Song (s) of the Week

Just a little timewarp this week. Twenty years ago, I was 14, weighed 80lbs less, didn't shave, and was strongly discouraged from listening to secular music (unless it was country western music or oldies - somehow that was ok?!). My music library consisted of Petra, Degarmo and Key, Bloodgood, Stryper, REZ, and a few more...Here's three of my favorite songs from Petra!

It Is Finished (Beat The System Album Version) - Petra

Grave Robber - Petra

Coloring Song, The - Petra

Family Worship Recap, week 2

After the first week's focus on the story of creation, we moved on this week to the story of the fall. We read together Genesis 3:1-7, Gen 3:8-13, and then Gen 3:14-24. After the first section we spoke of how Adam and Eve's is really a lack of trust in God - they didn't trust he was being good to them and believed the lie that he was holding out. When we prayed that night I spoke of 'our rebellion' and 'our lack of trust' and 'our disobedience'. I was hoping the kids would pick up on that, and Caleb didn't disappoint. He immediately asked, 'why did you say we/us/our when it was Adam who sinned?' I didn't answer that question but put him off for a few days. After the second section (Tues) we talked a lot about how we try to blame other people or things for our sin. This was a really good discussion. The third section led to Christ and how in the midst of God pronouncing judgment, he also offers good news - the seed of Eve will crush the head of the serpent. I showed them the beginning clip to the Passion of Christ (found it on YouTube) and we discussed how Christ was wounded but crushed the work and person of Satan on the cross.

We also looked at Psalm 51:1-12 and talked about how our sins are ultimately against God and that he is the one who must forgive (even when it's your brother you punched in the eye). Friday we looked at Romans 5:12-21 and that is when we came back to Caleb's question. I explained, as best I could, that Adam rebelled against God and as our representative through us all into rebellion. I tried to explain the idea of 'federal headship' by talking about the 'war on terror'. I pointed out that they had not declared war, yet the President had. When he declared war, he committed the whole country to war. Adam, in a way, was our President (our representative) and he disobeyed and rebelled (declared war) on God. Even though we weren't there, we are committed. Moreover, we might not be able to make peace, but the President can sign a treaty. That is what Christ did for all those who trust him - who choose Him as their representative (who are 'in Him'). Not a perfect illustration but the best I could come up with.

Saturday and Sunday we looked at Romans 3:9-20 and talked about how we all are sinners, not just Adam. We also looked at Romans 6:23ff and spoke of the just consequences for our sin and God's free gift of life in Jesus - focusing on the idea that we don't work for gifts, they are given because someone loves us. Lastly, we looked at Isaiah 64:4-7 and tried to enlarge they kids understanding of what sin is. Even the goods thing we do, if we do them with impure motives (they're always a mixed bag). We sat down and looked at some of the books we had picked up from the library: a couple on WW2, one on the Civil War, a Pirate Book, one on Jonas Salk, a Spider man book and a couple more. We thought about where sin showed up in each of the books (we didn't read each one right then). We did read a Bernstein Bear's book and talked about all the ways sin showed up in the story - not just in actions but in attitudes also.

I have to admit utter failure when it comes to creativity this week. The book thing was my best effort. I had thought about playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' as a way of communicating sin is 'missing the mark', but the whole being blindfolded thing seemed to communicate we don't know what God wants. As far as songs we sung, we stuck with two: Come Ye Sinners and Amazing Grace.

This week we move on from Adam and Eve to Noah. Shouldn't be hard to be creative here!

Clarification (s) on Cultural Mandate and Environmentalism

The two comments made on my last post spurred me on to clarify Frame's position. I have no interest in defending him, just clarifying what he actually says. Many of the 'objections' to Frame will be cleared up, I think, with clarification.

First, the section I quoted comes as Frame is discussing the cultural mandate as it comes to Adam in Genesis 1:28. In this discussion, Frame traces the historical development of the cultural mandate. He reminds us that "The first human experience recorded in Scripture is the experience of hearing this command...It defines the purpose of human life". The section I quoted comes in this context - the context of prefall man. Consequently, when Frame speaks of using creation to 'serve their own purposes', it is still in the context of man in right relationship with God. He makes that explicit in the paragraph that follows the quote I provided. He writes, "God gave this command to Adam and Eve for the same reason, ultimately, that he does everything else: for his own glory... Adam was not to rule merely for himself, but for God, glorifying God in all he did."

Frame moves on from this discussion of the cultural mandate in the prefall context to discuss, briefly, what it means after the fall. As sinner, he asserts, we seek our own glory instead of God's. Here Frame chooses to talk more about what is still good in culture rather than what is bad, clearly righting against those who would reject culture as all bad. If he had chosen to write about what sin has done to man and their ability to fulfill the cultural mandate, he would, I think, say we are incredible failures. We have exploited. We have failed to master what we should (though I don't think he would say we need to develop every square inch of the world - I'm guessing he'd be opposed to a mini-mall in the Grand Canyon National Park - but I am only guessing). Nations have horded and are greedy, unjust and often cruel in how they use up resources. Yet, and this is where Frame focuses, even in sinful cultures common grace can be found. Even in evil cultures, there is some good.

Moving from a discussion of the fall and it's impact on culture, and God's common grace and it's impact on the same cultures, Frame moves to discuss God's special saving grace and asks "Does God's saving grace make an impact on culture?" Here I think a definition of culture (long overdue) will help. Basically, Frame distinguishes creation (what God does directly) from culture. Culture is everything man does (God does through man since God is ultimately sovereign in all things), including: what we make with our hands (tools, houses, cities, art), what we make with our minds (language, systems of thought, philosophy, science, politics), our institutions (families, churches, governments, corporations), as well as our values, customs, games, sports, music, literature, cuisine, etc. Obviously, his definition is comprehensive - he's not just speaking of high culture, or 'culchah' as he describes it. Going back to the question, Frame argue that God's saving grace certainly has an impact on culture. He writes, "When you believe in Jesus, your whole life changes direction: your thoughts, words, and deeds. Whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, you seek to do it for God' s glory... You'll fail, because you won't be perfect until glory. But you'll try. And sometimes trying can make a huge difference. You can influence your culture, as many Christians have." Frame actually sees the cultural mandate as not only coming from God's command to humanity through Adam (and Noah), but also coming specifically to Christians in the Great Commission. Again, I'll let Frame speak for himself, "The Great Commission tells us not only to tell people the gospel and get them baptized, but also to teach them to obey everything Jesus has commanded us. Everything. The gospel creates new people, who are committed to Christ in every area of their lives. People like these will change the world. They will plant churches and establish godly families, and they will also establish hospitals, schools, arts, and sciences. That is what has happened by God's grace. And this is what will continue to happen until Jesus comes."

I think there is still plenty to critique here, but just wanted to make sure I represented Frame's position well.

The Cultural Mandate and Environmentalism

One of the things I'm most excited about in relation to the change in roles here at ECC is leading an ACG with Lynn in the fall (Lynn doing most of the social/community building stuff and me doing most, though not all, of the teaching). We're thinking about starting off with a series on Christ and Culture, so I've started reading up on the topic. Today, reading Frame (The Doctrine of the Christian Life) I read this and thought I'd share it and solicit feedback.

"There are two elements [to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28]: filling and ruling...As they fill the world, they are to rule it. They are not to be terrified by the natural world...Rather, they are to march through the world as kings and queens, taking possession of everything. They are to harness the animals, the heat and cold, the electricity and seismic energy, to serve their own purposes. That means development. Adam and Eve are not to leave the world untouched, as some radical environmentalists would prefer. Rather, they are to use the resources of God's creation, to bring out the potential of the heavens and the earth, to facilitate their rule under God. They are to turn the creation into a culture, into a home for human society.

Of course, use is one thing, and exploitation is something else...Just as Adam was to take care of the garden (Gen. 2:15), so Adam's family was to take care of the earth. God wanted them to use it and also to preserve it - to use, but not to use up. So God later told Israel to rest the land after six years of cultivation. Man is to rule the earth, but also to serve it. He is to be a servant-king. That is the basis of biblical environmentalism."

What do you think?

CBN Interview with Horton

This may be the only time I've ever, or will ever, link to CBN, but they interviewed Michael Horton on his book Christless Christianity, which I'm reading and have commented on.