Scott McKnight on the Neo Reformed

Scott McKnight over at Jesus Creed has a great new post on the NeoReformed. I guess I'm a part of the NeoReformed movement in that I'm young (ish) and reformed. I would, however, like to think of myself as a reformed neoreformer. I hope I'm not mean-spirited and that I haven't erected any 'gates on the gateless green of evangelicalism'. You can read Scott's whole post.

As I said, I'm very much into Reformed theology, but I'm also very concerned by trends I see in many a young Calvin wannabe. First is the divisive spirit which McKnight contends with in his article. The second issue I have with many young Reformed guys is the drift away from sola scriptura to a scripture + piper or scripture + carson, scripture = the Institutes, etc. Again, I think I was probably there ten years ago (maybe even five) and I think I burned bridges. I don't mean this to come off as holier than thou. Rather, hear it as a plea. Maybe hear it as a challenge: figure out how to hold tightly to correct doctrine without being contentious. Don't allow the Christian faith to shrink to a few key doctrines, YET make sure their is enough room in your tent for those who disagree on the nonessential. Don't be wishy washy on doctrine, but don't be a bristly brush either. Know what you believe and still love others who disagree with you.

Song of the Week

This song comes off Kristian Stanfill's new(ish) EP "Attention". I also really like the songs 'Faithful' and 'Lord of All', though I really don't like 'Kingdom' (the theology is a little off). I could take or leave 'Wake Up' and 'Alive and Running'.

I Need You - Kristian Stanfill

The Silly Things Kids Cling To

For the last few days Luke has been grasping a few Pirates of the Caribbean Playing Cards, the 2-3-5-8-Queen of hearts and the Queen of Diamonds to be exact. He's taken them everywhere he's gone. He tried to take them into the bath, but mean old dad wouldn't let him. A while ago, Caleb was obsessed with a paper Chinese Star I made him and Jake clings to a piece of paper on which we drew all the NFL football helmets. Weird. I have no idea where these cards came from, maybe a birthday party or something. I'm pretty sure the deck is worth less than a dollar. Why do they hold onto things of so little worth so tightly?

I don't know, but I'm guessing God wonders about the same thing. Why do they cling to their status, to their homes, to their...It's not worth much and it'll all be gone soon enough:

1 John 2:15- 17, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever."

See also, Philippians 3:8, Romans 8:18, Matthew 13:44, Matthew 13:45-46.

Not sure if it's true of you, but I know it is of me - I need to be in constant prayer on this matter, asking God to give me eyes to see the true value of things.

Is Abortion a Private Issue?

Yesterday I took a few minutes and sent a letter to my Congressman urging him to sign the Jordan/Schuler letter to Nancy Pelosi encouraging her to keep the prolife 'riders' in upcoming appropriation bills ('riders' prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or perform abortion, protect the consciences of health care, professionals, and prevent funding for unethical human embryo experiments). While the Freedom of Choice Act has not yet been introduced, there is a proper fear that many parts of this ghastly bill are being stealthily snuck into the Stimulus Package. Jordan and Schuler are "requesting that the pro-life riders be included in any legislation reported out of the Appropriations Committee. If the riders are not added to the appropriations bills, then we are asking the Rules Committee to report a rule that allows for consideration of any deleted riders on the floor of the House of Representatives. We believe that failure to include all of the current policies with regard to the right to life will mark a radical departure from a policy many Americans support." I would encourage you to write/email your Congressman and encourage them to sign the letter as well.

I definitely appreciate the fact that my Congressman (or a staffer) took the time to respond to me. While I don't know if he will sign the letter, he did point out that he opposes partial birth abortion and voted yes on H.R. 3660, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. Also, he voted for H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act, which would "make it a federal crime for an adult, other than a parent, to transport a minor across state lines to have an abortion in order to circumvent parental consent laws." He also voted for H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which "would impose criminal penalties on people who, through violent acts against pregnant women, cause prenatal injuries or terminate pregnancies." Finally, he pointed out that he is a cosponsor of H.R. 1074, the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which "aims to reduce the abortion rate by preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and assisting new parents."

I am very appreciative of his efforts to reduce the number of abortions and his willingness to stand for life in these ways. I am hopeful that HR 1074 will have a big impact on the number of women seeking to have an abortion.

Having said that, I am also somewhat puzzled by the conclusion to his email. He writes, "While I personally oppose abortion, I ultimately believe abortion is a private matter in which the federal government should not be involved." I am confused, in part, because the majority of the email was spent showing the ways he has, as a government agent, supported government involvement in the issue.

More to the point, however, I need clarification on why the taking of life is strictly a private matter and not an issue that government should involve themselves in. I am sure that the Congressman and others of this opinion do not see fetus' (at least those that are not viable outside the womb) as fully human. This then, in their mind, is the great difference between abortion and infanticide (which I am sure he would be opposed to). But in what way exactly is a fetus different. Is it different because it is dependent upon the mother for survival? So are most six month olds. Certainly independence isn't a test of personhood. If it was, many elderly would not be considered full persons (fully human). Is the fetus different anatomically? No, not really. Hearts start beating before week 6 and the head, eyes, liver and intestines are forming as well. Is it different with regard to DNA? No.

My point is that any distinction between a fetus (who is not protected under law) and a person (who is) is completely arbitrary and sets us down a slippery slope of determining which lives are valuable and deserving of protection and which are not. John Piper makes this point clearly, relying on the logic of Abraham Lincoln (appropriate today, Lincoln's birthday). Piper's Jan 22nd blog post (in part):

What are the differences between this child before and after birth that would justify its protection just after birth but not just before? There are none. This is why Abraham Lincoln’s reasoning about slavery is relevant in ways he could not foresee. He wrote:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own's.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (“Fragments: On Slavery")

There are no morally relevant differences between white and black or between child-in-the-womb and child-outside-the-womb that would give a right to either to enslave or kill the other.

Explaining A-Rod to Caleb

On Friday Caleb came home all excited. That morning we sent him with $7 to buy a book from the schools book fair. He came home with "The 50 Best Baseball Players of 2008". By the way, three Indians made the list (Sizemore, Sabbathia and Martinez). In the number one spot, Alex Rodriguez. Saturday, the news broke that in 2003 that A-Rod tested positive for two different kinds of steroids. The discussion came on Sunday when Caleb asked the question, "Did A-Rod cheat?" Yep, it appears he did (so put your bat down and stop gloating you jackass). It was actually a great chance to talk to Caleb about what I'd call 'cultural sins', though I didn't use those words. We spoke about how sometimes so many people are doing something, like taking drugs to make themselves better athletes, that it seems okay to do it. It might even seem like a necessity (I'm sure many ball player thought they needed to cheat to keep up, and I'm sure many kids have been tempted to cheat in school to keep up too). Problem is, it's still wrong. Now A-Rod will have the asterisk next to his name too (along with Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, Clemens, and all the rest).

If Caleb were a couple years older I would love to have pushed the conversation, urging him to consider what sins we as Christians living in the 21st century West are able to condone because so many people are doing it? What sins are we blinded to in our lives and churches? To me, it's a scary question to ask, but a scarier question not to ask.