, let alone legally. It winds up addressing problem A, but causes problems B and C. And oops, the church helped it happen. He had good intentions, maybe. Maybe he didn't have enough knowledge of the issue. Maybe he was sinfully self deceived. But now there's a problem - he, through his pulpit, has contributed to injustice and oppression.

Let me give another hypothetical situation (not so much). Pastor CornFields is passionately prolife. He hears that candidate Ima UsingU is more prolife that candidate Mittle Roade, who is also prolife, but maybe a little less consistently. There's also another candidate who is prochoice, but wants to raise wages of working moms, provide free childcare for poor working moms, make adoption easier, etc. He claims his policies will make abortions less appealing and less 'necessary'. Who should Pastor Fields endorse? Ima UsingU's position is more like his own, but that might make him unelectable, or make it impossible for him to get his proposed legislation passed. Mittle Roade, who knows? And can he really support someone who supports keeping the holocaust of infants legal, even if his policies may drastically reduce the numbers of pregnancies terminated?

My suggestion - preach the Word of God. Call for justice. Remind people that God is a God who cares for the oppressed and marginalized and call hold the unjust to account. But don't pretend to know the in's and out's of policies. Leave that to your people, to their gospel freedom, and to their Spirit led consciences. Hell, maybe a few of them will be lawyers, economists, social scientists, etc., and maybe, just maybe, they'll have a better grasp on those issues than we pastors will.

There's lots of good reasons to by a Reformed Two Kingdomer...maybe the best is that I know the deceitfulness of my own heart and my proclivity to bolster my agenda with my theology.

Song of the Week

2012-01-02T10:44:00.000-05:00

Song of the Week

2011-12-19T13:00:00.001-05:00

A steady diet of Christmas music leaves me wanting, needing, some good hard rock. Some great stuff on the Offspring's Greatest Hits, available at Amazon for just $5!

Offspring, "Gotta Get Away"

Best Books of 2011

2011-12-16T13:38:00.000-05:00

As I looked back and on my reading list for 2011, I realized it wasn't a very good one. I read a lot, about a book a week. Unfortunately, the demands of classes this year meant I read a lot of narrowly focused books on education, small groups, etc. While useful, they aren't inspiring reads, or the kind of life transforming books I like to recommend. But, there were a few really good reads alongside all the trudging:

1. Who's Tampering with the Trinity, by Millard Erickson. This was a required read for the seminar on the Trinity led by Steven Roy. I loved it and blogged a little about it. I'd recommend it as it will aid your understanding of the Trinity as well as give you insight into contemporary debates.

2. Living in God's Two Kingdoms, David VanDrunen. VanDrunen offers a great overview of Biblical/Redemptive history, tracing how the covenants connect (and where there is disconnect). The book examines how Christians are called to live in this world as citizens of another. Great insights into how we keep the church about the church and still engage as individuals in the work of being salt and light. Also posted on it here.

3. The Gospel for Real Life, by Jerry Bridges. I'm pretty sure this book has made previous lists. Remember, this isn't books that came out in 2011, but books I read, or reread, in the past 12 months. This is a great, very accessible book on the importance of 'preaching the gospel to ourselves'. I walked through it with my small group and really got a lot out of it again.

4. What the Best College Teachers Do, Ken Bain. This is one of those narrowly focused, skill building books I mentioned above, but, it was excellent. It's not a cookie-cutter approach to teaching, but offered great insight into the goals and best approaches of teaching. Also worthy of mention is Parker Palmer's The Courage to Teach.

5. The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, Cornelius Venema. Venema's book helped me 1) understand the controversial New Perspective on Paul championed by Sanders, Dunn and NT Wright; and 2) helped me understand its deep deficiencies. It's pretty dense, but if you've read Wright on Paul, pick this up as a counter argument before deciding Wright is right (can never resist that).

6. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, C. John Collins. This book will make a lot of people mad. On the fundamentalist side, Collins will infuriate people with his suggestions that the language of the Bible may be less than literal, but poetic, etc. Nor will the like how he entertains scientific theories about man's origins and deems them, many at least, compatible with what the Bible teaches. On the opposite extreme, others won't like his insistence that a literal Adam and Eve are necessary to story line of Scripture. Blogged about it more here and here.

7. Two Views of Women in Ministry. This book actually had four essays with responses from four different contributors. It was a very thoughtful and thought provoking book. I don't think I agreed with one essay in total. I certainly agreed with the most strident egalitarian in the mix, Linda Belleville, and the most strident complimentarian too, Tom Schreiner. In the middle, I found a lot to agree with from both the moderate complimentarian (Craig Blomberg) and moderate egalitarian (Craig Keener). Related blog post here.

8. From Garden to the City, John Dyer. Ok, truth time - I haven't finished it yet, but I hope to by Jan1! Unless Dyer gets real stupid in the last third of the book, I would highly recommend it to anyone who uses technology. Yet, that's you! He helps the reader consider how technology shapes us just by using it, whether for good or evil purposes. Moreover, he explores how God has utilized technology to further his redemptive purposes in the world. Blog post.

9. Union with Christ, Robert Letham. This profound theological truth has 'flown under the radar' in most evangelical theologies, including my own, until now. John Williamson Nevin woke me up to it and prompted me to explore it more. Letham's book is my first step in this exploration. Next up, a whole class on it in January! Letham does a masterful job of covering lots of material in church history and the Biblical text in a relatively short space. Some sections are tough - like that on the churches understanding of hypostasis and the incarnation. Some other sections will be too much for some readers - like sections on Calvin on the Supper where he argues that we truly partake of Christ's substance in the act of eating and drinking. Don't get me wrong, he's right, but it's a lot to take in if you come from a 'memorial' background.

10. Honor Bound, by WEB Griffin. To make it a perfect ten, I needed to include this awesome series of war novels. I started this series at the tail end of 2010, but read five of the six in 2011. It's a great fictional series on the founding of the CIA, called the OSS in its early days. It traces the work of one particular team in Argentina during the tail end of WW2 and into the Cold War. Fantastic!

God, Pagan Kings, and His Purposes

2011-12-13T10:25:00.000-05:00

The whole section of Isaiah running from chapters 40 to 55 is one of my favorites in all the prophets, and it happens that I'm reading them now in my own private study. Specifically, I was very encouraged by chapter 45 this week. Here's a few things that really stuck out:

1. God uses pagans. I've had numerous conversations with people in the past month who are worried or offended or both that Obama isn't calling his tree a Christmas tree. Ok, so what. We begin to act as if God's plans depend on having a Christian leader in the Whitehouse. Read verses 1-6:

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 2 "I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me. 5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, 6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Who is Cyrus? A righteous Israelite king? No. A prophet? No. A pagan king in a pagan land. If Cyrus had a tree it would have been a holiday tree, not a Christmas tree. And, it would have been sitting next to a statue of a dozen or so other gods. Cyrus displayed, what for his time is stunning, tolerance for the cultures and religions of conquered peoples. He was a more humane and just ruler than those the region had known prior - better than the Assyrians and the Babylonians. But, there is no indication that he had become a follower of the one true God of Israel. In fact, God says,

"I call you by your name, though you do not know me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me" (Isaiah 45:4-5).

My point: Rulers are all appointed by God. You could even argue they have all been anointed by God (remember David's refusal to kill Saul, who, evil though he was, was still the Lord's anointed). Moreover, it is not necessary for rulers to embrace Christ (and certainly not Christmas trees) to rule justly. PLEASE, don't read this as an endorsement of President Obama or his policies. On the other hand, if we're going to be critical of President Obama, lets be critical on issues that matter. So he doesn't like calling his pine tree (or is it a spruce) a Christmas tree. Does that make him unChristain? No. But even if it did, can't a non-Christian still, by the light of God in nature, conscience and reason still rule effectively? Cyrus found a way!

2. Less politically, I'm in awe of how God hangs his unique status as the one true God on his ability to foretell what will happen. Take again the reign of Cyrus. Isaiah prophesied around a century before Cyrus' reign began. Yet, through the inspiration of the Spirit, he could tell the people of God that a) there was a king coming who would be called Cyrus (his parents didn't even know what he'd be called yet!), and b) Cyrus would "subdue nations before him" (Isaiah 45:1). God establishes his foreknowledge by showing himself to know the future events of Cyrus and declares it to be a unique characteristic of him, the living God.

"Ask me things to come" says the Lord in Isaiah 45:11. Through the next ten or so verses God tells the people what is going to happen: how they will set the exiles free (fulfilled in the next century when Cyrus issues his decree allowing the Jews to return to their land), how the nations will be drawn to Israel (fulfilled in Christ). After this, he calls out the idols of the foreign nations:

20 “Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
21 Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

The Lord's reasoning is pretty clear - I am the one who foretold all these things. I know them (because I'm sovereign and have ordained them). Thus, I'm the real God, besides me all the other gods are dumb pieces of wood. The surrounding chapters make this even more explicit. For example, look at Isaiah 46:8-13,

“Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

3. Don't miss the link between God's knowledge of the future and his sovereignty over it. He can tell his people what will happen because he has purposed it and his counsel will stand. How detailed are his purposes? Well, they include Cyrus's parents naming him Cyrus and not Freddie! They include his rise to power, his conquering of nations, his more just and tolerant policies, etc. They include Cyrus decision to set the exiles free. In summary, they include every detail, whether 'fortuitous' or not:

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity. I am the Lord, who does all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).

Furthermore, God declares a woe to those who try (unsuccessfully) to kick against his sovereign purposes:

"Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earth pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles?'. Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' or to a woman, 'With what are you in labor?'" (Isaiah 45:9-10)

The main thrust of this chapter is that God has sovereignly ordained to good to his people. They should not fear, not abandon hope, not fret like worshippers of little wooden gods. God has every means at his disposal to ensure his will is accomplished - even pagan rulers.

Song of the Week

2011-12-12T10:19:00.002-05:00

I love the Gungor album 'Beautiful Things'. We've sung two songs in church from this album recently - 'Beautiful Things' and 'The Earth is Yours'. I like those, but I love this one. I don't think it would be very singable, though to be honest, I sing it pretty loudly in the car!

Gungor, 'Dry Bones'

Women are not supposed to submit to Men

2011-12-07T11:25:00.002-05:00

I just read this post, "Women, Stop Submitting to Men" from Dr. Moore's blog (in case you aren't familiar with Dr. Moore, he's Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY):

Those of us who hold to so-called “traditional gender roles” are often assumed to believe that women should submit to men. This isn’t true. Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn’t that women aren’t submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.

First of all, it just isn’t so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).

And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that’s just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, “wives” are to submit “to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).

I couldn't agree more. The past month or two the staff has been engaged in reading together Two Views of Women in Miniatry (Zondervan, 2005). One of the things that peeved me was how those in the complementarian camp turned to Genesis 1-3 and used those chapters to support the idea that women (as women) are called to submit to men (simply as men). For example, Schreiner writes, "We have already seen that men and women equally are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and are thus of equal value and significance as God's creatures. But I would also contend that there are six indications in Genesis 1-3 of a role differentiation between men and women [emphasis mine]." Later Schreiner contends, "The doctrine of creation is of enormous significance for the debate on the roles of men and women."

My point isn't to pick apart his "six indications," but to remind us that Adam and Eve weren't simply man and woman, but husband and wife. In fact, I use Genesis 2:23-25 in every wedding I do. What is true of their relationship may be true of men and women in general, but not necessarily - you'd have to support that with some other texts. I do see principles for how men and women are to relate in the family (and it is possible, though debated, that Paul applies these principles to the family of God), but I reject the idea that these principles are to be applied to all male/female relationships.

John Piper goes, in my opinion, way beyond what Scripture demands (and I think everyone knows I love Piper). In "A Vision for Biblical Complimentarity" (in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womandhood) he asserts, "A mature woman who is married, for example, does not welcome the same kind of strength and leadership from other men that she welcomes from her husband. But she will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men" (50). He goes on to assert that when, in their vocations, women have men who are subordinate to them, they need to interact with these subordinates in ways "that signal to him and others her endorsement of his mature manhood in relationship to her as a women" (50). He goes so far as to suggest that if a women is asked by a man for directions, she needs to do so in a manner that ensures his manhood and leadership are not compromised (51). For these reasons, Piper thinks it is unbiblical for a woman to hold the office of President (she would be Commander in Chief and over the Armed Forces), showing how broadly he applies this principle of male leadership and female submission.

My opinion - that's nuts. Looking to these chapters and applying it beyond the husband wife relationship to men and women in general goes beyond what Scripture indicates. It may be true, but you need to argue it from other passages. More, I think teaching/preaching the notion that women are to submit to me is flat out dangerous. I have counseled more than one young women who thought she was supposed to submit to her boyfriend! Let me be real clear: a girlfriend is NOT called to submit to a boyfriend! What a recipe for disaster. Even if the man is a godly man, the dating couple begins to act and relate to each other in ways that to closely resemble the patterns of marriage. Dr. Moore articulates this well,"Sisters, there is no biblical category for 'boyfriend' or 'lover,' and you owe such designation no submission. In fact, to be submissive to your future husband you must stand back and evaluate, with rigid scrutiny, 'Is this the one who is to come, or is there another?' That requires an emotional and physical distance until there is a lifelong covenant made, until you stand before one who is your 'own husband.'"

Dr. Moore points out a few more dangers of this general call for women to submit to men. First,
"Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman’s value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?"

In addition, "Additionally, too many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be 'spiritual leaders' (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife."

I do think you see elements of male leadership and female submission in the Genesis 1-3, but in the context of the covenant of marriage. These elements are subtle, and without Paul's words in Ephesians and other places, I wouldn't make much of them. But I think they are there, and they are still the pattern for husbands and wives. As such, the roles of leadership and submission in marriage are voluntary roles as we enter into the covenant of marriage voluntarily. Parallel to this is the Son's submission, voluntarily, to the Father in the Covenant of Redemption. It goes beyond Scripture to argue that the Son was eternally subordinate to the Father. Certainly he became subordinate in the incarnation, but that was a willing submission not borne out of inferiority or ontology. Instead, it was a humble submission chosen by the Son as part of the Covenant. Similarly, a wife's submission is not owed to her husband because he is male and she is female and thus ontologically inferior to him, but instead because she has agreed to take on that role as terms of the Covenant of Marriage, just as the husband has agreed to take on the role of leader.

My point isn't to elaborate extensively on what this kind of submission should look like in the husband-wife relationship, only to suggest that Genesis 1-3 speaks of this relationship and NOT of the male-female relationship broadly. I think we really need to get this right.

Song of the Week

2011-12-05T12:21:00.003-05:00

I just learned of the Decemberists. Holy crap they're good. If you knew about them and didn't tell me, shame on you. You call me your friend?!

Decemberists, "E. Watson"

My Response: Ethics, Church & Undocumented Workers

2011-12-05T09:52:00.003-05:00

I thought I would get to writing on this a week or so ago, but better late than never. If you want to read through the question posed by Dr. Moore go here. The question reminded me how fallen our world is and how complicated situations are. It's easy to sloganeer our way through issues like immigration and undocumented workers, but when you really enter the situation you see how convoluted and confusing it is.

In situations like Pablo's where he seems stuck between two conflicting norms - obey the law and provide for your family, there exists three main positions. First, some hold what is termed a "conflicting absolutes" or "lesser of two evils" position. Basically, Christians holding this position argue that in our fallen world, sometimes two or more principles of moral behavior will conflict absolutely and there is no option in such situations but to sin. If that is the case, the Christian should weigh in the balance the two options, choose the lesser of the two evils, and then 'sin boldly', but repent later. So, Pablo should continue to live and work in the States, providing for his family, he should confess it as sin (this assumes, of course, that the value of Pablo's family is deemed to be greater than the value of obeying a arguably unjust law that would make their survival impossible).

The second position is sometimes labeled "hierarchical-ism". Those in this camp hold that there is an ordered hierarchy of absolutes, "such that some values have priority over others." When these values conflict and it's impossible to follow both absolutes, one should act according to the higher norm. Sounds a lot like the first, except that those who hold to a hierarchical view don't see the violation of the lesser norm as sin, not when it is in conflict with a greater norm. So, Pablo should continue to live and work in the States and feel no guilt, nor feel the need to confess it as sin (again, assuming that we put a higher premium on Pablo's family than national borders).

The third position is one of "non-conflicting absolutes". Proponents of this view argue that even when absolutes seem to conflict, in reality there is always a 'third way' out of the situation that avoids sin. Not to opt for the third way is sin. Pablo, on this view, should look for a third alternative which most certainly exists. Maybe he can get a better job than he thinks in his country of origin and continue to provide for his family. Maybe he could hire a lawyer and fight for legal status, etc.

Each position has it's strengths and weaknesses. The first is certainly counter intuitive - that God would hold someone as guilty of sin when they were constrained by the situation to commit a sinful act. The second position runs into the problem of a lack of biblical support. Nowhere do we encounter a hierarchy of sins or of norms, or any clear teaching that God will exempt us from the guilt of sinning if a higher good was in view (Rom. 3:7-8). Furthermore, that is certainly a slippery slope to Machiavellianism. The third position seems naive, but seems to line up with the biblical data best. Some have argued that to deny this third position, the "non-conflicting absolute" position, raises questions about God's ability to provide and about our faith in God's provision. Additionally, there is the biblical witness that God will provide a way of escape from sin/temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). Most importantly regarding the third position is the WWJD question. Yes, I'm being serious. The first position ("conflicting absolutes) raises questions about Jesus' sinlessness. If Jesus was tempted like we are, and if some of our temptations put us in situations where sin is inevitable, how can we maintain Jesus was sinless. The second position avoid this by saying that even in situations like Pablo's, had Jesus chosen as Pablo did, he wouldn't have been sinning.But, as seen above, this seems to rest on dubious groups Biblically.

My position is a combination of position one and three. I believe God does provide a way of escape from sin/temptation. I believe there is a 'third way' and Jesus is pretty good proof of it. So I agree with those who hold to position three - the 'non-conflicting norms' view. However, in this fallen world, our intellects aren't as sharp as they should be. We aren't as wise as God would have us be. We don't stay in step with the Spirit as Jesus did. So, we are sometimes faced with decisions where there doesn't seem to be a 'sinless' way out of it - where norms conflict. What should we do? Here I think position one is correct - we pick the lesser of the two evils. We violate a statute regarding citizenship to feed our families. In the case of Rahab, we lie to save lives. In the case of the Hebrew midwives, we again lie to save the lives of infant babies. We violate laws that prohibit the preaching of the gospel in closed countries. We smuggle Bibles into areas where it is forbidden. In those situations where we can't see a third way we act in a way that makes value judgements and choose honor those higher values. But ignorance isn't an excuse to sin. Trust me, I've tried it with police officers before - "sir I didn't know the speed limit was 35 here" or "sir, I didn't see the stop sign". So, in such situations where we've chose sin to avoid a greater sin, we should still confess it as such and trust in the free provision of God's grace for sinners. (My position is hard for many reasons, chief among them is that it cannot be absolutized. If the life of five more valuable than the life of one. Conjuring Spock: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Yes. Does that mean I should kill and rob one to feed five. No. Can we lie to save a life, like Rahab? Yes. Should we lie about our faith in Christ to keep from becoming a martyr? No.)

So, in Pablo's case, as his pastor, I would baptize him and admit him into full communion of the church. I would counsel him to confess his sin and pray earnestly that God would show him a way to support his family without violating the law.

Regarding the employer, I think much has to do with his motivations. Is he getting rich by exploiting his undocumented workers? Or, is he providing them with employment at a fair wage so that they can support their families? Again, if he's employing Pablo to prevent him and his family from starving, I would commend him for making a tough choice given bad options - a choice that is putting him and his business at risk.

Even here in Indiana, this issues isn't one that's far off or relegated to border states. Even if it were, there are other issues we face like it, though thankfully, not frequently. Usually, we can discern a third way (more so as we grow in wisdom and in reliance on the Spirit) - maybe not one that is comfortable or enjoyable, but I think it's rare that we face a situation in which there is no clear righteous solution.

Thoughts?

Song of the Week

2011-11-28T09:01:00.001-05:00

I forgot about this band till mid last week. I love the southern rock sound!

Dirty Guv'nahs, "Song for my Beloved"

Song of the Week

2011-11-21T14:26:00.003-05:00

I tried to find this song before Sunday. It would have gone well with the sermon on Galatians 2:15-21, but alas, I couldn't find it till today (actually, I had to reorder a lost copy of the cd and it finally arrived today).

Candi Pearson, "Galatians 2:20"

Ethics, Church & Undocumented Workers

2011-11-17T08:45:00.006-05:00

I appreciate, though don't always agree, with Dr. Moore of SBTS. He posted this on his blog a couple of days ago - it's the final exam question for his ethics class. In light of the focus of this years Missions Conference at ECC, I thought it would be a good thing to consider some more. I'll offer my thoughts on this next week (as well as more thoughts on the implications of Natural Law like a promised). Offer your thoughts!

You find yourself far away from this ethics class, twenty years from now in your ministry, serving a church in south Florida. Pablo is a man you met, with his wife Hannah, after they attended a small-group Bible study in the home of a family in your church. Both of them, after hearing you explain the gospel, were convicted of sin and, after several weeks of conversation, both announced they were ready to confess Jesus as Lord and to follow him in baptism.

Before the baptism, though, Pablo approaches you to say that he’s not sure he meets the requirements for Christian baptism. He’s not sure he’s a repentant sinner. He sees himself as guilty, he is sorry for his sins against God and others, and he wants the forgiveness that comes through Jesus’ bloody cross, the new life that comes from Jesus’ empty tomb.

But there’s something that kindles fear in him.

Pablo tells you he is an undocumented worker, what some would call an “illegal immigrant.” Years ago he left conditions in El Salvador that, due to famine there, led him to near starvation. Moreover, he worked, like others in his village, for a multinational plantation where he was physically beaten and sexually abused. There were no other options for him, as the only employers in the country were made up of similarly exploitative companies. He slipped into this country undetected and has since lived with an artificial Social Security number he purchased on the black market, enabling him to work in this country.

Pablo’s employer knows his immigration status, but operates with a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy when it comes to such questions about his workers. Indeed, several outside financial consultants say that, without such labor, this employer’s business would be financially unfeasible and would have to close, since there is not a sufficient employee base among native-born Americans willing to work in such a job.

The employer is Tyler Rogers, also a member of your church, one of your most Christlike people in the congregation, and he teaches the Bible in a large Tuesday night small group. It was at his family’s house that you met Pablo and Hannah, since he had been sharing the gospel with them for months and inviting them to hear more through your church.

The United States immigration policy is, if anything, more restrictive than it was when you were in ethics class at Southern Seminary. No longer can a green card be obtained by marrying a U.S. citizen, so Pablo’s marriage to Hannah is irrelevant to his immigration status. According to current law, if Pablo turns himself in, or is caught, he will face immediate deportation to El Salvador, along with a penalty making him ineligible to apply to entrance to the United States for no less than ten years.

Moreover, returning to El Salvador and applying for immigration is a process that takes, in the best of scenarios, ten years from start to finish. An admission of illegal status, plus a return to El Salvador, would mean crushing poverty, possible starvation, and almost certain bodily harm in dangerous working conditions. It would also mean being separated from Hannah for ten to twenty years.

Pablo and Hannah have three children: an eleven year-old girl, a six year-old boy, and a two year-old girl. Hannah is also pregnant with their fourth child, due next Spring.

Pablo has, since arriving in the United States, been sending a portion of his paycheck back to El Salvador, to his elderly mother who is caring for Pablo’s nieces and nephews since Pablo’s brother was killed due to the unsafe working conditions in the factory and his brother’s wife abandoned the children. Without this money, Pablo fears the children, two of whom are babies, and his mother would starve to death.

Pablo wants to do what Jesus would have him to do, to be a godly man. What do you advise him to do? If you advise him to turn himself in or to return to El Salvador, how do you square that with the biblical mandate that one who “does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)? Can you really, from that point forward, consider yourself “pro-family” or “pro-orphan” or even “pro-life”?

If you advise him to stay with his family, how is he keeping the biblical mandate to “obey the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1)? How also is he avoiding the sin of bearing false witness, about himself and his legal status? Can you baptize Pablo? After all, is he really showing repentance from sin?

What do you do or say, if anything, about Tyler and his employment practices? If nothing, then why not?

How do you equip the congregation to understand how to deal with this situation, and what implications does it have for how you respond to the mission field where God has placed you, with a large and growing community of undocumented Latin American workers, many of whom need to hear and believe the gospel, and are watching how you respond to this family.

Walk through each step of ethical reflection, showing why you reject some options and why you embrace others. Ground your answer in Scripture, the gospel, the Christian tradition, natural law, and common grace. Think through the implications of your answer in each situation for unintended consequences, and show how those can be ethically resolved.

Song of the Week

2011-11-14T09:52:00.001-05:00

Saving Abel, "Miss America"

Natural Law: Fact of Theologians Fiction?

2011-11-08T12:14:00.002-05:00

A couple of weeks ago I casually mentioned in the Poiema ACG that the Ten Commandments are a basic summary of natural law - the moral law written in nature and on the human conscience. It certainly wasn't a big point of conversation, but I was surprised to when my Scottish interlocutor (I mean, my friend Doug) said he thought the idea of natural law was nonsense made up by theologians. What surprised me is that the only group I knew of that denies natural law is certain segments of the Reformed community, particularly those from the Dutch Calvinist tradition influenced by Bavinck and Kuyper.

We didn't take the time to hash out our difference of opinion that morning, but took up the discussion over lunch (Ancient Chinese Secret: bitter disagreements are easier to swallow at a Chinese Buffet). Interestingly, once we discussed it and defined terms carefully, there was little disagreement, though some still lingered on the use of natural law. This discussion reminded me that it isn't a given we use terms in the same way (I should have known this after reading/teaching on Wright in Galatians!). So, here I want to take a few minutes to clarify what I mean by natural law and why I think it's important.

First, by natural law I don't mean laws of nature, as in gravity, etc. Obviously I believe in those too - last time I checked gravity still worked. But by natural law I have in mind the moral laws bound up in nature, especially human nature.

Second, by natural law I don't mean laws that are bound up in nature apart from God. Not at all!!! By using the term natural law, I don't mean to identify the source of the law, only it's mode of communication. It's natural in that God reveals his moral law to through nature as opposed to special revelation (the Bible). It is still God's law and God is still the one who reveals it. Moreover, natural revelation is accessible to all universally whereas special revelation is not. All have been exposed to natural law, and all stand condemned by it. Not all have been exposed to God's special revelation.

Third, by saying that natural law exists, I don't mean to communicate we have perfect understanding or sense of it. Our intellects are fallen; our hearts are deceptive. Our sense of God's law written in nature and the human conscience is warped and twisted as the image of God in us is warped and twisted. Therefore, questions can certainly be raised about the value of natural law for guiding us in morality. On the other hand, while our sense of natural law may be sckeewed, that doesn't affect the objective presence of a natural law. If I'm not aware there's a law prohibiting public nudity, that doesn't mean there isn't one, or that I won't be arrested for breaking it (thank you lucky stars I know there are such laws and wouldn't dream of breaking them in a million bajillion years).

With those clarifications in mind, we can ask, "Is the idea of natural law biblical?" I think a strong case can be built for it, though I'll be the first to admit you'll look long and hard through your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to find the phrase 'natural law'. The best place to begin building a case for natural law is probably in the book of Genesis. Why Genesis? Because Genesis is before Exodus, and it's not until Exodus that we get a detailed revelation of God's moral law in the Mosaic Code (this isn't the post to enter into discussions regarding the validity of parsing the law into civil, ceremonial and moral components; nor will I take up the question of the application of the Mosaic Law to culture today - the theonomic question). From the time of Adam to the time of Moses, mankind lived without an express moral command from God. But what we see in Genesis and early on in Exodus is that even apart from an express moral code, there is a law to which people are accountable.

For example, consider Cain. Cain's murder of his brother Abel was a shameful thing - hence he evaded God's questions regarding the whereabouts of his brother. In addition, it was a sinful thing - hence, God punishes Cain for crime. But what law did Can break if there was no law written in nature and on the human conscience?

Move ahead, in the days of Noah God sends judgment upon the earth for it's utter wickedness and evil. The specific charge is that men were corrupt and violent. Oh, and then there's the story of how Ham disrespected his father Noah and was cursed for it - and this prior to the command to Moses to 'honor your father and mother'.

And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah, judged for their sexual immorality.

In these stories, God isn't holding people accountable to a standard they knew nothing about. No, through nature and conscience their actions are revealed as violations of their Creator's goodness and the laws he embedded within his creation. If they did not know these laws, it is a culpable ignorance (like choosing not to see the NO PARKING sign in front of your favorite coffee shop).

We could go pericope by pericope, but you get the idea. What is interesting, as Paul Helm has pointed out, is that even those outside the covenant community have some understanding of right and wrong. He writes,

"Some of these values [which exist without specific commands] were common between those who were members of the covenant, as Abraham, and - what is pf particular interest in this paper – some stretched across the covenant boundaries, such as those held in common between Abraham and Ahimelech, or (later) Noah [sic. Moses] and his father in law Jethro. We see that these laws have to do with property, with fair dealing, with sexuality, with parents, with life and death. And as we proceed to make the list of these norms, it suddenly dawns on us that they are the very norms that are expressed in the Second Table of the Moral Law as Moses received it"

Consider briefly the story of Abraham and Abimilech in Genesis 20. Abraham, fearing for his life, passes Sarah off as his sister. Abimelch takes her into his house. Before the king of Gerar approaches Sarah, God warns him. Here's the exchange:

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” (Gen 20:3-5).

Notice Abimelech's defense isn't "what's wrong with taking another man's wife?" Instead, he pleads ignorance because he was unaware she was Abraham's wife, acknowledging that taking a man's wife is evil, but he's innocent. Moreover, when the king of Gerar confronts Abraham, he says, "You have done to me things that ought not to be done" (v. 9). By what standard was lying to Abimelech wrong? No specific, verbalized commands had come from God regarding lying yet.

Again, you could see this many times over in the Genesis and Exodus accounts prior to the giving of the law to Moses. The apostle Paul reflects on this period in human history in the book of Romans.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." (Ro 5:12–14)

As you can see, Paul treats the giving of the law as a kind of pivot point in human history. Adam broke the law by transgressing a specific command and through this lawbreaking/sin death entered the world because all sinned. Certainly it is true that all sinned in Adam's sin, for he served as our covenant representative. From the time of Adam to Moses, death continued to reign over men - "even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam". Again, Paul Helm comments on these verses:

"So – my first question is – what is sin that is not transgression-like, the sin that reigned before the law was given through Moses? What form does it have? And I think that it is not hard to answer that question. If it does not lie in a flouting of explicitly enunciated commands, then it must lie in the spurning or flouting of widely if not universally recognised norms, or values that do not have the form of explicit commands."

That makes sense of what Paul has been arguing throughout the opening chapters of Romans. In these early chapters, Paul is seeking to firmly establish that none are righteous and all stand condemned in the court of the Ultimate Judge. Both Jews who had the law but didn't observe it and Gentiles who didn't have the Mosaic law but still had the light of nature and conscience stand condemned as sinners. Consider Romans 1:18ff:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error...

Notice a couple of things. First, this passage has to do both with the first table and the second table of the Moral Law - with our vertical duties to God and our horizontal relationships with other people. Paul teaches that mankind should have known, based on nature, that there was one true God and offered thanks and worship to him (first table). That they don't do so is because they suppress such knowledge. Moreover, men and women should have known, based on nature and human conscience, that some sexual relations (second table) were right and others wrong. Second, notice Paul's use of 'natural relations' and 'unnatural relations' - the wickedness of unnatural relations isn't just that it violates a verbalized command of God, but that it violates the laws God embedded in nature and conscience. Third, mankind, even those who don't have the Mosaic Law, receive the due penalty for the errors.

Consider one more passage from Romans:
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

The idea of natural law is one that I find compelling, biblical, and useful. Believing God has revealed something of his nature and his moral demands through nature and in human consciences has some pretty big implications. I won't take the time to develop them now, but in a later post. Let me just mention three implications:
1. A belief in Natural Law has implications for God's justice in judging unreached peoples.
2. A belief in Natural Law has implications for how we approach people from other religions.
3. A belief in Natural Law has implications for how we, as believers, engage in dialogue in the public sector.
4. A belief in Natural Law has implications for our understanding of justification by faith apart from works of the law (and hence our interpretation of passages in Galatians - which is how this whole discussion opened up to begin with)

I will try to unpack these implications later in the week. In the meantime, I welcome push-backs or requests for clarity. I am not a moral philosopher, nor the son of a moral philosopher.

For more on this, check out:
- Paul Helm, Natural Law and Biblical Law
- Paul Helm, Natural Law and Common Grace
- David VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (short and nontechnical)
- David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (long and technical)

Song of the Week

2011-11-07T09:57:00.002-05:00

I forgot how much I like this song till I listened to it again on the drive to Brownsburg with Caleb.

Queen (with David Bowie), "Under Pressure"

Whitfield, Wesley, Wilberforce...and Waugh?

2011-11-02T10:15:00.001-04:00

The title of this post could be taken to mean that I put myself in their company. Certainly not! But I'm trying to think here about lessons I can learn from them. Last weekend (10/22 & 23) Dr. Honeycutt brought some dead men to life for us at ECC in the seminar on Evangelicalism (audio will be posted soon). The focus of the weekend was how evangelicals have united together through the centuries for the purpose of mission and ministry; proclamation of the gospel and living out the gospel in all its fullness for the good of their respective cultures. Here's a few things that I'm speaking with God about now as a result of the weekend (including Dr. Honeycutt's Sunday morning sermon).

1. I need tougher skin, and a more tender heart

All the men listed above, and Lord Shaftesbury (pictured left, also highlighted during the seminar, but his name didn't begin with 'W', so I left him out of the blog title) had thick, thick skin. They had too as they were each the objects of scorn. Wesley and Whitefield were criticized for breaking with Anglican tradition and becoming 'vile' by preaching out doors and sharing ministry with non-Anglicans, even Baptists! Here's that famous section from Wesley's Journal:

"May 5th: A.M.: Preached in St. Ann's; was asked not to come back. P.M: preached at St. John's; deacons said, 'Get out and stay out.'
May 12th A.M.: preached at St. Andrew's; elders called a special meeting and said not to return. P.M.: preached on the street and was run off.
May 26th A.M.: preached in a field; got chased by a bull that was set loose.
June 2nd A.M: preached at the edge of town; police moved me. P.M: preached in a pasture and 10,000 people came!"

Shaftesbury and Wilberforce were attacked, verbally and physically for proposing legislation that would benefit the oppressed (slaves and the urban poor). Yet, none of these men allowed the criticism to dissuade them, showing remarkable perseverance and tenacity.

I need to learn that. I invite criticism, especially from friends. I think I take that kind of criticism well. But the kind that comes unsolicited, the kind that has a mean-spirited edge to it - that kind of criticism sends me reeling. Or, it causes me to dig my heels in and spit meanness back. Either is unacceptable.

Coupled with this toughness was an inner tenderness towards those who were disenfranchised and overlooked by polite society. Wesley and Whitefield preached out of door because the poor weren't coming to the churches. They preached to slaves, they started orphanages, etc. Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were broken by what they saw in their nation and loved those they championed.

I'll admit it, I need to learn from that too. Their tenderness wasn't a sappy sentimentalism that did little but moisten dry eyes. No, it brought action too. Its easy to be overwhelmed by problems in our society, and allow that sense of being overwhelmed to prevent us from acting. The problems are big - they're global. But, there also local, in our neighborhoods. We may not fix the system (though maybe some should be trying), but we can put food on the table of some underprivileged people in our town.

2. I need to respect that not everyone in the body is gifted in the same way or wired with the same passions. God wired and place Shaftesbury and Wilberforce in different ways and in different places that Wesley and Whitefield. He does the same today, and I honestly forget that sometimes. I think we all do. There are some who are great evangelists - they have the heart and the ability and share the gospel with people in check out lines and gas stations. They ought to be commended for this. We need these bold ambassadors in the church. If you're one of them, keep on keepin on. However, there are dangers you need to be aware of. As Dr. Honeycutt made so clear, Jesus calls us to deeds of mercy and love as well as to preaching the good news of Jesus. First, don't look down upon those who may be more timid in their verbal witness but are lions when it comes to helping those in need. It's easy to forget that some will be Wilberforces and Shaftesburys. That's good too. Second, don't, in your passion to share the good news, forget to show the good news. Don't forget that its not just the church that is called to deeds of mercy and proclamation of the gospel, but individual Christians too.

The same principle applies to those who have a bent towards mercy ministry - respect those who have a bent towards evangelism. I hear a lot, especially from the younger generation, that the church has been all about 'saving souls' and neglected mercy. A few things. First, don't say 'saving souls' in a condescending way - it's and incredibly important part of the church's commission. In fact, it's the only part that Christians alone can do! Second, vague generalizations are rarely true. I've met few people who are passionate about evangelism that don't also care for the ~~real~~ physical needs of people. They may focus and talk more about souls, but most who are genuine in their love for people care about their bodies too. Even the Fundies started and ran inner city missions! Third, don't allow your passion for mercy ministry, which is incredibly important too, to totally eclipse your responsibility to share the good news of Jesus verbally with others. The call to share proclaim the good news of Jesus isn't just for the church, it's for you too.

Just a few thoughts, I've been kicking around.

Song of the Week

2011-10-31T13:25:00.003-04:00

Pretty cool group I found through NoiseTrade

Daniel Ellsworth and the Great Lakes, "Bleeding Tongue"

Jason Stellman, "Dual Citizens"

2011-10-24T21:25:00.004-04:00

Jason Stellman's book Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet made my Best of 2010 list. It's a great introduction to the concept of Christians dual citizenship - and its practical too! I disagree with him on a few things, but his overall premise and presentation are really good.

Just found these video introductions to the book. Check em out, and if you're interest is peaked (or ire raised), read the book.

We live simultaneously in this age and the age to come. The Holy Spirit is our engagement ring:

Worship is what we do when we gather as the church. It is holy. Life isn't holy, it's common. Both are done for the glory of God:

Song of the Week

2011-10-24T13:22:00.001-04:00

I've been listening to Eric Turners Street Fighting Man all week. Good stuff.

Street Fighting Man, "Shadow"

<a href="http://streetfightingman.bandcamp.com/track/the-shadow-2">The Shadow by Street Fighting Man</a>

How Tech Serves God's Purposes

2011-10-18T12:45:00.002-04:00

I've been reading a book by John Dyer, From the Garden to the City, about "the redeeming and corrupting power of technology". I'm less than half way through the book, but it's certainly made me think, especially about how my use of technology is shaping me, not just the world around me. For example, I know (and am convicted by) how easily distracted I am by my phone. Wrestling with Luke, talking with Lynn, on the ball field with the boys - it's hard to ignore the 'bing' of my phone telling me I've got an email or text. I'll think and write more on that later. This post is about God's use of technology to advance his story.

Dyer writes, "In one story, there is a God who is moving humanity along a timeline. He has a purpose and a plan, and there is an end point toward which he is moving all of history. Technology plays a role in this story (emphasis mine), but it is a subservient role, not an ultimate one. The only true salvation offered to humanity comes from God himself, through his Son Jesus Christ."

To be honest, my initial response was a pretty cynical snort - "God doesn't need our cell phones and ipods to advance his story." The more I thought about it though, that response reveals two false beliefs/assumptions: 1) a hyper-calvinistic belief that God will do whatever he will do without any concern for means. I'd want to distance myself from if it showed up in another form (i.e. "We don't need to preach and call people to repentance. If God is calling them, they'll come"). And 2) a very limited role of technology.

It is true that God doesn't need our technology, even when broadly defined, to advance his story. He could meet every person personally on the road in a blinding light like he did Saul. But, God has ordained to work through means, namely his church - his people, to advance the redemptive story, spreading the gospel to the nations. It is possible for God to call people directly through dreams, visions, etc. But, for the most part, he has chosen to call people through his ambassadors (that's us). And while God doesn't need technology, we can't do much without it.

God certainly is using tech to advance his redemptive story - a story that includes people coming to Christ from every tribe and nation. I know of some groups that are being reached with portable radios. The tribes aren't literate, so printed Bibles would be of limited use in the first stages of reaching them. The missions agency has provided radios tuned to one frequency - it broadcasts the Bible, and people are hearing the good news through this technological innovation. I know chat rooms are effective tools for reaching people, especially people who aren't comfortable going to church (like those in closed countries where it may be illegal or dangerous). Or, the Bible software that helps pastors read, research and preach the gospel weekly - all ways tech is serving to advance God's story.

But there's a bigger, more fundamental way God has used technology to advance his story. I remember sitting in class at Covenant Theological Seminary when it hit me, sadly for the first time, that the Bible isn't just about God's mission to the world, it's a integral part of it. God's story is being carried forward as His Word is brought to people (individuals) and peoples. It's not just the container of the drama, it's an actor in the drama. And, it's technology. Maybe from our perspective it's not very advanced technology, but the written word is "“the human activity of using tools to transform God’s creation for practical purposes” (Dyer's definition of technology). At some point, pen and parchment (or papyrus) was cutting edge. Dyer explains, "...the Greek philosopher Socrates expressed concern about the technology of writing. He believed that learning in dialogue was the key to helping people grow in wisdom, and he worried that writing would make people knowledgeable, but it would fail to make them wise." So even before the printing press, God was using technology to carry his story along. Actually, language itself is a form of technology - a human tool we use to shape the world.

I'm amazed at how quickly we (maybe it's must me) can turn preferences into principles. You see it in the worship wars. Someone likes the hymns and they act like those Ira Sankey songs were written and song by Peter himself. They baptize their preference for old style organ music and hymns with a principle (God likes orderly worship, we shouldn't be too much like the culture, etc.). We can easily treat technology in the same way. We prefer books to webpages, hardbacks to ebooks, hymnals to projectors, classroom to online learning, etc. As Dyer points out, no technology is entirely benign - it's all shaping us and we need to be aware of that. On the other hand, we can't function and we can't do ministry without technology - primitive or cutting edge. God isn't dependent on it, but we, as his ambassadors, very much are.

Song of the Week

2011-10-17T09:43:00.002-04:00

This song got in my head thanks to post-season baseball. Not my typical cup of tea, but I like it a lot.

Tinie Tempah, "Written in the Stars"

Luke is up to bat

2011-10-16T22:28:00.002-04:00

Yep Luke, not Jake or Caleb. Jake's fall-ball coach asked if Luke wanted to try and play in the last game of the season. He was so excited! Thanks Jeff.

A Critical Interaction with Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed

2011-10-12T11:12:00.002-04:00

I am not one trained in education, pedagogy, philosophy of education or any related field. Freire's book was a required read for my first class in that field. I found it an interesting read and worth some dialogue. Those of you trained in the field, here's my thoughts - don't hesitate to push back!

Paulo Freire’s short book Pedagogy of the Oppressed has shaped the field of education, specifically educational philosophy, since its publication in 1970. As D. Schugurensky observes, “There is ‘before’ and ‘after’ Freire, both in the philosophical approach to adult education, as well as in its practice.” Paulo’s educational philosophy has vast implications not only in the secular realm, and not only for Christian educators, but also for the church as an institution; thus, it is a work which must be engaged critically. That is the goal of this short exchange, to engage critically with Freire, asking which aspects of his educational philosophy should be accepted, which parts should be rejected, which can be modified, and how his work can/should shape the educational ministries of the Christian church.

This short interaction with Freire is organized is organized into four sections, each presenting a theme from Freire’s work alongside a more robust biblical alternative.

The Goal of Education: Transformation vs. Glorification

Freire’s educational philosophy was born from his work with underprivileged, illiterate peasants in South America (which does make it challenging to translate his philosophy into a largely literate and privileged North American context) in which oppression was a tangible reality and Marxist ideas found fertile soul in which to grow. Freire understands that oppression leads to the dehumanization of both the oppressed and the oppressor. In many instances, oppressed people liberate themselves only to find that they have in turn become the new oppressors, and in most cases, the oppressed are also sub-oppressors. To escape this cycle and liberate both oppressor and the oppressed is to allow both to be more fully human, and requires that people develop a critical awareness of their reality so that “through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity” (Freire, 47). This is the role of the educator – to work alongside the oppressed “to unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves to its transformation”(Freire, 54) so that in time the liberation is a true and permanent setting free and all men are fully humanized.

What should the Christian make of this? Is liberation and humanization the end goal of education? Possibly, if we consider only the horizontal plane of the educational task. But the Christian educator must also me mindful of the vertical plane and our Godward responsibility. If liberation and humanization is the educator’s goal on the horizontal plane, doxology must be the goal on the vertical plane. Or, in other words, Freire’s philosophy accounts for the second table of the law in seeking to promote love for neighbor. But as Christian educators, we have a responsibility to the first table as well, to promote the love of God in the human heart. In this, Freire’s philosophy obviously comes up short. His philosophy begins with and ends with man and our responsibilities to man, not God. Thus, as a fully orbed philosophy of education, it must be rejected. However, as part of an educational philosophy that does not neglect our duties toward God, it has some promise. After all, it would be an equally critical error to neglect our duties on the horizontal plane, our duties to the second table of the law (cf. 1 John 4:20). Several key themes of Freire’s philosophy will be examined in this light.

The Method of Education: Banking vs. Problem-Posing Education

Central to Freire’s educational philosophy is the distinction between “banking” and “problem-posing” approaches to the educational task. By banking, Freire means an approach to education that sees students as “containers” or “receptacles” to be filled with the knowledge the teacher possesses. The more knowledge a teacher can impart, the better teacher they are; the more a student can retain the better student they are. Freire contends that this approach drives a wedge, an untrue and oppressive wedge, between the student who supposedly knows little or nothing and the teacher who knows everything. Such an approach, contends Freire, is a tool in the hands of the oppressor by which they domesticate the student, teaching them to adapt to the situation rather than to change it (Freire, 74).

This oppressive form of education must be broken down and students as well as teachers must, according for Freire, come to see themselves as col-earners. Freire writes, “Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety (emphasis added)...They must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it with the posing of the problems of human beings in their relation with the world” (Freire, 79). He continues, “Whereas banking education anesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality… [so that students] will feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge” (Freire, 82). The result is that students begin to see that reality is transformable and take up the challenge not only to transform themselves but their entire social context.

Two critical observations should be made. First, one should question whether Freire’s problem-posing pedagogy is even possible apart from some prior banking of information which he rejects in toto. Stephen Prothero recalls, “So when I finished graduate school and became a professor myself, I told students that I didn’t care about facts. I cared about having challenging conversations, and I offered my quiz-free classrooms as places to do just that. I soon found, however, that the challenging conversations I coveted were not possible without some common knowledge – common knowledge my students plainly lacked” (Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy. New York: Harper One, 2007, pg. 5). Can a teacher lead a productive dialogue on, for example, how the Exodus serves as a paradigm for God’s liberating mission if students have no prior knowledge of the events of the Exodus?

Second, even if it’s good pedagogy, believers should ask if it’s Biblical, especially when applying it to the church and her educational ministries. Though we may take issue with the direction of transformation Freire proposes, we can certainly agree that the goal of the church’s educational ministry is real transformation and not winning The Annual All Church Bible Trivia Challenge. However, the quickest of surveys will lead the student of God’s Word to see that some degree of banking is important; there are certain people who know things and are tasked with conveying these things to others who do not know them. Deuteronomy 6:1-7 gives us two examples: Moses has been commissioned by God to teach the Israelites the commandments who were in turn instructed to pass their knowledge on to their children. The Great commission is another example where some people, namely the disciples, with certain knowledge, namely what Jesus taught, are commissioned to go to other and tell them what they would not otherwise know. Catechetical education, which is largely depositing information in a receptacle, has a place in the church. Once the true information has been learned, we must help people see how this truth transforms their existence and can be brought to bear on the reality they find themselves in.

Spiritual vs. Political/Economic Oppression

This brings us to another critique of Freire’s educational philosophy. While Freire speaks of oppression on nearly every page of his work, he sees it solely in terms of socio-political or socio-economic oppression. Freire speaks eloquently on the task of unveiling reality, exposing the currents within our structures that carry people along, debunking the myths that are perpetuated, and enabling people to become part of the process of overcoming their “limit situations”. Yet on a biblical analysis, Freire’s understanding of oppression is shallow in that it leaves off the most sinister oppressor – the sinful human heart. Were all structures of authority and resource distribution to undergo a thorough renovation and all forms of injustice rectified, human beings would still be horribly oppressed. Of course that is ridiculously hypothetical and upon a Christian viewpoint impossible, for hearts tainted by sin will not only oppress their owners, but will inevitably lead to oppressive systems as well.

Borrowing a page from Schaeffer, we can say to Freire, “Your philosophy is good so far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.” Freire is correct in pushing educators to unveil the systems of oppression and currents that carry people along unconsciously in cooperation with those systems. For the Christian educator that means exposing the sinful streams of greed, pride, lust, etc., that run through every human heart and carries them along individually and unconsciously as well as and prior to unveiling how those streams carry us along and oppress us at the societal level.

Given Freire’s limited understanding of oppression, his limited understanding of education as primarily a political endeavor is understandable. However, those who have a deeper understanding of oppression will necessarily take a different view of the educational task, one that first addresses the inner spiritual oppression of sin, which is the fount of all other types of oppression we encounter.

Objects vs. Subjects of Transformation

One final critique must be made. Freire emphasizes throughout his work that educators must allow students to be full participants in the transformation of society in a more fully humanized one. Freire writes, “It is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subject of the transformation” (Freire, 127). At one level, that works in the church as well as we call people to the task evangelism, to spread the good news of the kingdom of God, and to live out the gospel in concern for social justice.

On another level, however, it is completely hostile to the gospel. Freire loathes the idea that oppressed might be treated as “welfare recipients” or as objects of liberation rather than subjects who bring about their own liberation. While it is true that believers can contribute to their liberation from external social, political, and economic oppression, it is patently untrue that they contribute in any way to their liberation from their true oppressor, namely sin and guilt. The preaching of the gospel reminds us every week that we truly are recipients of welfare, that before we’re ever subjects of societal transformation, we are objects of God’s liberating work.

Conclusion

Certainly other critiques are valid. For example, Freire’s understanding of truth as something constructed in dialogue rather than something the objectively exists has been rightly criticized. It would, however, be a mistake to dismiss Freire out of hand because of these shortcomings, massive though they are. When read through a biblical filter, there is still much that the church can learn from Freire. It is, after all, easy to turn people in our churches into passive receptacles of biblical information. Freire reminds us that in our teaching the retention of information is at best a penultimate goal. The truth we teach is a transformative truth, and we must treat it as such. Moreover, Freire rightly emphasizes that good teachers will lift the curtain on reality and reveal to people the forces that are working to subjugate them (John seems to be doing just that in the book of Revelation). Also, that this is often best done in dialogue where students and teachers come humbly ready to learn from each other can hardly be doubted. Other points of agreement could likely be found, but in the end Paulo Freire’s philosophy of education is too divergent from a truly Christian approach to education to be accepted on the whole.

Song of the Week

2011-10-10T09:28:00.001-04:00

It feels like a punk rock morning.

Discharge, "Free Speech for the Dumb"

The Sin of Submission

2011-10-04T14:35:00.001-04:00

I've been sitting on this post for quite a while, debating whether or not to post it.
Two things prompted me to finish it up and then post it. First is my ongoing study of Galatians for my ACG; and second, a growing concern over the abuse of spiritual authority in the church (no, not at ECC).

It would be easy to write a post about the abuse of spiritual authority by pastors and churches. There's plenty of examples to choose from, the Scripture's which condemn such abuse are easy to find (c.f. Mark 10:42; 1 Peter 5:3), and the stories are often heartbreaking. Certainly those who use authority in an abusive way are guilty of grievous sin. But, Scripture leads me to believe that those who submit to spiritual abuse are also guilty of sinning. I know, that sounds off, and maybe it is, so stick with me and test what I'm saying.

Obviously submission is commanded many times in Scripture. We're all commanded to submit to God and his law (James 4:7, negatively expressed in Ps. 81:11, Rom. 8:7, Rom 10:3), to the human authorities God has put in place (Rom. 13, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13). Children are to submit to parents ('obey', Eph. 6:1, 1 Tim. 3:4), slaves are commanded to be submissive to masters ('obey', Eph. 6:5, Titus 2:5, 1 Peter 2:18), wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, 1 Peter 3:1-5). Peter also commands the younger (beleivers?) to be in submission to those who are elder (1 Peter 5:5). Indeed, we're all to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21) The church at Corinth was commended for the submission to Paul's appeal to gather money to care for the poor in Jerusalem. Later in the same letter Paul commands the Christians there to be subject to the saints committed to serving the church (1 Cor. 16:16). Hebrews 13:7 commands us to submit to those charge with providing spiritual leadership and 'guarding our souls'.

Now that's just a sampling, but it may lead you to ask, 'Can you really be overly submissive?' The answer is a resounding 'yes!'. In fact, you may be sinfully overly submissive. Consider Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Also Galatians 2:4-6,

"Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you."

Or Colossians 2:16-23,

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels...20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."

Pastors are called to speak the whole counsel of God. Preach the law, Yes! Preach repentance. Preach against sin. But pastors and churches don't have authority to go beyond Scripture in binding the conscience of the people. This is a major implication of the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I love this statement from Calvin, "Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God. . . Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan’s reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God.” (John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians).

Pastors should not go beyond Scripture, and parishioners should not let them! For a pastor to do so is a sinful abuse of his power and position. For a parishioner to submit to it is sinful too. But aren't those who suffer under spiritual abuse victims? Yes. But they are victims that are allowing themselves to be victimized supposing that doing so will make them holy or more acceptable to God.

God commands that we ought to submit to authority. Failure to do so is sin. God also commands us that we ought not submit to slavery - to a unbiblical binding of our consciences, even if that slavery comes in the from a pastor or in the name of 'holiness'. To do so is to break God's commands and is thus sinful.

What does this mean practically? It means that if a pastor commands you not to drink a beer, you should have two to spite him (thanks Luther for that). If you're commanded not to date that girl (unless she's an unbeliever), plant a wet one on her lips and take a pic and send it to the pastor. If he commands you not to read a certain book, you invite the author to a book signing in your living room. Ok, maybe none of those are good responses, but neither is submitting to unbiblical infringements upon our Christian liberty. Don't submit, and don't stay in a church that expects you to.

Bizarre

2011-10-04T13:07:00.002-04:00

I was looking for this song by Fernando Ortega (it fits with the message I'm preparing on Genesis 22). I love the song, but I just can't figure out what dolphins have to do with praising God in the midst of trials and doubts. It's just weird.

Song of the Week

2011-10-03T10:37:00.003-04:00

Last week Rob turned me on to a group called NeadtoBreathe. So, as I was trimming and mounting posters for the womens event last week, I listened to three or four hours of NeedtoBreathe music. Yeah, I like it alot.

This song stood out, partly cause of the music. I love it. But, the first part of the song reminded me of my mom and dad. He's a preacher...he's got a wonderful wife...together they've shone the light of Jesus in the world...they've accused by people who just wanted to hear their own voice...but they're still ministering in the church, even after the voices of criticism have long since gone.

The song also, though maybe (probably) without knowing, conveys a high view of the sacrament of baptism as a 'sign-and-seal' on the believer.

Ok, enough already, just enjoy.

Goals for 2011

2011-09-28T13:01:00.001-04:00

Now that we are three quarters of the way through 2011, I thought it would be good to reflect on some goals I had set. If I haven't met any of them, then there's time to get on it still.

1. Slow down: rushing has become a pattern even when unnecessary. Epic Fail. This year seems worse than any year in the past. Two kids involved in multiple sports, Lynn's work, my work, homework, etc. Feels like we're rushing all the time, even when we're laying in front of the tv.

2. Enjoy my pipe at least once a week. Nope. Can I make up for missed weeks by smoking every day till the end of the year?

3. Learn to enjoy the mundane. I do think I've gotten better at this. I even enjoyed mowing the lawn this year, or at least hated it less.

4. Reflect on my readings more (a post-it-note inside each book with one thought it stimulated). Did better at this, but as a lot of my reading came from the library, I should've written reflections in a place that would be permanently accessible. Still room for improvement.

5. Drink less beer. Nope - but I have tried some interesting new beers.

6. Drink more wine, and maybe some Scotch. Nope. Red wine still tastes like cough medicine to me. Like scotch though.

7. Read more dead theologians. Yes. I've been working through Calvin's Institutes and Luther's commentary on Galatians. I've also been reading early reformers, though not their work as much as peoples summaries of their work (not so good with French, etc.).

8. Don't feel guilty for reading fiction. I may have been too successful here. I've read a ton of fiction this year.

9. Stay in better contact with old friends. Some. I've made contact with good old friends that I had fallen out of contact with. Still need to do better. For my excuse, so #1.

10. Play more - not just watch more. Yeah. I've been pretty serious about playing with the boys - baseball, soccer, football, action figure and power rangers (with Luke).

11. Golf at least twice - which is two times more than last year. Nope - but I can make this up! Golf anyone?

12. Get better at woodworking. Maybe. I think I've got another desk project coming my way.

13. Finish the icemaker. NOPE. Six years it hasn't been finished. Do we really need it now?

14. Change my own oil - it's really not that hard! Nope. See #1.

15. Teach Caleb how to change the oil. Ok, I need an oil change. Maybe this week.

16. Go birdwatching more - I've got the books and the binoculars. No.

17. Be on the internet less - especially at home. Yes. Not having a home computer for 4 months made this goal an easy one to meet.

18. Read the Institutes (finally). About half way there.

19. Take more walks - in the neighborhood, in the woods, on campus, in the mall - who cares. Definitely no. Don't remember the last time I went for a walk, unless it was a rushed walk across campus to get to my car before I got a ticket.

20. Do less via email and more over the phone. No. Phone calls are so hard.

21. Do less over the phone and more face to face. Yes. I have had lots of wonderful meeting this year, meeting that I wouldv'e done vial email or phone a year ago.

Ok, so I have a lot of work to do. Better hurry up and get to it.

Song of the Week

2011-09-27T10:43:00.002-04:00

Psalm 40 has been a theme psalm the past week. It was the Scripture reading in the 1st service this past Sunday and John shared a great devotional from Psalm 40 at staff meeting this morning. This song seems to fit that psalm pretty well.

Waterdeep, 'You Have Redeemed My Soul'

Song of the Week

2011-09-19T09:01:00.001-04:00

Heard this song at Connexion two weeks ago and I really like it.

Gungor, 'Beautiful Things'

The Appeal of Legalism

2011-09-12T11:07:00.004-04:00

I had an epiphany this morning in Starbucks while discussing the book The Life of a God-Made Man with my good friend Aaron. I've enjoyed the book and our discussions together, but today I was mildly frustrated with a paragraph in the chapter "A Man and His Wealth." Here's what the author, Daniel Doriani, writes,

"Being rich towards God means [seeing] that an old car can be viewed as an embarrassment or as a gift to the kingdom. If you have $40,000, which is the nobler use - to purchase one 'cool' vehicle or to provide a century of food, clothing, and Christian education for impoverished children overseas (ten children for ten years at $400 per year)?"

I certainly agree in substance with what Doriani is saying, but where do you draw the line. Should I choose a $5000 clunker of a mini-van or a reliable and comfortable $15,000 mini-van? It could certainly be argued that using the extra $10,000 could be used for more noble purposes? Ok, what about a $10 movie (which is really $20 because I never go alone)? Can I justify going to a movie or should I find a nobler use for the money?

In my conversation with Aaron this morning I was pushing for a line, a clear black and white - this is how much you can spend without feeling guilty. Then it hit me (thanks in large part to my friend). I want the line, the rule, the clear black and white, so that I won't have to wrestle with the heart issues involved. Ouch. That's pure and simple legalism of the Pharisaical variety! I wanted to say, 'There, I followed the rules. I'm good, go away guilty feelings'. (By the way, I refuse to feel guilty for going to a movie on occasion! How you spend your money isn't the point of this post really.)

We're all drawn, by our nature, to legalism. In part, I think, because it allows us to dodge tough heart issues (and in part because it fuels our pride). Steve Brown just might be right when he contends, "I believe that we show our depravity less by the bad stuff we do than by our reversion to Pharisaism" (A Scandalous Freedom: The Radical Nature of the Gospel (See all Religion & Spirituality Books)).

Song of the Week

2011-09-12T10:08:00.001-04:00

Haunting song from one of my new favorite groups (at least for this month).

Black Label Society, "Shallow Grave"

Song of the Week

2011-09-07T10:48:00.004-04:00

Some unexpected developments kept me pretty busy and preoccupied yesterday and I forgot to post a song of the week (amazingly, the earth kept spinning). When I've had time I've been reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians preparing for my ACG. So, in honor of Luther...

Chris Rice, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God"

Best of All Possible Worlds

2011-08-29T15:05:00.007-04:00

I ran across an interview done on Justin Taylor's website back in 2008 with John Frame. I respect John Frame and his work immensely, though I often disagree with him. In the interview he was asked about the notion that this world is 'the best of all possible worlds'. Here's the exchange:

Why do you argue that it is merely possible that this is the best of all possible worlds?

People sometimes say that God must make the best possible world because he himself is perfect. So they think that although evil exists now, this is nevertheless the best world God could have made. That is one traditional attempt to solve the problem of evil.

I disagree, however. Genesis 1:31 says that God made everything good, but not perfect. “Perfect” would mean not only good, but also incapable of becoming evil. Clearly God did not choose to make that kind of world. In that sense, the new Heavens and the new Earth (Rev. 21:1) will be a better world than this one, for that world will be confirmed in goodness, incapable of becoming evil. So the world in which we presently live is not the best possible world. God is free to make a world that is imperfect in some respects.

Could God have made a better world than this one? Certainly. He could have made what we call the “new Heavens and new Earth” right back at the beginning. Why, then, did he choose not to do so? I don’t know. That is essentially the problem of evil. I think there are some biblical ways of addressing the problem, but I don’t think we will have a completely satisfying resolution of the problem during our present life.

Here's on of those times I disagree with Frame - I think this is the best of all possible worlds given God's goals. Obviously the world isn't perfect, at least not in the sense that it's without taint, without flaw, incapable of evil. In that sense, I'd agree with Frame. Who wouldn't? But, it is perfect in the sense that it perfectly accomplishes it's telos - it is the perfect means to the perfect end, namely, God's glory.

It certainly has been tainted by our sin, but doesn't our sin have a role to play in God's overarching plan to see his glory maximized? Certainly. Without sin there would be no need for grace, mercy, compassion and hence no appreciation of them. Without sin there would be no need for redemption, no need for a slain lamb, who was, after all, slain before the foundation of the world. Without sin we would not be witnesses to the awesome wisdom of God as displayed on the cross. (Please note, I'm not at all intending to call sin good. Best the read this in light of Joseph's words to his brothers - we meant it for evil, God meant it for good. Also look to Paul in Romans 6:1-4 & Romans 9:19-24). Read again the wonderful verses of Eph. 1:7-10:

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment —to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ."

Given that God is a wise God, an omnipotent God, and a good God, it seems inevitable to me that we would affirm this is the best of all possible worlds. Wisdom is, to quote Tozer, that philisophical powerhouse, "Wisdom, among other things, is the ability to devise perfect ends and to achieve those ends by the most perfect means."

Does Scripture directly teach that this is the best of all possible worlds? No. Does it teach it indirectly by asserting God's wisdom, by reminding us that God does what God pleases, by holding up for worship a God who is sovereign and omnipotent? I think it does. Seeing this as the best of all possible worlds certainly requires a shift in viewpoint - we must see it against the backdrop of God's eternal and inviolable purposes. Only then can we see it's ultimate perfection.

Song of the Week

2011-08-29T10:37:00.002-04:00

At one point, I owned several NIN cds. I still really like the music and think Reznor's lyrics honestly convey his nihilism. I do, however, like Johnny Cash's version of "Hurt" more than NIN. Here's an interesting comparison of the two versions by Russell Moore:

Song of the Week

2011-08-22T10:35:00.002-04:00

Maybe sometime this week I'll get around to a real post. Till then, here's a great song from a band my neighbor turned me on to:

Black Country Communion, "The Battle for Hadrian's Wall"

Song of the Week

2011-08-14T21:58:00.002-04:00

Reflecting on our camping trip from last week, this song was a must for the week ;)
Love ya Lynn.

Guns N' Roses, 'I Used to Love Her'

Camping

2011-08-10T13:00:00.002-04:00

We survived, though it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be. Lynn made two trips back the house last night between 9pm-12am, once to get the kids ready for bed, the next time to get herself ready. Between Midnight and 5:30am the boys were up three times to go to the bathroom and once because, somehow, they had gotten all turned around in the tent. It took em about 20minutes to sort that out. The boys and I tore down camp while Lynn traveled home again to get herself ready for the day. Home by 10:30, set up tents in the back to dry. Now I'm ready for a nap.

It was fun. Probably will be more fun in memories than actually being there, if you know what I mean.

Song of the Week

2011-08-08T10:43:00.001-04:00

I actually found a Metallica CD I didn't already own at my neighbors yard sale. Great bonding moment with a neighbor when we realized we're both closet metal heads.

Metallica, "Stone Cold Crazy"

Does God Belong in the Science Class?

2011-08-04T09:59:00.004-04:00

Ok, stick with me here for a minute. Last night I had the boys at the Ellettsville Library. I was looking through the new books section in the kids area and stumble upon a book about religion for kids, What Do You Believe?. I picked it up and almost put it in the basket just out of curiosity - what was the premise of the book? I went with a newer Spiderman book instead.

Anyway, as I was looking at it, I thought to myself that if Caleb or Jacob had to read this in school I'd make sure I read it first to engage their questions. It came out, in my mind, as a resolution: 'Read any books dealing with religion that my kids read'. Then I quickly added, again in my mind: 'Oh, and read any science books they are reading'. Then I began arguing with myself, 'Why the science books? Why not the history books?'

The obvious answer is because the science books my kids read teach theories that leave God out, or, worse, are hostile to what we as Christians believe (though I have never read a book that says, 'God did not create'). But again, is that different in the history classes? Is God the God who creates but not the God who rules the nations?

Maybe the answer is, 'I should read the science books because issues related to science are the ones being hotly debated now'. Ok, but why are they being debated? Because we, as Christians, have decided to take a stand there and not allow God to be pushed out of the science classroom. I am pretty sure the debate would get pretty heated if we insisted on God being in the history classroom! Try arguing that the Civil War was God's punishment on the United States for tolerating slavery (a position articulated pretty clearly by Lincoln himself!). Or, that 9/11 was God's judgment, or Katrina, or ...

Think that would cause a stir!? (I remember Caleb came home one day and asked, "Do you think what Hitler did to the Jews was God's punishment for crucifying Jesus?" I begged him never to ask that question in school!) I honestly don't know what my point is here. I could go either way now, though I'm leaning in one direction so far I might fall over. I could say, "Stop focusing so much about the science classroom, look, God has been removed from the history class also...and the math class...and the gym floor...the ethics class (the Air Force Academy just removed classes which use the Bible as the basis to teach ethics, especially Just War Theory). We need to fight to get God back in the classroom, period" I affirm that God is the King of Creation, the Lord of all things, Sovereign over every sphere of life (and death). But does every question, every time, need to be traced back to God. I'm not leaning that way.

On the other hand, I could say that we, as Christians, need to worry less that God has been removed from the science classes. Let the science teachers do what they do, much in the same way the history teachers and math teachers do what they do - without recourse to providence or divine intervention. Make it good science and it will be agreeable to what the Bible teaches (when we understand the science and the Bible rightly)! When explaining why the square root of 9 is 3, do I need to go all the way back to God creation of an orderly world? When I talk about WW2, can I talk about the error of appeasement, or do I need to talk also about God's sovereignty over nations? When we talk about the beginning of the universe, do we need to say God did it, or can we talk about the natural mechanisms by which he did it (and there will certainly be gaps in what science can explain because God was working in direct ways that science can't account for). Will the science be complete without God? No, it can't be. But, is the history complete without reference to God? No, it can't be (unless you are a deist who doesn't believe God is active in his world anymore). By way of ultimate explanations, God is always there, always important. But I can/should be laying that groundwork for my kids at home. The church can/should be laying that groundwork at church. Does it need to happen in the classroom too?

Song(s) of the Week

2011-08-01T11:12:00.001-04:00

I just downloaded this album from NoiseTrade. If you like the sound of groups like the Black Crowes, you'll dig the Dirty Guv'nahs

Pics from our Ellettsville Tournament

2011-07-31T16:31:00.003-04:00

It was a long hot weekend at the Ellettsville ballfields. We won our first game, then lost the next two (we ended up playing the same team twice due to how pool play worked out). Jake was rock solid in the field - turning a couple sweet double plays.

Did Adam And Eve Really Exist? (Email Exchange)

2011-07-28T09:27:00.002-04:00

Back on July 5th I posted a recommendation for Jack Collins' book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. I really enjoyed the book and it help me see how positions other than my own (which is pretty conservative) can still be reconciled to the Biblical narrative.

Kevin DeYoung posted a review also which was slightly more critical (and certainly more read). Anyway, that started an email conversation between Kevin and Jack in which Kevin clarifies his criticisms and Jack clearly articulates the purpose of his book and his own position (which only comes out in a footnote which refers you to another one of his books). Good read.

Christopher Wright on Slavery in Ancient Israel

2011-07-27T14:10:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday I mentioned Christopher Wright and his helpful comments on slavery in the Old Testament. I thought I could summarize one section of his book Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Chapter 10 of Wright's book wrestles with how God's people are to relate to the cultures in which they live. Wright classifies the responses in three categories: total rejection, qualified toleration, critical affirmation. The worship of foreign gods and things like child sacrifice fall into the first category - total rejection. So God says things like, "Do not follow their practices" (Lev. 18:3). On the other side of the continuum, God's people affirmed, critically, the family structure and it's foundational nature in ways very similar to other Ancient Near Eastern cultures.

In the middle, between rejection and affirmation, is qualified toleration. Wright explains, "Some customs and practices common in the ancient world were tolerated within Israel, without explicit divine command or sanction, but with a developing theological critique that regarded them as falling short of God's highest standards. The customs in question were then regulated by legal safeguards in such a way as to soften or eliminate their worst effects" (330). It is into this category that Wright puts things like polygamy, slavery, and divorce.

Focusing here on slavery, Wright reminds his reader that 1) "slavery in relatively small societies like Israel was qualitatively vastly different from slavery in large imperial civilizations" (333), and 2) "slavery in the Old Testament was not simply tolerated with a 'rubber stamp' of uncritical approval" (333). The harshness of slavery in Israel was mitigated first by Israel's own history as slaves in Egypt, second by Israel's slave legislation that "accorded to slaves in Israel a degree of status, rights, and protection unheard of elsewhere" (334), and third by the theological affirmation that both slave and master were created equal (Job 31:15, Prov. 14:31, Prov. 17:5).

Wright considers at some length how these Old Testament patterns of relating to culture carried over into the New Testament. Certainly the authors of the Old Testament reject some cultural customs outright. In addition, it's clear that some aspects of Greek culture were affirmed critically, such as Greek philosophy. Paul could find connecting points, saying "on this we agree, here's where we diverge".

Likewise, there are aspects of culture which are tolerated on qualified terms. Wright continues, "the experience of Old Testament Israel prepares us to allow for the fact that society is fallen. Even God accepts this fact! That is the point of Jesus' saying that while, from the beginning, God's creation purpose was lifelong marriage, nevertheless he 'allowed' divorce 'for your hardness of heart'" (349). Slavery continues to fall into this category - it was tolerated on qualified terms, not in the unregulated and harsh manner of the Roman empire. Wright makes the connection between early Christian's toleration of slavery and our toleration of unjust economic situations today. I'll quote at length:

Similarly, though we may have technically abolished slavery (though even that is a dubious claim in view of pockets of continuing slavery around the world), there remain structures of economic and industrial life that fall far short of God's standards for human dignity. Christians have to tolerate these to the extent of being able work within them and address them. At the same time, however, they must seek to challenge and reform them in light of the Old Testament's own clear principles of justice, fair trade and compassion for the weakest.

We might even be led to ponder the fact of Israel's toleration of slavery, as to whether it might even have been preferable to other alternatives. Immediately, one has to say this is not in any sense at all an attempt to justify the enslavement of any human being in the normal meaning of that term. No human being has the unqualified right to own another human being as a piece of property or to treat him or her as such. But when we look at the main problem in society for which bonded service was Israel's solution, namely debt, we wonder if Israel's solution does not have at least some defensible aspects. The debtor undertook a bond. he was bound to the creditor and worked off his debt through his labour. One could argue that this is at least worthy of sympathetic consideration in comparison with the alternatives in modern society. Modern responses to unrepayable debt range from bankruptcy, where the creditor may get nothing, which seems unjust, to imprisonment, which benefits nobody and costs society dearly. Indeed, as we saw in the last chapter, considered simply as a legal penalty, it is arguable that time limited slavery for debt on Israelite terms was more humane than imprisonment on ours. The slave stille lived at home. He worked with human company in the 'normal' world. He walked on God's earth under God's sky. Imprisonment denies all these things, and it is interesting (to say the least) that imprisonment is never prescribed as a penalty anywhere in the Torah (though it was practised in the later monarchy). The point of this comparison is not, of course, to advocate the reintroduction of slavery, or to image that these are easy alternatives to imprisonment in modern society. It is rather to suggest, given our instinctive recoil from slavery but our easy tolerance of imprisonment, that the Old Testament challenges us to think rather more carefully through the ethical (and not so ethical) aspects of both. We may find we have more to learn from the Old Testament's paradigm than we thought" (351-352).

Certainly my point isn't to advocate for slavery, but to remind us that we still live in a fallen world. While we might wonder how saints in the Old Testament or believers in the early church could have tolerated slavery, they might equally wonder how we could tolerate many of the economic injustices we pass by without a thought. This side of Christ's return we offer incomplete and imperfect solutions to our world's problems.

Indianapolis Indians Game

2011-07-26T11:25:00.002-04:00

We had a good time at the Indians game last night. Early inning were a little rough with the sun directly in your eyes, and that seem to make some little ones a little grumpy. But, a little food and the sun setting turned it all around and we had fun. Caleb got a few autographs - though you can't make them out and I don't knew who signed the yearbook. We left after the 9th with the game tied 5-5. Eventually the Indians won 7-6 in the 12th. Jury is still out on whether the boys like good seats at a Indianapolis game or the cheap seats at a Major League game.

From Baseball game in Indy

Catechism #128-129

2011-07-25T09:17:00.003-04:00

Oops. I neglected to post the last two questions from the Catechism. We finished it up last week. It took us just under a year to finish, which is ahead of pace (we did more questions per week on some weeks). I'd like to reflect and report on the catechism experience soon, but for now, here's the conclusion to the Heidelberg Catechism.

Question #128: What does your conclusion to this prayer mean?

Answer: "For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever" means, We have made all these requests of you because, as our all-powerful king, you not only want to, but are able to give us all that is good; and because your holy name, and not we ourselves, should receive all the praise, forever (Rom. 10:11-13; 2 Pet. 2:9; Ps. 115:1; John 14:13).

Question #129: What does that little word "Amen" express?

Answer: "Amen" means, This is sure to be! It is even more sure that God listens to my prayer, than that I really desire what I pray for (Isa. 65:24; 2 Cor. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:13).

Song of the Week

2011-07-25T09:00:00.000-04:00

Found this new Mumford and Sons song. Sounds good - I'm excited to see a new album from them soon.

Mumford and Sons, "Home"

Mumford & Sons - "Home/Untitled" (Live on KBCO)

Update:
Oh, and here's another unreleased song (I like watching them too, so here's the video):

Mumford and Sons, "Lover's Eyes"

Song of the Week

2011-07-18T10:29:00.001-04:00

I discovered Redlight King through Amazon last week. Lovin the album so far. Here's one song:

Redlight King, "City Life"

Catechism #127

2011-07-14T13:58:00.001-04:00

Question #127: What does the fifth request mean?

Answer: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" means, Because of Christ's blood, do not hold against us, poor sinners that we are, any of the sins we do or the evil that constantly clings to us. Forgive us just as we are fully determined, as evidence of your grace in us, to forgive our neighbors (Ps. 51:1-7; 143:2; Rom. 8:1; 1 John 2:1-2; Matt. 6:14-15; 18:21-35).

Catechism #125-126

2011-07-12T09:25:00.002-04:00

Question #125: What does the fourth request mean?

Answer: "Give us today our daily bread" means, Do take care of all our physical needs so that we come to know that you are the only source of everything good, and that neither our work and worry nor your gifts can do us any good without your blessing. And so help us to give up our trust in creatures and to put trust in you alone (Ps. 104:27-30; 145:15-16; Matt. 6:25-34; Acts 14:17; 17:25; James 1:17; Deut. 8:3; Ps. 37:16; 127:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:58; Ps. 55:22; 62; 146; Jer. 17:5-8; Heb. 13:5-6).

Question #126: What does the fifth request mean?

Answer: "Forgive us our debts,as we also have forgiven our debtors" means, Because of Christ's blood, do not hold against us, poor sinners that we are, any of the sins we do or the evil that constantly clings to us. Forgive us just as we are fully determined, as evidence of your grace in us, to forgive our neighbors (Ps. 51:1-7; 143:2; Rom. 8:1; 1 John 2:1-2; Matt. 6:14-15; 18:21-35)

Song of the Week

2011-07-11T09:50:00.004-04:00

I hope this song is no indication of what the week ahead will look like! This is good headbanging, hitting the heavy bag, angry music. My favorite kind.

Escape the Fate, 'This War is Ours (the Guillotine II)

Catechism #124

2011-07-07T21:41:00.002-04:00

Question #124: What does the third request mean?

Answer: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" means,Help us and all people to reject our own wills and to obey your will without any back talk. Your will alone is good. Help us one and all to carry out the work we are called to, as willingly and faithfully as the angels in heaven (Matt. 7:21; 16:24-26; Luke 22:42; Rom. 12:1-2; Tit. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 7:17-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Ps. 103:20-21).

I Believe Homosexuality is a Sin, but...

2011-07-07T09:43:00.001-04:00

I have no qualms saying it - homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and offense to his holiness, a deviation from the sexual norm created by God. I say it, I've preached it too. I've also preached against pride, which Scripture refers to as an abomination, and hatred and greed and sexual immorality of a heterosexual kind, etc.

Yet, without waffling in the slightest on the above declaration, I don't believe the state should legislate against homosexuality. In other words, I am against sodomy laws and if I had been on the Supreme Court in 2003 when Lawrence vs. Texas was argued, I would have voted to repeal the sodomy laws too. Is that an inconsistency? To some, maybe; especially to those who believe we should Christianize the nation, or return it to its (questionable) Christian roots.

I affirm, with Calvin and the Reformed confessions, that the Law has three uses (or offices): 1) to convict of sin, 2) to restrain wickedness, even in the unconverted, 3) to be our guide to holiness. Some might pick up on the second office and ask, 'shouldn't we implement anti-sodomy laws to restrain the wickedness of homosexuality?' The answer, I think, is 'No'.

Is homosexual activity a violation of God's law. Unequivocally, yes. One could point to many such precepts in the Old Testament, along with similar condemnations in the New. I think it is enough to say it is a violation of the seventh commandment, 'Do Not Commit Adultery'.

Still, we do not legislate obedience to all the ten commandments, nor could we. How will we legislate against covetousness? Some, I'm sure, would argue that homosexuality activity does not fall into the same category of covetousness, but more in the category of murder, theft, and the like since it isn't just an attitude, but an action. I see that distinction, but we don't legislate against premarital sex, which is an action also in violation of the seventh commandment. Nor do we legislate against idolatry, or making images of God, or dishonoring your parents, etc.

Going beyond that, some could truly argue that marriage isn't just prescribed in the written law and special revelation, but in creation itself. It is a statute written in natural law and codified more explicitly in the written code. Agreed. That is why, while I oppose sodomy laws, I am equally opposed to legalizing gay marriage (though I wouldn't want to see the church spearheading Prop 8's in every state - but that is a totally different conversation). I will take up that issue in a later post.

The sin of homosexuality is a serious one (what sin isn't; but, biblically speaking, not all sins are equally serious as shown by varying degrees of temporal punishment doled out), and one that churches should deal with appropriately. The grace filled mechanism of church discipline should be brought to bear on those actively living a homosexual lifestyle, just like it should be brought to bear on a heterosexual couple living together outside of wedlock.

Seems like a weird blending of tolerance and intolerance doesn't it. It is, but I think that is exactly what is needed. J. Gresham Machen, a hero of mine, argued for a widely open and tolerant society, provided that voluntary institutions like the church were permitted to be closed and intolerant. Quoting from DG Hart's summary of Machen's thought, "The reason why confessionalists like himself, he argued, were not flagrantly guilty of intolerance [towards the liberals of the day] was because involuntary organizations 'ought to be tolerant;, but voluntary ones 'so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else they cease to exist.'" This led Machen, the arch-fundamentalist, to oppose prayer in public schools! That's right, he opposed it. He saw public schools as involuntary institutions, which they are (hence the term 'compulsory education') and therefore argued they should be open and tolerant of those who didn't believe in God or worshipped another god (in addition, he argued he wouldn't want his children, though he had none, to be taught prayer by someone of a different confessional stripe). The church, however, was completely different. The state was to support the right of the church to be intolerant - both of what it deemed wrong belief [the liberals] and, I think he would argue today, wrong action [like homosexuality].

Again, it's a delicate blending of tolerance and intolerance. In other words, what's good for the goose, and by goose I mean the church, isn't always good for the gander, referring to the culture at large. While it is our obligation to strive for a pure church, recognizing of course that absolute purity will only be achieved when Christ returns, it is not our biblical mandate, in the pluralistic state in which we live, to Christianize it or even Judeo-Christianize it (which seems to be the most we could hope for this side of Christ's return).

Here's a lecture by Dr. David Jones, Ethics professor at Covenant Theological Seminary I found helpful: pdf of transcript, mp3 of lecture.

Did Adam And Eve Really Exist?

2011-07-05T14:16:00.003-04:00

C. John ('Jack') Collins, Old Testament professor at Covenant Theological, has put out another fantastic book on the early chapters of Genesis. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care (2011) is in many ways a companion to Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (2006), though the most recent publication is more focused and less technical.

While the historicity of Adam and Eve has been the historical consensus of the church through the ages, that consensus has come into question in recent decades. The challenges to the traditional beliefs regarding Adam and Eve have come from the scientific community, represented by men like Francis Collins, renowned geneticist and influential member of the BioLogos forums, and also from the community of exegetes including scholars like W. Sibly Towner, and James Barr.

The dual-pronged-challenge leads Jack Collins to a dual-pronged-response. First, from the text of Genesis (and beyond) he argues Adam and Eve are 1) portrayed as real individuals and 2) that it is incredibly important to the storyline of Scripture, and consequently to the Christian worldview. In the opening pages of introduction, Collins writes, "I agree with those who aregue that we don not change the basic content of Christianity if we revise our these views [regarding the age of the earth, the literalness of the days of Genesis]...May we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well, without threat to the faith?" The short answer is, "No." Through a rigorous study first of the 'Story Line of the Bible' and secondly of specific Biblical texts (both Old Testament and New as well as non-canonical), Collins shows that these authors assumed Adam and Eve to be actual people and that there is much to lose ideologically and theologically in denying this.

That argument is the bulk of the first two-thirds of Collins' book. The last third is an exploration of possible scenario's that relate the Biblical assertions to the findings of modern scientists. Throughout the work, Collins is contending for what he calls "mere Adam-and-Eve-ism" - in other words, he is arguing for Adam and Eve as actual persons without much concern for questions like 'what is the image of God?', 'when and where did Adam and Eve live?', etc. For that reasons, many cut from a conservative cloth will find this section to their disliking. Collins is simply arguing for the essential core - that there was an actual Adam and Eve who were the fountainhead of humanity, that they were in a special way endowed by God with his image (and this not of strictly natural processes), and that this first human pair 'fell'. Collins then attempts to fit suggested scenarios around this core, evaluating how well these suggestions account for the truths as presented in Scripture as well as our 'common human experience'.

For example, Jack Collins tests the thesis that there must have been more than a single human pair from which all humanity 'sprung'. Francis Collins, from the genetic data, argues that the population of humans must have been at least 1000 strong to account for all of the genetic diversity we know see. Jack Collins, while he does not accept this scenario (and questions the science behind it), contends that it could be fitted to the Biblical data if Adam is viewed as a 'chieftain' of the early human tribe. This could account for the 'in Adam' language and the Biblical notion of Adam as humanities 'federal head'. In addition, Collins considers the possibility of Adam being created in the image of God by a supernatural act of God 'refurbishing' existing animal (prexisting hominid) into Adam.

Jack Collins' approach in this book is unique and will prove unsatisfying to those who want quick and neat answers. While he does contend strongly for an actual Adam and Eve, as opposed to simply mythical/fictive persons, he doesn't do so from a strictly 'creationist' standpoint, and certainly not a young earth position. So young-earthers won't be thrilled. At the same time, he argues , quite successfully I think, that you cannot set aside the historicity of Adam and Eve without seriously altering the Biblical storyline and undermining the authority of Scripture (whose writers assume Adam and Eve were real persons). Thus, many from the BioLogos perspective will not be excited by Collins' conclusions.

If you have wrestled with these questions, I highly recommend Collins' book. It is compelling and at the same time even handed. It is accessible yet scholarly, especially if you pay attention to the footnotes. He does refer to his other works often, probably too often, and three appendices could have been left out entirely (at least the second and third). On the whole, I agree with Collins and am glad I can recommend his presentation to others.

Catechism #122-123

2011-07-05T12:07:00.002-04:00

Question #122: What does the first request mean?

Answer: "Hallowed be your name" means, Help us to really know you, to bless, worship, and praise you for all your works and for all that shines forth from them: your almighty power, wisdom, kindness, justice, mercy, and truth. And it means, Help us to direct all our living— what we think, say, and do—so that your name will never be blasphemed because of us but always honored and praised (Jer. 9:23-24; 31:33-34; Matt. 16:17; John 17:3; Ex. 34:5-8; Ps. 145; Jer. 32:16-20; Luke 1:46-55, 68-75; Rom. 11:33-36; Ps. 115:1; Matt. 5:16).

Question #123: What does the second request mean?

Answer: "Your kingdom come" means, Rule us by your Word and Spirit in such a way that more and more we submit to you. Keep your church strong, and add to it. Destroy the devil's work; destroy every force which revolts against you and every conspiracy against your Word. Do this until your kingdom is so complete and perfect that in it you are all in all (Ps. 119:5, 105; 143:10; Matt. 6:33; Ps. 122:6-9; Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:42-47; Rom. 16:20; 1 John 3:8; Rom. 8:22-23; 1 Cor. 15:28; Rev. 22:17, 20).

Song of Week

2011-07-04T12:24:00.001-04:00

Love this song, love this version by Muse

Muse (with the Edge), "Where the Streets Have No Name"

Catechism #120-121

2011-07-01T10:41:00.002-04:00

Question #120: Why did Christ command us to call God "our Father"?

Answer: At the very beginning of our prayer Christ wants to kindle in us what is basic to our prayer— the childlike awe and trust that God through Christ has become our Father. Our fathers do not refuse us the things of this life; God our Father will even less refuse to give us what we ask in faith (Matt. 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13).

Question #121: Why the words "in heaven"?

Answer: These words teach us not to think of God's heavenly majesty as something earthly, and to expect everything for body and soul from his almighty power (Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:24-25; Matt. 6:25-34; Rom. 8:31-32).

Outdated

2011-06-29T09:31:00.002-04:00

How much of what you learned in college is outdated now? I recently read this in Learning in Adulthood,

It has been estimated that the amount of information in the world doubles every seven years and some have projected that information will soon double every 20 months. Others have speculated that half of what most professionals know when they finish their formal training will be outdated in less than five years, perhaps even months for those in technology-related fields (15).

I know a good bit of what I studied in my poli-sci classes in undergrad is completely out of date now. My senior thesis was on Just War and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) - kinda not an issue any more. But do you know what hasn't been outdated - my Bible classes. Sure, new controversies have flamed up (Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul), and old ones flamed out (Open Theism), and some just continue on as ever (women in ministry). But the content of the Bible, the categories of Theology haven't changed much.

As interesting is that is, what really got me thinking is how the church should respond to such an ever changing world. Should we try to keep up with all the trends, with the new and cool? What happens when a church tries to keep up, but lags behind a couple of years? Or decades? Have you ever been to a church that had obviously been cool in the 70s/80s but never made a transition to the 21st century? In the words of Luke (my son, not Gospel writer), "Awkward." I've been at churches that seemed obsessed with Bransonesque type musicals. Cool in the day, but really odd to see in a church now - though maybe slightly cooler once again since Glee is such a hit. Honestly, I still don't get Glee, but that's kinda my point. I'm a generation removed from Glee. It's not cool or fun to me, but really really stupid (and I'm a little suspicious of guys who get into it too). One last example, I remember sitting in a class on evangelism with Robert Coleman. Great man, old man. It was 1998 and we were talking about 'cutting edge evangelism techniques'. What was he offering? Women's Tea's. Really cutting edge Dr. Coleman - in the early part of the century!

What should the church do? I think we should make sure we're really outdated - like a thousand or more years outdated. I think the oldest things in our play book should be central - like the Word, the Supper and Baptism. Michael Horton writes,

Perennially tempted with 'mission creep,' churches are easily drawn to pragmatism in their methods of evangelism, worship, and outreach. There are myriad resources for personal spiritual development, yet the means of grace that Christ identifies explicitly as essential for his embassy in the world are often marginalized or ignored. Even in public worship, human creativity (which always leads to idolatry) is often prized over faithfulness t our Lord's commands. Instead of the means of God's grace, preaching often collapses into moralism, baptism becomes a testimony to our commitment, and the Supper become another opportunity for us to do something: to feel, reflect, remember, experience and rededicate ourselves...Our prayer for all of our churches is that they will regain their confidence in the ministry that Christ has ordained for the expansion of his kingdom, gathering regularly 'for the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers;' (Acts 2:42). This is not only the description of public worship for those who are already converted, but the means of making and sustaining disciples throughout the world (Modern Reformation, July/August 2011, 64).

I'm certainly not saying that the songs we sing should be from the 1920's (which seems to be the average date of the hymns in the hymn book). I like a good deal of the contemporary music. But, I would fear if a church was built on the music it offered. And I don't think we should turn off the computers and projectors and go back to printed lyrics on a page. I like that we are all looking up and not down. But could we still do church if there was no power? Or have the techonological aspects of our worship overshadowed the meaty - the Word and the Sacraments?

New isn't bad. Tech isn't bad. But lets not hitch our wagon to the cool and new at the cost of the old, the tested, the commanded, the biblical.

Catechism #118-119

2011-06-28T14:26:00.002-04:00

Question #118: What did God command us to pray for?

Answer: Everything we need, spiritually and physically, as embraced in the prayer Christ our Lord himself taught us (James 1:17; Matt. 6:33).

Question #119: What is this prayer?

Answer: Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
For yours is the kingdom
and the power
and the glory forever.
Amen.

(Matt. 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4; Earlier and better manuscripts of Matthew 6 omit the words "For yours is . . . Amen.")

What to Pray For

2011-06-27T14:46:00.003-04:00

Bob's sermon from yesterday (6/26/11) was a wonderful and powerful reminder of the efficacy of prayer. Today I read this quote from Augustine in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion:

God orders what we cannot do, that we may know what we ought to ask of him. There is a great utility in precepts [commands], if all that is given to free will is to do greater honor to divine grace. Faith acquires what the law requires; nay, the requires, in order that faith may acquire what is thus required; nay, more, God demands of us faith itself, and finds not what he thus demands, until by giving he makes it possible to find it.

Augustine is saying that God demands what we cannot do because we are sinful and enslaved. But, his demanding makes way for his grace, for by his grace faith acquires what we in our sinfulness cannot - righteousness, obedience to God's precepts. In fact, Augustine pushes it further, even the faith God requires he finds lacking in us until he bestows it upon us a free gift. Thus, in all of this, God is magnified as the Holy God who demands righteousness of his people and the Gracious God who gives to his people what he cannot find in them. Beautiful!

Calvin also includes the famous prayer of Augustine, which would be an appropriate prayer for us all to learn as we take up Bob's challenge to pray before we act: "Grant what you command and command what you will."

Song of the Week

2011-06-27T09:06:00.002-04:00

Ok, after my last post on stupid lyrics, I'm reluctant to post this song. The lyrics of the verse or prechorus (whatever you call it) are kinda lame:

Just like the sunshine
You have been our light
Leading us into beautiful places
We’ve walked through fire
But You made us brighter
Leading us into beautiful places

But the chorus makes up for it I think:

Faithful Jesus, healing savior
Compass, center, bread of life
Faithful Jesus, cherished treasure
Our portion, wisdom God’s great light

Charlie Hall, 'Constant'

Stupid Lyrics

2011-06-22T14:51:00.003-04:00

I hate stupid lyrics, especially stupid worship song lyrics. Some of the ones I hate most:

- He Needs Just a Few Good Men, by the Gaithers. Sung on Father's Day across the country. My thoughts...bullsh-t (I didn't swear, I put a - in there!). Since when does God need anyone to accomplish his purposes!

- Above All, Michael W. Smith. I hate the man-centeredness of this song. I know I'm petty, but come on - he thought of me above all? Not really. He prayed in the Garden, "Your will be done", and sought to glorify his Father above all!

- Oh, and here's a new one. All to Show, by Hillsong (sorry no video for this one). The song as a whole isn't horrific, but I can't stand the self-congratulatory, grandiose lyrics in verse one. If we are a history making generation, I doubt it'll be for the right reasons!

We are a history making generation
For all that's true
Jesus, the life that I live is your reflection
It's all for you

(pre-chorus)
And unto your name
All glory and praise
For who you are

(chorus 1)
It's all to show the world
Who you are to me
All to show the world I'm free
In the life you gave

Catechism #116-117

2011-06-20T09:59:00.002-04:00

Question #116: Why do Christians need to pray?

Answer: Because prayer is the most important part of the thankfulness God requires of us. And also because God gives his grace and Holy Spirit only to those who pray continually and groan inwardly, asking God for these gifts and thanking him for them (Ps. 50:14-15; 116:12-19; 1 Thess. 5:16-18; Matt. 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-13).

Question #117: How does God want us to pray so that he will listen to us?

Answer: First, we must pray from the heart to no other than the one true God, who has revealed himself in his Word, asking for everything he has commanded us to ask for. Second, we must acknowledge our need and misery, hiding nothing, and humble ourselves in his majestic presence. Third, we must rest on this unshakable foundation: even though we do not deserve it, God will surely listen to our prayer because of Christ our Lord. That is what he promised us in his Word (Ps. 145:18-20; John 4:22-24; Rom. 8:26-27; James 1:5; 1 John 5:14-15; 2 Chron. 7:14; Ps. 2:11; 34:18; 62:8; Isa. 66:2; Rev. 4; Dan. 9:17-19; Matt. 7:8; John 14:13-14; 16:23; Rom. 10:13; James 1:6).

Song of the Week

2011-06-20T09:17:00.001-04:00

New Album from City Hymns: Fragments of Grace.

"Holy Hands"

Holy Hands by City Hymns

Catechism #114-115

2011-06-16T11:37:00.002-04:00

Question #114: But can those converted to God obey these commandments perfectly?

Answer: No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God's commandments (Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 7:14-15; 1 Cor. 13:9; 1 John 1:8-10; Ps. 1:1-2; Rom. 7:22-25; Phil. 3:12-16).

Question #115: No one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly: why then does God want them preached so pointedly?

Answer: First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. Second, so that, while praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, we may never stop striving to be renewed more and more after God's image, until after this life we reach our goal:perfection (Ps. 32:5; Rom. 3:19-26; 7:7, 24-25; 1 John 1:9; 1 Cor. 9:24; Phil. 3:12-14; 1 John 3:1-3).

Christian Apostasy

2011-06-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

Warning: I'm not advocating what I post in the next paragraphs, I'm only putting it out there as a possibility, as something to be considered. I just haven't thought enough about this proposal to dismiss it or promote it, but I do find it interesting and potentially helpful.

There are several troublesome passages throughout the New Testament, especially in Hebrews, but not limited to Hebrews, which offer stern warnings regarding the danger of apostasy. See, for example, Heb. 6:1-12, Heb. 10:26-31, 1 Cor. 15:2, 2 John 7-8, and also passages like Matt 10:22, 2 Tim 2:11-13, . How do we reconcile those passages with the seemingly contradictory claims of of the Bible that saints are eternally secure and will persevere (be preserved) till the very end? This encouragement comes from nearly all corners of the NT - from Peter (1 Peter 1:5),Paul (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 1:6), John (1 John 5:13), and Jesus (John 6:38-40, John 10:27-29). How do we hold these things together in proper tension?

Some, from the Arminian/Wesleyan theological camp, argue that the warnings are indeed warnings to true Christians that they can forfeit their salvation through apostasy or continuing patterns of sin (some going so far as to say you loose your salvation every time you commit a willful sin). Thus, the warning passages are given tremendous weight while the comforting passages which emphasis security are given short shrift. Obviously, that is overly simplistic, but serves to set the contrast of the other views.

Some theologians from the Reformed standpoint (including Baptists) tend to emphasize the security side of the equation, explaining away the warnings in various ways. Some explain away the warnings of Hebrews as hypothetical warnings - "if you, as a believer, were to turn away from the faith, this would happen. If you, as a believer, were to keep on in your sinful ways, you'd be in deep trouble. It's not possible, but for the sake of argument, if it did, there'd be no hope for you." Others from Reformed camp explain the warnings against apostasy away arguing that those who fall away weren't really and truly Christians at all. They may have been upstanding members of the local church, but not of the invisible church. They weren't truly Christians, but only appeared to be so.

There's other variations on those above positions. I don't think I've ever held the first (Wesleyan/Arminian) position - not even in my unReformed wandering years. The second position which was presented only in brief (and caricature form) above has been/is my position. Today (5/31/11), however, I heard a third position that I think demands some attention. Doug Wilson argues that you can't simply explain away the warning passages, but you can't neglect those passages which promise security either. The solution: realize that the Bible is speaks in two different ways about being a Christian.

There are those who are apart of the covenant community of the church. They are Christian in this sense - they bear the marks of the covenant, meaning they have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper. They participate in the corporate life of the covenant community.

But, there is another sense which we can't ignore if we are to make sense of the biblical tension. This other sense we can term the 'decreetal' sense. Those who are Christians in the decreetal have been elect (predestined) before the foundation of the world, find their way into the covenant community by God's providence and are kept from falling by God's providence. They are 'in Christ' by God's eternal decree.

Here's why understanding these two senses is important. Those who are Christians in the covenantal sense are truly Christian in some sense, but not necessarily Christian in the decreetal sense. Therefore, when they are warned against falling away, it is a genuine warning. Don't loose what you have in the covenant community. If you do, you've lost something real and valuable. Those who believers in the decreetal sense cannot fall away, but since we aren't privy to the council and decrees of God, everyone must take these warnings seriously. Falling away is proof that though one may be a Christian in the covenantal sense, they were certainly not one in the decreetal sense.

To support his view, Wilson points again to two different kinds of metaphors in the Bible. There are those that talk of believers and unbelievers as 'ontologically different'. So, Peter can refer to unbelievers as sows and dogs (not sheep). Jesus can refer to them as goats (not sheep), or as tares (not wheat). Though they can be washed up, they aren't changed from a pig to a sheep; though they are in the same field, they aren't of the same seed. These metaphors which point to the ontological difference between believers and nonbelievers is viewing them from a decreetal perspective. Some are elect, others are not.

On the other hand, other metaphors can view believers and unbelievers as of the same stock, but different with regards to fruitfulness. So Jesus can refer to branches being broken off and tossed aside. There isn't a distinction between the branches kept and those lopped off except that one is fruitless and the other fruitful. This is a view from a covenantal perspective.

I want to do a lot more thinking and reading on this perspective. As I see it now, this understanding seems to 1) value the church as the covenant community - it is something valuable and real, 2) take the warnings against falling away seriously, 3) fits those warnings with the passages promising preservation by God in a healthy way. This understanding does flow from a controversial movement called Federal Vision, hence my reservations about recommending it wholesale. I'm honestly out of the loop on this, but it's a hot button issue in the Presbyterian Church of America. I'm open to thoughts, suggestions for further readings, push backs, etc.

Here's a short interview with Doug Wilson on this issue:

Perseverance of the Saint and Apostasy from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Catechism #112-113

2011-06-13T09:57:00.001-04:00

Question #112: What is God's will for you in the ninth commandment?

Answer: God's will is that I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one's words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone without a hearing or without a just cause. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are devices the devil himself uses, and they would call down on me God's intense anger. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor's good name (Ps. 15; Prov. 19:5; Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37; Rom. 1:28-32; Lev. 19:11-12; Prov. 12:22; 13:5; John 8:44; Rev. 21:8; 1 Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:25; 1 Pet. 3:8-9; 4:8)

Question #113: What is God's will for you in the tenth commandment?

Answer: That not even the slightest thought or desire contrary to any one of God's commandments should ever arise in my heart. Rather, with all my heart I should always hate sin and take pleasure in whatever is right (Ps. 19:7-14; 139:23-24; Rom. 7:7-8)

Song of the Week

2011-06-13T09:50:00.002-04:00

After a week off from blogging, facebook, twitter and even email, I'm back. Don't a any great new songs, so I'll go with a great old song.

Alice in Chains, "Them Bones"

Catechism #110-111

2011-06-02T12:06:00.002-04:00

Question: 110: What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?

Answer: He forbids not only outright theft and robbery, punishable by law. But in God's sight theft also includes cheating and swindling our neighbor by schemes made to appear legitimate, such as: inaccurate measurements of weight, size, or volume; fraudulent merchandising; counterfeit money; excessive interest; or any other means forbidden by God. In addition he forbids all greed and pointless squandering of his gifts (Ex. 22:1; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 6:9-10; Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6; Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35; Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5; Prov. 21:20; 23:20-21; Luke 16:10-13).

Question #111: What does God require of you in this commandment?

Answer: That I do whatever I can for my neighbor's good, that I treat others as I would like them to treat me, and that I work faithfully so that I may share with those in need (Isa. 58:5-10; Matt. 7:12; Gal. 6:9-10; Eph. 4:28).

Catechism #108-109

2011-05-31T12:30:00.004-04:00

You know, studying the Bible with a 10yr old, and especially a 7yr. old, can get awkward at times. Talking about adultery and unchastity is one of those times. Glad the Bible forces me into uncomfortable conversations; after all, I am commanded to 'teach them [the commandments] diligently' to my children (Deut 6:7)!

Question #108: What is God's will for us in the seventh commandment?

Answer: God condemns all unchastity. We should therefore thoroughly detest it and, married or single, live decent and chaste lives (Lev. 18:30; Eph. 5:3-5;Jude 22-23
^3 1 Cor. 7:1-9; 1 Thess. 4:3-8; Heb. 13:4)

Question #109: Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such scandalous sins as adultery?

Answer: We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why he forbids everything which incites unchastity, whether it be actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 5:18; Matt. 5:27-29; 1 Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 5:3-4)

Song of the Week

2011-05-31T09:55:00.002-04:00

I think Matt may have been the first to turn me on to the Civil Wars. I love their music - reminds me a little of the Cowboy Junkies. This is an incredibly sad song. I love it.

The Civil Wars, "Poison and Wine"

The Goal of Education

2011-05-27T13:45:00.001-04:00

I remember vividly a conversation I had with my mother in our kitchen in Endicott, NY. I was a senior in high school and was in the midst of making decision regarding my educational future. I was not overly excited about college. In fact, I was going round and round with my mother, arguing that the only real purpose in college was to get a good job, so I could send my kids to a good college when they grew up, so they could get good jobs and send their kids to a good college when they grew up, ad infinitum. Admittedly, it was a shallow and cynical view of education, but one that had been confirmed by society and my educational environment. It's also a mindset that is easy to pass on to our kids. When they ask, why do I need to learn this, how do we answer? Is learning all about 'utility', about acquiring skills we'll need in the marketplace to make money? If so, then why do we really need to know about the ancient civilizations of Indiana? Or great literature? Or ethics? If it's all about being productive, what about further education as an adult? And what about learning in the church - is it just about producing leaders or evangelists, etc.?

Thankfully I've set aside the cynicism of my pre-college years and have recently begun to think a lot more about the 'how' and the 'why' of good education - both in the school and the church setting.

Now, older and a little wiser, if (when) my kids ask "why should we learn about _______________?" my simple answer is, "to make you a better worshiper of the true and living God." Certainly other byproducts of education are important also - like becoming a wise person who can make informed and godly decisions, becoming a person of virtue, becoming a contributing member of society (not just in terms of economy), etc. But in the end, I think these byproducts should be subsumed under the big goal of worship, or 'glorifying God'.

For years now, I've been praying with my kids each night and have included a sentence or two like "help them to sleep well tonight (with no bad dreams and no bad thoughts), so they can wake up rested and ready to go to school and learn all about the world you created."

I realized a couple nights ago that I'm fighting an uphill battle. I asked the boys why they go to school and learn to read and write and do math. Their first response, "to get a good job." The system is hell-bent on turning us into cogs in the wheel. I shouldn't be surprised, but I realized how much work I have to do to impress upon the Christ-centered, God glorifying nature of education, of knowledge. They won't learn it from their teachers, nor will they learn it by osmosis. Not even an short sentence every night before bed. It's going to take a concerted effort to point their minds to the God that stands behind the orderliness of geometry, the story of history, the beauty of art and music, and the wonder of science. I look forward to our summer and doing this work together!

Boys, it's not about the job, it's about God. And it's about the end for which God created us - to glorify him and enjoy him forever. Enjoying him includes enjoying his creation, his world, his good gifts. It requires you live rightly. All of these are the proper goals of education. A job you enjoy is too. But lets keep the first things first - learning about these things don't just make you useful, they make God bigger in your eyes (if you have eyes to see him).

I really enjoyed and would recommend the book by Paul Spears and Steven Loomis Education for Human Flourishing: A Christian Perspective (Christian Worldview Integration).

PS. Boys, get good jobs so you can take care of mom and me when we're old and decrepit!

Catechism #105-107

2011-05-25T09:37:00.002-04:00

Caleb's great question from the catechism: if God said don't murder, why did Jesus change the law. Was ok to hate your neighbor in the OT? Short answer - No. Love has always been the command. I can see why Caleb would ask this, and frankly, the way we talk about the OT and it's relationship to the new contributes to the confusion. We talk of an 'internalization' of the law, as though God didn't care about the heart in the OT. That couldn't be further from the truth! See, for example, the 10th commandment. The prohibition against coveting is clearly a heart matter. Moreover, Jesus' summary of the law (Matthew 22:36-40) is taken directly from the OT - Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18,34).

Question #105: What is God's will for you in the sixth commandment?

Answer: I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor— not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds— and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge.

I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either. Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword (Gen. 9:6; Lev. 19:17-18; Matt. 5:21-22; 26:52; Prov. 25:21-22; Matt. 18:35; Rom. 12:19; Eph. 4:26; Matt. 4:7; 26:52; Rom. 13:11-14; Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:14; Rom. 13:4)

Question #106: Does this commandment refer only to killing?

Answer: By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God's sight all such are murder (Prov. 14:30; Rom. 1:29; 12:19; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 John 2:9-11; 1 John 3:15)

Question #107: Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such way?

Answer: No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies (Matt. 7:12; 22:39; Rom. 12:10; Matt. 5:3-12; Luke 6:36; Rom. 12:10, 18; Gal. 6:1-2; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:8; Ex. 23:4-5; Matt. 5:44-45; Rom. 12:20-21 (Prov. 25:21-22)).

Catechism #104

2011-05-24T11:30:00.000-04:00

Question #104: What is God's will for you in the fifth commandment?

Answer: That I honor, love, and be loyal to my father and mother and all those in authority over me; that I obey and submit to them, as is proper, when they correct and punish me; and also that I be patient with their failings— for through them God chooses to rule us (Ex. 21:17; Prov. 1:8; 4:1; Rom. 13:1-2; Eph. 5:21-22; 6:1-9; Col. 3:18- 4:1; Prov. 20:20; 23:22; 1 Pet. 2:18; Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-8; Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18-21).

Calvin on the Secret Counsels of God

2011-05-24T09:19:00.004-04:00

Last night some monstrous storms rocked Bloomington. Jake know enough to be scared of storms like that - he heard about Joplin. Luke, trying to comfort his older brother was singing "Jesus Loves Me". Last night we saw the news and saw how bad some parts of Bloomington were hit. By God's mercy, nothing compared to Joplin, but bad enough.

This morning I was watching the news as I was getting ready and one of the programs had an interview with Harold Camping. "Oops," he says, "I was five months off. Judgment Day is still coming in 2011, but not till Oct. 21. Sorry."

What do these two things have to do with one another. Calvin addresses both in a great paragraph regarding the 'use' of the doctrine of providence. Understanding the providence of God should deepen our faith and trust in him in the midst of storms, literal and figurative, and humble us enough not to speculate into the hidden things of God. Here's the paragraph:

We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

Catechism #103

2011-05-23T09:25:00.001-04:00

I love this Q&A, especially the second part of the answer connecting the Sabbath command to our eternal rest and how we experience the eternal Sabbath of God even now. Wonderful.

Question #103: What is God's will for you in the fourth commandment?

Answer: First, that the gospel ministry and education for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I regularly attend the assembly of God's people to learn what God's Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor.

Second, that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin already in this life the eternal Sabbath (Deut. 6:4-9, 20-25; 1 Cor. 9:13-14; 2 Tim. 2:2; 3:13-17; Tit. 1:5; Deut. 12:5-12; Ps. 40:9-10; 68:26; Acts 2:42-47; Heb. 10:23-25; Rom. 10:14-17; 1 Cor. 14:31-32; 1 Tim. 4:13; 1 Cor. 11:23-25; Col. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:1; Ps. 50:14; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8 & 9; Isa. 66:23; Heb. 4:9-11).

Song of the Week

2011-05-23T09:14:00.000-04:00

The Frames, "Falling Slowly"

Smallville and Satanic Counterfeiting

2011-05-18T12:00:00.000-04:00

Most all of my favorite shows have come and gone - usually very quickly. The Unit - gone. Defying Gravity - gone. The longest running of my favorite shows was Smallville, which just ended its tenth and final season Friday night. It was awesome, and reminded me of truth that is so clear in Revelation - Satan mimics, poorly, God and his ways.

The main villain this season has been the sinister Darkseid. He's not a typical super villain - not a Lex or a ToyMaker or Mantis. He's darker, more evil, more supernatural. He isn't bent on money or power, but on corrupting humanity, destroying souls and eventually bringing Apokolips - his home planet that will destroy earth.

Interestingly, the finale was filled with biblical language and images - destroying the soul, Savior, Rapture (those who turned evil and followed Darkseid would be raptured away), light and darkness. There was even an unholy Trinity of Granny Goodness, Desaad, and Godfrey and a resurrection of Lionel Luther, now quickened by Darkseid - oh, and of Lex Luthor now powered by Lionel's exhumed heart. Good TV, but not that original. See the book of Revelation for a lot of the same stuff.

Satan mimics, counterfeits, God's work. The list of counterfeitting activities exposed in the book of Revelation is long (I'm indebted to Vern Poythress and his commentary
The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation for putting this major theme on display for me). Here's a short list:

- Satan (the Dragon) creates/calls forth the Beast, which by John's description is an almost exactly replica of the Dragon (compare 12:3ff and 13:1ff). What's going on here? Satan is mimicking God, creating in his grotesque image.

- The Beast becomes a 'son' of the Dragon, a counterfeit Christ.

- Satan also counterfeits the person and work of the Spirit through the person and ministry (false, obviously) of the False Prophet (identified in 16:13) who performs miracles (13:13), promotes worship of the Beast and exercises all authority on behalf of the Beast (13:12). Again, poor counterfeits. Whereas the Holy Spirit guides us into the truth (John 16:13), the False Prophet deceives (Rev. 13:14).

- These three together form an unholy, counterfeit trinity.

- Poythress really does a good job explicating how the Beast mimics Christ:

The Beast has ten crowns on his horns (13:1). In Rev. 19:12 Christ has “many crowns” on his head. The Beast has “blasphemous names” (13:1). Christ has worthy names (19:12, 13, 16). The Beast has great power (13:2). Christ has divine power and authority (12:5, 10). The Beast experiences a counterfeit resurrection. It seemed to have “a fatal wound,” but the wound was healed (13:3). The counterfeit character of the Beast is clear in this feature. The Beast did not actually die and come to life again. He did not experience an actual resurrection. But he had a wound that one would think should have led to his death. His recovery was marvelous and astonishing, so astonishing that it was a big factor in leading people to follow him. Just as the resurrection of Christ is the chief event that astonishes people and draws them to follow Christ (John 12:32), so here this counterfeit miracle, a counterfeit resurrection, leads to following the Beast. The Beast receives worship (13:4); Christ receives worship (5:8-10). The worshipers offer a song of praise to the Beast, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” (13:4). This song blasphemously counterfeits the song offered to God at the exodus, “Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you—majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?” (Exod. 15:11). The Beast has a seal that is put on his followers (13:16). In parallel fashion Christ seals his followers with the seal of his name on their foreheads (14:1). At the last day people from all nations will worship Christ (5:9), and he will exercise his authority over all. Meanwhile, the Beast “was given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation” (13:7).

- Lastly, at least for this post, Satan counterfeits God's people. In Revelation and elsewhere, the church is portrayed as Christ's bride, pure and holy. The counterfeit image of the bride is the prostitute of Rev. 17-18. Satan's whore is impure and unholy, corrupt and immoral, representing his false worshipers.

I'll allow Poythress to bring it home with some good application:

The fact that Satan engages in counterfeiting helps us to understand and prepare for the spiritual war. Counterfeiting implies both danger and hope. The danger lies in the fact that Satan may fool people. The counterfeit is close enough to the truth to suck people into its grip.

But hope lies in the fact that Satan and his cohorts will surely be defeated. In fact, their defeat is implied in the facts about who they are. Satan aspires to be god. But he cannot succeed. He is not the creator or originator, but only an imitator. He is constantly dependent on God. Similarly, the Beast is bestial, subhuman, and his kingdom must submit to the kingdom of the Man, the last Adam.

Revelation also gives us a key for escaping Satan’s deceit. Though Satan continues to deceive the world, Revelation unmasks his devices in order to arm us to resist him. The world is in awe of the Beast and willingly worships him (13:3-4, 7). But when our eyes are enlightened by Revelation, we see how hideous he is. We may still be tempted to fear him because he looks so powerful. But, having seen him for what he is, can we honestly want to have him as our master?

Song of the Week

2011-05-16T11:09:00.003-04:00

Inspired by my movie watching this weekend - the Fighter.

Simon and Garfunkel, "The Boxer"

Sanctity of Human Life

2011-05-16T11:04:00.003-04:00

This week I was leading a discussion for the college students on 'the big story' of the Bible. We started, of course, with creation (after a brief prologue on the eternal community of the Trinune God). I am reminded almost daily how important Genesis 1-3 are for us as believers. There is so much explanatory power in those three chapters. Together, we spent a fair bit of time discussing the following verses:

[Genesis 1:26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
[27] So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. [30] And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. [31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

As I was preparing last week to lead this discussion, I was also reading a great book Education for Human Flourishing: A Christian Perspective (Christian Worldview Integration). I stumbled upon this quote from Peter Singer, a Princeton ethicist (quoted unapprovingly):

The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct. (from "The Sanctity of Human Life," Foreign Policy, September-October 2005, pg. 40)

The sanctity of life, so important to a truly Christian view of the world and so deeply rooted in Scripture, is being challenged in multiple ways. There are those, like Singer, who denigrate human life directly - lowering mankind to nothing more than another animal species, denying humanity possesses any immaterial soul. Others, it seems to me, denigrate humanity indirectly, by elevating nature to the level of humanity - like the Bolivian government recently putting 'Mother Earth' on equal footing with humanity, granting her (it) human rights.

Christians should obviously be very concerned about these societal trends. But, beyond the broader societal implications, it would behoove us all, as believers, to ponder often whether our actions towards our neighbors reflects the dignity with which God has bestowed them. They too are image bearers, whether of a different gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. All of us are image bearers, and in each and every one of us the image has been marred and twisted by sin. Still, as image bearers, we possess an inherent dignity that is uncommon - no other part of God's good creation shares it.

In Lewis' The Weight of Glory, he argues that while it may be possible to think to often of our own dignity and glory, it isn't possible to think to often of our neighbors dignity and glory. He continues, "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit...Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to our senses."

Though we readily affirm humans are all image bearers, does our lack of civility brings our beliefs into question? Do we really believe it? Do we live as though each ?

Calvin the Uncertain Theologian

2011-05-12T10:54:00.000-04:00

I'm only 150 pages into Calvin's Institutes. Yes, I'm a slow reader and I'm reading like six books at the same time. Anyway, one of the first impressions I have regarding the Institutes and its author is his humility. I'm impressed with how many times Calvin simply says 'I don't know', or words to that effect. This image of Calvin the uncertain theologian is quite contrary to what I would have expected if I only knew of Calvin through contemporary Calvinists who seem to have everything nailed down.

In the last few chapters Calvin has expressed a lack of certainty regarding some aspects of the Trinity (i.e. usefulness of analogies), of Creation (i.e. why God waited an eternity before creating), and of angels (when specifically they were created). He chastises those who are overly curious about such details and refuses to speculate where Scripture doesn't give us any insight.

His humility is genuine. He doesn't fail to speak where Scripture does. He doesn't call everything we know into question (not a Bell-like false humility that questions if we can know what God has made plain through revelation). He simply refuses to speak about things that are too lofty, too mysterious, or on things that God hasn't chosen to speak. Here is a great quote from Book 1, Chapter 14 (about angels):

Not to dwell on this, let us here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this, in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let us rest satisfied with such knowledge...The duty of a Theologian, however, is not to tickle the ear, but confirm the conscience, by teaching what is true, certain, and useful...Bidding adieu, therefore, to that nugatory [of little of no consequence] wisdom, let us endeavour to ascertain from the simple doctrine of Scripture what it is the Lord's pleasure that we should know concerning angels.

Catechism #101-102

2011-05-11T11:13:00.002-04:00

I forgot to post the next series of question from the catechism on the third command:

Question #101: But may we swear an oath in God's name if we do it reverently?

Answer: Yes, when the government demands it, or when necessity requires it, in order to maintain and promote truth and trustworthiness for God's glory and our neighbor's good.

Such oaths are approved in God's Word and were rightly used by Old and New Testament believers (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Jer. 4:1-2; Heb. 6:16; Gen. 21:24; Josh. 9:15; 1 Kings 1:29-30; Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23).

Question #102: May we swear by saints or other creatures?

Answer: No. A legitimate oath means calling upon God as the one who knows my heart to witness to my truthfulness and to punish me if I swear falsely. No creature is worthy of such honor (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23; Matt. 5:34-37; 23:16-22; James 5:12).

Funnnnnnny

2011-05-10T09:54:00.004-04:00

From the Sacred Sandwich:

Christ's Presence with Us

2011-05-10T08:54:00.000-04:00

Last week I read an article by Jason Stellman on the mission and style of the church. It's a very good article that explores briefly"how the seeds of missional ecclesiology can be sown in churchly soil, which pays attention to things such as the marks of the church and the ordinary means of grace" ("Missionalism, Church Style," in Modern Reformation). The point of the article deserves a post or series of posts, which may come later. But I wanted to take up another line of thinking Stellman stimulated with the following sentence:

"The fact of the matter is that Jesus is simply no longer present with his people in the physical and local way that he once was; but rather, in this period of overlap between Christ's ascension and second coming, the way his presence is mediated to his people is by the Holy Spirit through the church, an outpost of grace."

Really focus is on that phrase "they way his presence is mediated to his people is by the Holy Spirit" and ask, "What does that mean?"

Obviously, we don't encounter Jesus in the a "local" way - he isn't geographically, physically present with us, not even when we're in the sanctuary on a Sunday morning. Christ ascended into heaven and is seated at the Father's right hand in heaven (Acts 1:6-11; Rom. 8:33-34; Heb. 10:11-13). After his ascension, Christ is really, in his flesh and blood, absent from his people. Christ, ever the God-man, is not omnipresent in his flesh and blood. He is, in his humanity, finite.

But, at the same time, Christ promised his presence with us till the end of the age (Matt. 28:20), and that he would be present wherever two or more are gathered in his name (Matt. 28:20). How is this possible? Two common responses leave us a little confused.

First, some might say argue that Christ is present with us in his divine nature, but not with us in his human nature. I think, however, that misses something important. Christ promises his personal presence with us, not simply the presence of his divine nature. Orthodox Christology maintains that in the person of Christ two natures exist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us" (Definition of Chalcedon). If Christ is with us personally, he must be with us in the fullness of his personhood, which, from the time of his incarnation means both his human and divine natures.

Others might wish to answer that Christ is with us is the Spirit. Yes, but I think we have to be careful and clear here. We often treat the Spirit as a substitute or surrogate for Jesus, as though the Spirit indwelling us is what Christ was promising when he said he would be with us. I think that's a mistake, a confusion of the persons of the Trinity. The Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Son.

So, "[our communion with Christ] is not simply with Christ in his divine nature separately taken, or with the Holy Ghost as the representative of his presence in the world..." (John Williamson Nevin, The Mystical Presence).

How then is Christ personally present with us? He is present through the Spirit. The key is the preposition through (or by in that original quote by Jason Stellman). The Spirit bridges the gap between us here on earth and Christ in heaven, making Christ in his person present with us. Horton writes, "The Spirit is the mediator of, not the surrogate for, Christ's person and work" (The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way). Robert Reymond, speaking more specifically of our union with Christ, speaks of the Spirit acting almost like an umbilical cord, connecting saints on earth to the Son in heaven (A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated). I think there is something to that. Christ is with us, especially made present in the sacraments and the word. At the same time, we are with Christ (Eph 2:4-6; see also Col 3:1-4). How can I, as a finite man be here and in heaven with Christ? How can Christ, also finite in his humanity, be here and in heaven? Through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Miraculous, mysterious, glorious.

Song of the Week

2011-05-09T09:50:00.002-04:00

This is a great song off the Foo Fighters new album 'Wasting Light'. If I'm catching the gist of it, the song speaks powerfully to the 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' mentality that so besets us.

Foo Fighters, "Arlandria" (performed live on The Late Show)

So Cruel...So Funny

2011-05-05T08:51:00.001-04:00

I have to admit, I still don't see how Twitter is useful in any way, but I'm trying. On the plus side, this came across my Twitter feed yesterday.

Scientists Successfully Teach Gorilla It Will Die Someday

Catechism #99-100

2011-05-04T09:54:00.003-04:00

I have loved this study with the boys, but I'm not sure how to live this out practically in a post-Christendom world (the parts about being a silent bystander and question #100 in particular). Should I confront everyone who takes God's name in vain - turn the channel every time I hear it? Not sure - thoughts?

Question #99: What is God's will for us in the third commandment?

Answer: That we neither blaspheme nor misuse the name of God by cursing, perjury, or unnecessary oaths, nor share in such horrible sins by being silent bystanders.

In a word, it requires that we use the holy name of God only with reverence and awe, so that we may properly confess him, pray to him, and praise him in everything we do and say (Lev. 24:10-17; Lev. 19:12; Matt. 5:37; James 5:12; Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; Ps. 99:1-5; Jer. 4:2; Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10; Ps. 50:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:8; Col. 3:17).

Question #100: Is blasphemy of God's name by swearing and cursing really such serious sin that God is angry also with those who do not do all they can to help prevent it and forbid it?

Answer: Yes, indeed. No sin is greater, no sin makes God more angry than blaspheming his name. That is why he commanded the death penalty for it (Lev. 5:1; Lev. 24:10-17).

Celebrate or Mourn over Bin Laden?

2011-05-03T09:09:00.002-04:00

So, what was your reaction when the news broke that Bin Laden had been killed. If I'm honest, mine was pretty flat. I was amused that it broke in on Trumps show. I was (am) incredibly cynical when I hear people talk about the end of the war on terror and a new age. I scoffed when reporters spoke of this as 'the biggest news story since 9/11'. Really.

I didn't think too much about how I should react - till this morning at least (this post was started on 5/2). My Google Reader was filled with thoughts about Bin Ladens death, my Facebook page was equally loaded with peoples comments - some expressing jubilation, others chastising those who would rejoice in the death of a man, evil though he was.

How should we respond? By rejecting either-or ways of thinking (or feeling). I am confident we should be both rejoicing and mourning.

As many have pointed out, God himself does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. God, through the prophet Ezekiel asks, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23). Likewise, Peter reminds us "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

So, God does not delight in the death of the wicked...Or does he?

I am entirely convinced that nothing happens apart from God's sovereignty. The casting of the lot, the flashing of lightning, the growing of the grass, the feeding of young animals, the affairs of nations, the decisions of a king, and all aspects of our life are in God's sovereign control. Nothing happens apart from God's will - not even the death of his Son, a heinously wicked act.

Moreover, the psalmist declares that God does what pleases him.

Psalm 115:3 - "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases."
Psalm 135:6 - "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."

So, did the death of Bin Laden please God? Should it please us? Or is God grieved? Should we grieve?

Yes, and yes. Yes and yes.

God does delight in justice. He does not want the wicked to go unpunished. In fact, He commands that judgment be executed and the wicked punished (see Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16; Deut. 25:2; Ezra 7:25-26; Prov. 17:15). God himself executes justice (Ps. 9:16, and many more), and God does place the responsibility of executing judgment into the hands of men to whom he has granted this authority (Jer. 21:12; Ezra 7:26; Rom. 13:1-4). Moreover, we are given examples of rejoicing when God executes judgment (Deut. 32:39-43; Ps. 58:10-11; Rev. 18:20; Rev 19:1-5).

[Sidebar: I am in no way meaning to say that enemies of the US are God's enemies. We are not God's chosen nation, not even a Christian nation. The point is, God executes judgment against evil and God's people do celebrate that].

Let me say it bluntly. It is good Bin Laden has been killed. Justice has been served by those whom are charged with executing it - not private individuals, but agents of the government in whom God has placed the sword to execute judgment. We should celebrate that justice long delayed has finally been meted out. We should celebrate, and grieve.

I have seen many comparisons between celebrations here in the US after the news of Bin Laden's death and celebrations in other parts of the world when the Twin Towers fell. Stop it. It is an awful comparison. Those who celebrated the death of the more than 3000 on 9/11 were celebrating the death of noncombatant men, women and children. Those who celebrate the death of Bin Laden celebrate justice being served in the death of an wicked man who murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children. I honestly wish there was more sobriety in our celebrations, more gravitas, but I won't begrudge those who take a deep sigh of relief and let out a whoop.

I know this post is weighted towards the 'rejoice' side over against the 'weep' side. I want us to feel both profoundly, but the buzz I have been reading from Christians seemed to almost wholly neglect this side of it. So, in typical fashion, I'm sure I've over-corrected.

Song of the Week

2011-05-02T09:10:00.001-04:00

Going along with my reading of Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

KoRn, "Another Brick in the Wall

Lutheran Pastors

2011-04-29T19:45:00.003-04:00

With honor and respect for Rich, my Lutheran pastor friend...

Oh, and I had to add this one too:

Catechism #96-98

2011-04-28T11:20:00.003-04:00

For some reason, God is trying to drive this home for me this week. Not only was the second commandment the focus of our family devotions but also of my reading in Calvin's Institutes (Book 1, ch. 11).

Question #96: What is God's will for us in the second commandment?

Answer: That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his Word (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:22-23; Lev. 10:1-7; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; John 4:23-24).

Question #97: May we then not make any image at all?

Answer: God can not and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one's intention is to worship them or to serve God through them (Ex. 34:13-14, 17; 2 Kings 18:4-5)

Question #98: But may not images be permitted in the churches as teaching aids for the unlearned?

Answer: No, we shouldn't try to be wiser than God. He wants his people instructed by the living preaching of his Word—not by idols that cannot even talk (Rom. 10:14-15, 17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19; Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-20)

The Cosmic Gospel that Speaks to Individual Sinners

2011-04-26T12:23:00.001-04:00

How big is the gospel? Recently, more emphasis has been placed on the cosmic and corporate natures of the gospel. God is saving or redeeming all things in Christ. God has a cosmic plan to undo all the damning effects of sin. The good news spreads grace 'as far as the curse is found'. Yes, yes and Amen. In my upbringing, this great truth wasn't emphasized much, and I really appreciate the bigness of it.

But... Does the gospel have anything to say about how I, as a wretched sinner, will find a place in God's new world? With the emphasis on the bigness and cosmic nature of redemption, I feel we can go too far in that direction and end up overlooking and undervaluing the individual nature of gospel salvation.

The beauty of the new heavens and new earth is that sin and evil are obliterated, all of God's enemies are destroyed, nothing impure or unholy is permitted entrance. Wonderful. Oh, but wait, we're all sinners (Rom. 3:23), we're by nature God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:3), and unholy (Rom. 3:10; Rom. 5:6).

A gospel that doesn't address the question of how an individual sinner is reconciled to a holy God is not gospel at all. The full gospel includes the good news that God is redeeming all things, undoing the effects of the curse, and has by grace through faith in Christ reckoned sinners to be saints and included them in his redemptive purposes.

For a great discussion of this, see DA Carson's article 'What is the Gospel? - Revisited' (especially the subheading 'The Gospel in Its Wide and Narrow Senses' starting on pg. 159). This essay appears in the book For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper.

Sojourn Music New Album

2011-04-26T09:34:00.003-04:00

The new CD from Sojourn Music came out yesterday: The Water and The Blood !!!!

Sojourn music is far and away my favorite worship music being produced right now (Red Mountain Church Music is next on the list). For artistry, they get five stars. For theological content of the music, five stars. This CD is a collection of Isaac Watts hymns (Watts, not Newton). Ok, for singability, I can only give it three stars. I'm sure they've gotten used to it as a congregation.

I have loved all five of the cd's I've purchased from them and encourage you to give them a listen.

Song of the Week

2011-04-25T12:10:00.001-04:00

Not sure if I love this song or hate it. Certainly, not in my 'sweet spot' musically, but diversity is good, right?! First heard this on the Heineken commercial.

The Asteroids Galaxy Tour, "Golden Age"

Why don't we have a lot of details?

2011-04-22T13:24:00.002-04:00

Jon Bloom writes, "One astonishing thing about the Gospel accounts of the death of Jesus is that they include almost no detail. They all simply say some form of 'they crucified him.'"

Why the sparse details? Read here.