Hymnus Deo

On the Death of Don Cornelius

2012-02-02T01:10:00.000-05:00

The apparent suicide of Don Cornelius is a sad thing, to say the least. Soul Train wasn't of interest to me, but I remember it coming on TV every Saturday afternoon after American Bandstand when I was a kid. Very little has been said in the articles I looked at about the fact that this was a suicide. Perhaps it's a reflection of the degenerate state of our culture, or perhaps it is just considered inappropriate, or too early, to comment much on that aspect. But it's amazing how common something like suicide is among the famous, or maybe moreso among the formerly famous. I can't say whether Don Cornelius was a Christian, of course. But it is certain that whatever the case was, he wasn't looking to Christ as his source of salvation. There was at least a serious failure in the realm of sanctification, or he never would have considered suicide. When this life is all you have, though, and especially if you think you've screwed that up, then it's easy to see why some consider suicide an option. But this sets out in sharp contrast the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous, the children of God and the children of the Devil. It's easy for the righteous to envy the unrighteous in their momentary pleasures. For a brief time, and with a limited view, they can fool most anybody into thinking that they hold time in their hands, and that their prosperity will follow them forever. But they fade like the beauty of the flower, as Scripture says, and meet the same end as everyone else. The wealthy, the famous, the talented - they aren't all they seem. We do ourselves well to refrain from thinking too much of celebrities.

Ex Cathedra

2012-01-15T07:10:00.001-05:00

There's something really troubling about the fact that some 150 Evangelical leaders, who promote studying God's Word for onesself and who present themselves as the opposite of Roman Catholicism's hierarchical approach, think they need to get together en masse and declare which candidate all other Evangelicals need to vote for. What makes less sense is that no list of the names of those participating in the meeting has been released. What's that all about? It would be fairly simple to put a list together and post it on the Web. If you won't do that, then why should anybody listen to you? I suppose Evangelicals can forget about that "using your own brain" stuff. The College of Cardinals has spoken.

Foundations That Can't Be Destroyed

2012-01-14T09:40:00.000-05:00

"If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) Many a preacher has used this verse as a rallying cry to the faithful, calling on God's people to rise up to action, in fear that the wicked may destroy God's work. And it has been useful to stir up emotion, and, no doubt in some cases, to bring about genuine diligence in the service of the Lord for His glory and for the blessing of His Church. But I think this is a misreading and therefore a misapplication of the verse. There is a quote that begins in verse 1 with the phrase "Flee as a bird to your mountain," and the question is: where does the quote end? I would suggest that it ends after the phrase "what can the righteous do". The speaker, whom the writer David is hearing and responding to, has lost sight of the all-seeing, all-directing, loving and sovereign Lord, in whom David trusts. Should I flee to the mountain? Should I fear when the wicked bends his bow? No. The foundations can't be destroyed. The Lord and Maker of the universe is in control of all things, including the wicked acts of wicked men. God will bless the righteous, but the wicked he will bring down in judgment. Rather than being used to stir up fear, this psalm is meant to give us comfort when we seem to be surrounded by evil, when we are tempted to believe there is no hope.

A Short Defense of Infant Baptism

2011-12-22T01:51:00.000-05:00

In an email dialogue tonight, a friend asked me to articulate a defense of infant baptism. A better defense would have been longer, but I threw this together rather quickly, brevity being key. I believe it gets to the core, and does a decent job explaining why we believe infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

***********************************************

God's way of relating to man is through His Covenant. The Covenant takes many forms throughout Scripture, which is something I won't get into right now. But we see in the Old Testament that the Covenant included not just believers, but also their children. In the Old Testament, the sign of the Covenant was circumcision. That's why God required Abraham, the recipient of God's covenant promises, to circumcise not only himself, but also his sons, his male servants, and their sons. They were all in God's covenant under Abraham's headship, so they had to receive the sign that they were in the covenant. The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is no longer something to be practiced, because the Old Covenant (or Testament - the words are interchangeable) is over. A new sign has been instituted, though, and that is baptism. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Lest we think that children are no longer in the covenant, and recipients of the covenant promises, Peter says in Acts 2:39, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And in the same breath, in verse 38, he commands all to be baptized. Rather than excluding children, he seems to very clearly include them. And in that context of his sermon, it's clear he is talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Colossians 2:11-12 seem to associate circumcision and baptism together - the circumcision of Christ, in which the body is put off, is the burial and resurrection of baptism.

One argument to consider is this: Hebrews 8:6 refers to the New Covenant as being a better covenant than the Old Covenant. How can it be a better covenant if children are excluded from it?

The baptist will say there are no infant baptisms in Scripture. But we would say that's irrelevant. There are three household baptisms mentioned in the NT: the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16), the household of Lydia (also Acts 16), and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). The implication of the word "household" is such that if infants were present, they would be included, as the whole household was baptized, none excluded. Also, while there are changes from the OT to the NT, there are lots of things that aren't changed. And we are offered no evidence in the NT to suggest that children are no longer in the covenant, and therefore aren't supposed to receive the covenant sign. Quite the contrary. To put it succinctly, God doesn't have to repeat Himself. And if he wants us to stop doing something, he always makes it clear. He nowhere says, "the covenant sign is only for those who are old enough to clearly and verbally articulate faith in me, and consent verbally to the covenant sign." That wasn't required in the OT, and so unless He tells us otherwise, we can safely assume that it isn't required in the NT.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2011-12-16T19:31:00.001-05:00

Saw "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" this evening. Enjoyed it. A couple of thoughts below (and some spoilers).

1.) Some have said it's better than the first one. I can't say I agree with that. But it was a good film.

2.) The most negative thing I have to say about it is that there was some measure of innuendo - some playing around with the notion of an unhealthy emotional relationship between Holmes and Watson, and other innuendo besides. Most of it came near the beginning of the film, but there were other moments throughout. It was a bit much, and enough to distract me from much of the rest of the good in the film. Many who watch this film probably won't be as attuned to such things; I'm not sure that's necessarily good. It's been a bigger trend with Hollywood of late, and one I wish they would lay off of.

3.) Good action scenes.

4.) The acting was great, as one would expect.

5.) The portrayal of Moriarty was fantastic. A wonderful and convincing bad guy, a perfect mixture of the psychotic and the genius.

6.) It's PG13, but there are things I wouldn't want my 13 year old to see if I had kids. Older teens, maybe, but not younger teens. For details, parents can always consult the parental advisory section on IMDB.com.

Our Native Narcissism

2011-12-02T17:21:00.000-05:00

When a person has any sort of ongoing illness or disease, they think everyone else should be as conscious of it as they are. Everyone in the world should be in their awareness walk fundraiser. When we have a close relative or friend dealing with a particular culture issue that affects them personally, why everyone else doesn't see it to be as important as we do is baffling to us. Those obsessed with Christian counseling see everything in terms of Christian counseling, and those who believe being "missional" is central to the church don't understand how we can't see what a radically important thing it is. Hands don't think feet are really needed, and feet don't get eyes. Our thing is always the only indispensable one. And in all of this, it never occurs to us that we aren't God.

The Waters of Baptism as Journeying Through the Wilderness

2011-11-15T15:18:00.001-05:00

"He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness" (Psalm 106:9, KJV). Israel's baptism in the Red Sea prefigured the baptism in the wilderness that they were about to undergo. Likewise, Jesus' baptism was immediately followed by his testing in the wilderness. "Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared'" (Mark 10:38-40, ESV) Jesus' baptism symbolized the suffering he was to endure; in the same way, the Christian's baptism not only points back to Jesus' baptism, being in union with him and his salvation, but it also symbolizes the sanctifying suffering each Christian experiences in this life, the wilderness journey prior to entering the promised country.

An Unfinished Ecclesiological Primer

2011-10-02T14:48:00.001-04:00

This is something I started writing for a specific situation a few years ago, but never completed or used. I thought I would put it here in its unfinished form, just for kicks. Comments are welcome.

***************************************

1.) There are three basics institutions in the world that were established by God. They are the church, the family, and the civil government. Because of the reality of living in a sinful world, these three institutions will often find themselves at odds with one another, and discerning how to reconcile them will often be difficult. All other institutions are secondary and derived, whether rightly or wrongly, from these three. Since God didn't establish these other institutions, their necessity and propriety is from the outset questionable. This isn't to say secondary institutions aren't necessary. But it is to say the burden of proving a particular institution's necessity is on the one who insists it is necessary, not on the one who questions it. Also, these secondary institutions are to be understood as temporary within the context of history, and for the purpose of addressing a specific problem. The only permanent institutions (that is, permanent until Christ's second coming) are the ones God Himself established. Secondary institutions exist because those in authority in the primary institutions are failing in the task God has assigned to them. Just because "things have always been done" thus and such a way, whether for the past ten years or the past one thousand, that doesn't mean they should be. If that were the case, then we should all be Roman Catholics and under the Divine Rule of the Queen of England.

2.) When God created the church, He intended it to follow a certain pattern. A church isn't just whatever we want to make it, and just because an organization bears the name "church" doesn't mean it is one, or that it is rightly ordered. Just like other issues in the Christian life, Scripture isn't always as clear on this as we would like it to be. God often speaks in veiled ways to us about these things, and it is our duty to find them out through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and to the best of our ability. And then, when we approach Scripture, we tend to take our own cultural baggage with us, which clouds our vision. Nonetheless, I believe certain things can be determined about church life, through study and reflection, which cannot ultimately be refuted. These would include the following.

A.) Church independency is unbiblical. There are no examples in Scripture of little pockets of believers starting up meetings that they call "church", who then remain structurally disconnected from all other local meetings. From the get-go in Acts, believers are saved, not in the fives and tens, but in the thousands. That means that there was never just one small parish church in each town in the early church, but lots of little churches that then composed one large church. This was true of Jerusalem, and that is why we are told that they broke bread house to house (Acts 2:46). To break bread means to celebrate the Lord's Supper together, which means worship. Where city churches are established in the New Testament, it is natural for us to think that meant one local congregation. But I would suggest that the word "church" in those contexts mean "a collection of individual parishes, all under one centralized authority", and all the historical and archaeological evidence points to that conclusion. In addition to this, the churches were started by and overseen by the Apostles and their authorized delegates, and so church unity existed under their authority.

All of this is not to say that those who start up a local church that is disconnected from all other churches are not saved, or that they are intentionally being disobedient. But it is to say that they are not following the pattern of Scripture, and a failure to follow Scripture always has negative results. Groups of people who are in unusual situations and who start churches (say, those living under a Communist regime who are consequently disconnected from the rest of the world) are to align themselves with other church bodies as God provides them the opportunity. And so, where church independency exists, it can only exist as a necessary evil.

This also means that denominationalism exists as a necessary evil as well. There should be structural unity between all true Christians throughout the world, but sin has created division. Whereas some Christians will break fellowship with you because you looked at them funny, others will unite with you no matter what you believe. Unity is the goal, but not at the expense of truth, though we might add that certain truths are more central than others.

B.) There are certain men to whom God has assigned the task of instructing other believers within the context of the church. They are referred to by different titles by different Christian denominations, but for simplicity's sake we will refer to them as the pastors of the church. Their office was established by the Apostles, and they were entrusted with the Gospel in a way that sets them apart from the laity of the church. This isn't to say that all believers aren't entrusted with the Gospel. But there is a sense in which the leaders of the church were entrusted with the Gospel in an authoritative way, distinct from the average Christian.

There are two lay offices in the church, that of the elders and deacons. They are to be able to teach, but their teaching is in addition to the teaching of the pastors, and is not essential to the church in the same way as that of the pastors.

There are opportunities for laypeople to teach, particularly within the family. Fathers are to teach their families; both fathers and mothers are to teach their children. We are to speak the truth, all of us, to one another, and you could call that, in a sense, teaching, though no authority is involved in such a situation, except insofar as the words spoke correspond to Scripture. But the task of teaching, within the authorized meetings of the church, is specifically assigned to the pastors. Any other teaching that takes place is extraordinary, and is generally, but not always, a result of a failure on the part of the pastorate.

If there are no pastors in the meeting of a group that it considers itself a church, then the group in question isn't a church. It may be filled with people who are truly saved, but their organization isn't a church, as Scripture speaks of it.

C.) The main meeting of the church is the Sunday worship service of the church. It is held on Sunday because Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath. It is also appropriate that it is held in the morning, in order to correspond roughly with the time of Jesus' resurrection, though this particular matter isn't absolutely necessary. The worship service is comprised of a few necessary elements: Singing Scripture-based songs, reading Scripture, preaching, prayer, Baptism (only when there is one present who needs to be baptized), and the Lord's Supper. These elements take different forms. For instance, the corporate confession of sin in worship is one form of prayer, and the declaration of pardon is one form of preaching. Without these elements, there is no Biblical worship service. That isn't to say that there isn't a sort of worship service happening when one or more of these elements is missing, or that the people involved aren't worshipping God. But the service they are participating in isn't structured after the Biblical pattern, and therefore isn't a Biblically constituted worship service.

This means that testimonies by laypeople, skits or any other form of drama, puppet shows, dance performances, or any other such activity that is common in Evangelical worship today, is unbiblical. This isn't to say that there isn't a place for such things elsewhere, but they have no place in corporate worship. These things have emerged in the church for a couple of reasons. Laypeople haven't carefully examined what Scripture says about worship. The ministers of the church have failed to teach on the subject. There has been a general antipathy toward the historic practice of the church in general, particularly with regard to worship. And popular culture (which may be better called commercial culture) has infiltrated the church and has so come to order our lives that we allow it to dictate everything we do.

There may be other worship services throughout the week, or additional services for prayer at other times. But the only service of the church that is binding upon the Christian is the once a week Sunday worship service.

Some Recent Typological Thoughts

2011-10-02T14:44:00.001-04:00

Just a few things, mostly related to Revelation 11, which my Bible study group is currently in.

*********************************************

In Luke 3, John the Baptist tells the people that whereas he was baptizing with water, one (Jesus) would come after him and baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (vs. 16). Peter follows the same pattern in 2 Peter 3 in distinguishing between the destruction of the ancient world and the destruction of "the heavens and the earth that now exist" (vs. 7). John the Baptist was a New Noah, leading the... repentant to safety through the flood waters, and bringing judgment on the unrepentant (1 Peter 3:18-22). Jesus would come to do the same, only this time with fire. As such, this seems to be the general pattern of the Old Testament (water) and the New Testament (fire), but also the pattern of the Christian life. Water is the means of Christian initiation, and fire the means of the Christian's sanctification (1 Peter 4:12).

********************************************************

The parallel between the Flood and the destruction of Jericho had never occurred to me before until this morning. Noah and his family entered the Ark, and in it was the only safety from the Flood. Likewise, the two spies told Rahab to bring her Father's family into the house. Outside of its doors none would be safe, but inside its doors none would be harmed by the flood of the Israelite army. It is reasonable then to see in both the Church, which is in Christ. All who are in Him are safe from destruction.

*********************************************************

The two spies that Joshua sends to Jericho remain strangely unnamed in the text. But it is obvious that they are intended to point back to those faithful spies Joshua and Caleb, who first spied out the land, with ten others who also were unnamed, and were the only ones who believed God's promise. In a similar vein, we see in Revelation 11 the two unnamed witnesses, testifying against Jerusalem (...vs. 8). The typology tells us they are intended to point back to Moses and Elijah (vs. 6). Like Moses they came in the spirit of the Law, and like Elijah they came in the spirit of the Prophets (Rom. 3:21), testifying against those who would not believe in Jesus, the one who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and through whom God would fulfill His promises. The same type of destruction that came upon Jericho would come upon Jerusalem as well.

*********************************************************

Absalom was killed while hanging from an oak tree, having been caught in the branches. And so he was a type of Christ. "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13)

*********************************************************

The two witnesses of Revelation 11 also point back to the two angels/men that Yahweh sent to examine Sodom after His conversation with Abraham (Genesis 18 & 19). It is the pattern of Scripture that judgment is made upon the testimony (witness) of two or three persons (Deut. 17:6, 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). And God, fulfilling His own Law, sent two angels, that they might exami...ne the state of Sodom and Gomorrah, to determine whether it was worthy of destruction (Gen. 18:20-21). As Yahweh sent fire down upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), so also fire would come from the mouths of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 as a judgment upon Jerusalem (Rev. 11:5). And lest we miss the parallel, we are told that this city was "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). Jerusalem had become Sodom as well as Jericho; the Jews had become pagan Gentiles, persecuting the Messiah and His True People, the Church, and were receiving the judgment of God for it.

**********************************************************

God had told His people Israel that if they did not obey the words of His covenant, he would bring the plagues that he put upon Egypt upon Israel themselves, and even take them back in captivity to Egypt (Deut. 28:60, 68). This was partly fulfilled in the days of the reigns of Jeroboam and Rehoboam. Jeroboam brought Egypt and its false worship to Israel, by setting up golden calves in Israel (1 ...Kings 12:28-29). Just as Israel herself in the Exodus had failed to learn from Lot's wife (Lk. 17:32) and looked back to the food and worship of Egypt, so Jeroboam sought to turn Israel spiritually from Yahweh and back to Egypt. And in accordance with God's promise of judgment, Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25-26). As the Israelites had once plundered the Egyptians as a blessing from God upon their leaving Egypt (Ex. 12:35-36), so now they were plundered by the Egyptians, who even took vessels from the Temple and the king's palace, some of which had been made from the very materials that Israel had originally taken from Egypt. Though God at first intended to bring the full judgment of slavery He had promised, Rehoboam humbled himself and God relented from His anger (2 Chron. 12:7-8).

But in Revelation 11, we see the plagues of Egypt that God had promised finally brought in full upon Israel. Like Moses and Aaron coming with signs and wonders, bringing plagues upon the Egyptians and calling them to cease their persecution of His people, so the two witnesses would come with signs and wonders, bring those same plagues upon Israel, and deliver His Church from her.

Hello, Old Friends

2011-09-30T01:37:00.003-04:00

I'm finally catching up on your comments. I apologize for my absence. It's been a hard year, as my mother has had two strokes since December, leaving me as something of a caretaker. Lord willing, I will continue to blog, mostly on things that have little to no connection with Jonathan Sperry. If you are a Jonathan Sperry idolater, you may do well to look elsewhere. Otherwise, I invite you to visit me here often. But whatever your case may be, God bless you, and thanks for stopping by. Here's hoping you'll make a habit of it.

Thoughts on the Stoning of Disobedient Children in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 21:18-21)

2011-05-22T10:45:00.002-04:00

As is evident, my blog posts are few and far between these days, largely due simply to life's circumstances. I do, however, find time for interaction with friends and acquaintances on Facebook, occasionally to some profit. Few of these are of a nature that can be easily turned into blog posts. But every once in awhile one ends up readily transferable to this page, and I had one such conversation this past week. The question began with a link to this article, and was followed by a friend bringing up the matter of the supposed stoning of disobedient children under the Mosaic Law, as is often brought up by atheists wanting to refute Holy Scripture. What follows is my response to the question. My response is a bit exploratory, and I will readily admit that I have never heard anyone approach the passage the way I have below. Nonetheless, I do so anyway, but not without some caution, and the awareness that I could be completely wrong.

***********************************************

Well, my reason for pointing to a situation like this isn't necessarily to say whether or not capital punishment is wrong, even capital punishment of disobedient children. The point is to dispel the myths that modernist Muslims tell regard...ing what "true Islam" is. They claim it is peaceful, meaning that this is something real Muslims don't do, and that people like this are "extremists". But the heaping up of situation after situation like this proves that, if these are extremists, they sure are a common lot. And the Koran would confirm this as well.

The fact, too, that we're talking about Islam, a false religion, is another issue here. It is wrong for a Christian to marry a non-Christian. But for a non-Christian to marry another non-Christian is a matter of indifference to me, and not only to me, to Scripture. The true law of Scripture trumps all its competitors.

Now, does the Old Testament injunction still apply today? This isn't something I've studied in detail, but I'll take a preliminary crack at it. A couple of things are obvious in the passage (Deut. 21:18-21). First, the son (notice it says "son" specifically, not "daughter", or "child") is of some age of discretion. You don't have five year olds that are drunkards. And yet, this son is not fully an adult, because issues of obedience and discipline are in play. So we're talking about an older child or teenager, prior to independence.

Also, this is clearly not a case of one-off disobedience. This is a case of extreme, prolonged rebellion, that manifests itself in many ways, and is societally disruptive. And not only is the result that the son is doing things he shouldn't be doing; he also wouldn't be doing things he is supposed to be doing. He isn't assuming the role in home and society that he is required to assume. He is failing to be productive in an extreme way, and is not only counterproductive, but downright destructive.

Then there is the issue of who carries out the capital punishment. Notice that it isn't carried out by the parents in the home. The situation has to reach the point that the parents (both of them together, not just one of them) are willing to take the child to the elders for judgment. However brief, there is a trial, with the testimony of the parents, and then execution, by the men (women aren't mentioned) of the city.

And how many parents, no matter how bad things got, would be willing to take that step? It would be pretty rare, to say the least. The parent would always be praying for the child's repentance, and only when things had gotten bad beyond imagining would a parent drag their child off to their death - unless, of course, the parents themselves were just extremely wicked, a rarity among God's people. And one would expect the elders of the city, if they were wise and godly men, to be hesitant to carry out the action, without some discussion - which the text does not exclude the possibility of occurring.

All taken into account, the situation here is a far cry from the way the Old Testament is often portrayed, and a far cry from Islam, which is a religion of violence at its heart.

And having considered all of these things, I would make some suggestions of my own about how the text is to be considered (once again, the scholars probably have a better take on this). The larger issue involved isn't one of mere rebellion, but one of maturing and taking one's role as a man and therefore a leader in society. The law doesn't apply to daughters, only sons, and only sons beginning to reach an age in which they are taking on responsibilities and becoming rulers in the family, the church, and the larger community.

The point is heading off future trouble. Every man fails in his own ways. But this is a case of not only a few failures, but behaviour that is all-around destructive. This individual, if allowed to live, will lead people away from the truth of God, and cause unspeakable trouble. He isn't just a well-meaning person who makes a few mistakes; he lives to sin and to destroy people's lives. The fact that leadership is the core issue here is also pointed out by the fact that it is specifically the men of the city who carry out the execution, I would suggest.

Some would seek to take these civil laws and apply them in the New Covenant to the church - the parents in the New Covenant should take the son to the elders of the church, and he will be subject to church discipline. But while I think it should go without saying that that should occur, I don't see Scripture giving any reason to eliminate it from the civil realm today. I don't see the Intrusion Ethic of Meredith Kline as being a legitimate reading of the Mosaic Covenant, and while I can see some adjusting of Old Testament law for the New Covenant situation (Scripture itself does that), Kline's idea that the civil penalties applied to Old Covenant Israel only doesn't hold water with me. I can't say for sure that allowing for capital punishment in this situation today is appropriate, but I would lean that direction.

Like I said, this is just exploratory on my part, and subject to some measure of correction, I don't doubt. But based on this analysis, I would say that it doesn't apply to daughters; it doesn't apply to someone who has just committed one sin, however major (there are other laws for major sins); it isn't an "honor killing", and isn't conducted for vengeance; and is carried out by the civil courts. And Islam is a false religion, so how we approach them is entirely different.

So I see application for today, in a Christian society, in the civil realm. That won't satisfy your atheist friends, of course.

It should be pointed out that the occasion of such an event was to cause all Israel to hear and fear (Deut. 21:21). It was to warn Israel that spiritual declension was in its midst, that it might rectify its ways, and not become what that son was. It typologically pointed to Israel himself as the son of God who was to fail God through such rebellion, and to point to Christ, who was to take the punishment of rebellious son(s).

Hardware Mispronunciations, pt. 4

2011-03-27T23:12:00.001-04:00

Some time ago I had posted three lists of mispronounced terms and words overheard at a hardware store I used to work for. After much delay, here are the last of those mispronunciations. Those who are interested in the rest may go here:

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-1.html

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-2.html

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2008/03/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-3.html

*********************************

Jig jag blades - jig saw blades

Inchulation - insulation

Eproxy - epoxy

Limber - lumber

Almanacre - almanac

Ben Gay Roach Spray - Bengal (the brand of roach spray)

Java rocks - lava rocks

Butane tanks - propane tanks

Helium tanks - again, propane tanks

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, on the Differences Between the Heresies of Men and the Heresies of Women

2011-03-27T21:57:00.002-04:00

From the book The Invisible War, by the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, former pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Dr. Barnhouse was writing in the early twentieth century, and so his times were slightly different than our own. As since his time American culture has found itself more confounded in its understanding of gender distinctions, the differences he notes aren't as sharp as they used to be. Nonetheless, he is addressing matters that are derived originally from the creational difference between men and women, and as such, the distinctions will always be largely correct, until the effects of the Fall are completely eradicated from the world.

*****************************************

"(I)t is enlightening to note the familiar pattern of difference which runs through those false religions which have come from women teachers as opposed to those which come from men. The religion put out by an Annie Besant, a Mrs. White [Ellen G. White}, a Mrs. Eddy [Mary Baker Eddy] or their imitators, is much more subtle than what might be called a masculine heresy. For Theosophy, Seventh-day Adventism, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity and other religions which have come from women, stress the love of God, without His hatred for sin, and with fair words deceive. They offer a "key" to the Bible which says that the Book is true, and then denies its truth. Men are different in their heresies. Boldly they affirm that the Word of God is not true. Modernism strikes at the first chapters of Genesis as folklore and legend, and declares the birth of our Lord to be a biological impossibility. He was mistaken, they say, when He declared Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, and so on throughout the account. There is a brazen characteristic in most of the heresies put forth by men which is not found in the women's heresies, and there was this same difference in the sin of the garden as seen in Eve and in Adam." (pg. 90-91)

On Mark 1:40-45

2011-03-15T00:18:00.001-04:00

It is significant that Jesus, in healing the leprous man, chose to touch him. Such an act would have made Jesus ceremonially unclean, and unable himself to enter the Temple or to participate in Israel's cultic life. By touching the man, Jesus showed himself to be greater than the Temple system (Mt. 12:6), that his work was bringing it and the Old Testament order to an end. As Jesus' work was not complete and the old order still in effect, Jesus did command the man to act in obedience to the commands of Moses. Yet the man in his actions showed that the old order was becoming obsolete by Jesus' coming. Rather than proclaiming the law of Moses by his works, he proclaimed Jesus with his mouth. And this, in spite of the fact that we are told that "Jesus sternly charged him" (vs. 43). How could the man have ignored such a command? Though the man may not have known it, he had already shown himself to the Heavenly High Priest, Jesus, and whereas the earthly high priest could only declare him clean, Jesus the true High Priest could make him clean. We also see in this act that Jesus symbolically took the man's uncleanness upon himself, and gave the man His own cleanness, which he would later do definitively upon the cross. Jesus was shut out of Israel's religious life, and therefore shut out from God, on our behalf. The diseases that Jesus went around healing were exactly the diseases that made people unable to participate ceremonially in the life of Israel. He was opening the way into the Temple for those who had previously been excluded. Yet a new Temple had arrived, Jesus himself, and it was into himself that he was ultimately calling all men.

Two on Baptism

2011-03-01T10:59:00.000-05:00

1 Peter 3:18-22 tells us that in the event of Noah's ark and the flood we should see baptism. As the ark passed through the flood, so we pass through the waters of baptism. But it also points to the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17). The dove that Noah sent out first returned to rest at the ark, finding no land. Being sent out a second time, she returned with an olive leaf. And being sent out a third time, she found a resting place elsewhere, and did not return to the ark. The fact that she was sent out every seven days, seeking a Sabbath rest, in essence, should not be overlooked. This occurred as the waters receded, and the ark came up out of the waters, as it were. In Jesus baptism, the Spirit descended as a dove and rested immediately upon Jesus as he came out of the waters of the Jordan. Jesus is our ark of deliverance from the waters of God's judgment.

*****************************************

In Matthew 3:11-12, John the Baptist tells of the coming of Jesus, who he says will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and fire". The baptism with water by John precedes the baptism with fire by Jesus. Baptism is a sort of judgment. For the righteous, it is purifying and saving. For the wicked, it is destructive. We then see in vss. 13-17 the arrival of Jesus and His own baptism with water. To accomplish is mission of baptizing with fire, He Himself must first pass through the baptism with water. This is echoed in Peter's treatment of the coming judgment in 2 Peter 3. The judgment on the ancient creation came first by water (vss. 5-6), speaking of the flood. But the judgment to come would be by fire (vss. 7-12). Jesus himself spoke of this judgment by fire in connection with baptism (Luke 12:48-49). He would first pass through His baptism by fire, only later to bring the fire of judgment upon the earth Himself. I will leave aside, for now, questions of the fulfillment of 2 Peter 3. It is worth noting, however, that Jesus Himself never passed through a judgment of literal fire.

Both Hodge and Podge

2011-02-28T23:47:00.001-05:00

So while I haven't been blogging regularly, I do spend a fair bit of time on Facebook, where I make my own attempts at wit and wisdom rather frequently. Since I haven't found the space to do any serious writing recently, I thought I would post what Facebook comments I thought were worth repeating here. They're largely in reverse chronological order, going backwards to sometime last Spring. As the reader will see, there's no rhyme or reason to them otherwise. Hopefully they will prove interesting to others, and not merely an exercise of narcissism on my part.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The recent rise of the local 24 hour news channel is an interesting phenomenon. It tells me that in spite of all the ideas of a global culture that are promoted, people have a inescapable longing for local culture. A person can't be more than one place at a time, and the longing for a place called "home" is natural and normal, even for those who try to live their lives hopping from place to place across the globe.

*******************************************

Genesis 9:18-27 parallels Gen.3. In both, the partaking of fruit results in nakedness, or the realization of nakedness, which is subsequently covered. The result is the proclamation of curses upon the descendents of the parties involved, though in the case of Noah, righteous men are found, to whom are proclaimed blessings. Noah acts in imitation of God in proclaiming blessings and curses. Noah's sons act righteously in imitation of him (Gen. 6:9) just as he acts in imitation of God. When taking Gen. 6-9 as a whole, as over against Gen. 1-3, one sees that the flood and the covenant with Noah are a re-creation, a redoing (of sorts) of the original creation - a New Creation. Peter shows this to be linked to the death and resurrection of Christ, therefore also to our death and resurrection, that is, our salvation, including our baptism (1 Peter 3:18-22).

********************************************

Cross references for Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes Ps. 102:25-27, points out the parallel with Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same...". The Book of Hebrews is bracketed on either end by the proclamation of the eternality of the Second Person of the Trinity, only He is transformed by the end of the book, having been incarnated in the hypostatic union, eternally now both God and man. Heb. 1:1-4 summarizes the Book of Hebrews, and therefore the work of Christ.

*********************************************

Jesus has been the head of the Church since its founding. He then appointed the apostles, who appointed other Church leaders. The fact, therefore, is that the true Church has always been an organized body with a structured leadership, not just an invisible entity with no governing body.

**********************************************

The Christian life is one of ongoing repentance. We recognize our sins, confess, and repent. This is the reality of sanctification in our lives. Where there is no ongoing repentance, there is no sanctification, which means there is no justification. And if there is no justification, the person was never born again to begin with.

**********************************************

Dispelling myths: It's perfectly possible to be an Evangelical, Bible-believing Christian and not believe in a Pre-trib rapture. The notion of a Pre-trib rapture didn't appear until the early 19th century, and it has nothing to do with the Gospel.

***********************************************

1 Cor. 15:23-24: There is no break in time between Christ's Second Advent/the resurrection of the dead, and the end of all things when Christ's earthly reign ends. This means that the end of the Millennium coincides with the end of the current age, and there is no Millennium yet to begin after Christ's return.

************************************************

Romans 6: If you think the Gospel means you can now live however you want, you've misunderstood the Gospel. If you live the same way you've always lived, you don't have resurrection life, but are still dead in sin. And if you are still a slave to sin, you were never enslaved to Christ to begin with.

************************************************

Psalm 39: Your time in this life is short, and therefore so is your opportunity to speak for the glory of the Lord and for the good of his people while in this life. Reflect on life's brevity, and don't waste it with silence.

*************************************************

If children were included among God's people in the Old Covenant, and they are now excluded in the New Covenant, how can the New Covenant be a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6)?

*************************************************

A person is saved, neither by going forward during an altar call, nor by praying the "sinner's prayer", but by trusting in Jesus Christ alone. Those who are truly saved will persevere in faith to the end, and that means a pursuit of holiness and spiritual growth are inevitable. There is such a thing as false conversions.

**************************************************

The sudden interest in the latest cause celebre, opposition to bullying, is a good thing, though a few decades too late. A big problem remains, though, in that the relativists running the schools have no moral basis on which to oppose bullying. On Darwin's thesis, which still reigns in the government schools, bullying is just survival of the fittest.

**************************************************

Nondenominational churches are just denominations in denial. When you have declared denominations, at least it's clear what your church believes. In nondenominationalism, one is left with a large amount of confusion and guesswork. Perhaps this is why people are so quick to latch on to heretical dogmatism from New Age gurus and televangelists.

**************************************************

Adventures in language: the English word "scholar" is derived from the Greek word "schole", which means "leisure".

**************************************************

Any doctrine not worth defending isn't worth believing.

**************************************************

Pop/rock music is designed to enslave the listener to the temporal. What's new is what's best. Radio stations play the same songs over and over again, causing the listener, who at first is interested in the new song, to grow sick and ready for the next new thing. The songs are short and catchy, and require little thought or depth of engagement. This is a radical contrast with the worldview of Scripture, which instructs us to seek wisdom, to love God with all our minds, to honor the past, and to think in terms of a thousand generations.

***************************************************

"You live in a world in which a spontaneous worship service has to prove nothing...and in which a formal worship service has to prove that it isn't dead...I would suggest that is an unbiblical state of affairs." - Douglas Wilson. Putting on a show or stirring up emotions aren't necessarily signs of spiritual vitality. It's perfectly possible that groups of people in such settings are dead as a three day old corpse.

***************************************************

Wandering around Barnes & Noble this evening, I was surprised to find they have a section of books entitled "Teen Paranormal Romance". It was a sheer accident that I ran across it, though. I was looking for the "English Gardening How-To Books Written by Guys with the Middle Name 'Jed'" section. I never found it.

***************************************************

Parents: do you want your children to remain faithful to God, and to be sustained through the difficult times of life when they get older? Then teach them theologically-rich songs when they are young. It is those songs that God will use to communicate His word to them when they need it most throughout their lives.

***************************************************

The influence of pop culture: growing up in Fundamentalism, I didn't hear the word "holy" used as an adjective very often (such as "Holy Scripture", "Holy Trinity", "Holy Christian Church", etc.). Consequently, when I hear those phrases now, I always am tempted to follow them with the word "Batman".

***************************************************

Watching "Chariots of Fire" for the first time in a long time. Interesting to see Eric Liddell pushed to run on the Sabbath in the name of love of his country, taking precedent over his love of God. He made the right choice. Which leaves a question - are you an American first, or a Christian first? Earthly nations come and go, but the Kingdom of Christ abides forever.

***************************************************

In all my years of working with elderly folks, probably the most repeated statement I've heard from them is "I'm old, so I can say anything I want." But that isn't the way of Scripture. Grey hair should be a sign of mature wisdom and godliness, not foolishness, selfishness, or a loose tongue.

****************************************************

A man goes to see his doctor and the doctor tells him he's going to die if he doesn't change his lifestyle. "Doc, don't tell me I have to give up wine, women, and song," the man says. "I'm not," says the doctor. "You can sing all you want."

****************************************************

"Now listen, brothers and sisters. Now listen. Now listen." But I was listening, Charles Stanley...

****************************************************

Today is the anniversary of the first sustained flight by a manned aircraft, performed by brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk, N. C., in 1903. The flight almost never took place, however, as Orville refused to either pass through the body scanner or to let Wilbur pat him down before boarding the plane.

*****************************************************

When I've spoken to defenders of Contemporary worship music and raised the complaint of copyrighted worship music, the response I've usually received has been that copyrighting protects the songwriter from someone abusing his song. And yet someone can take an old hymn, tack on three or four new lines, and make a bundle of money through CCLI, as if it were a new song. "Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)". Who's going to protect the old hymns? Does a songwriter cease to matter once he's dead?

******************************************************

Good theology is like a cathedral. We all enjoy its beauty, but few of us really understand the time and effort it took in building it.

*******************************************************

I've gotten to the point that I don't want to read any contemporary Evangelical literature, just because I'm sick of seeing the word "broken" - which I'm pretty sure, according to its current usage, doesn't really have a definition.

******************************************************

It is often assumed that in order to have a genuine Christian society everyone in that society must be converted. But that isn't the case. When the Church is believing and behaving as it should, it becomes the leader in the society it's in, by virtue of the positive effects of God's Law. And then even the unregenerate begin to act like Christians, because of the fear of man and the weight of tradition.

******************************************************

I consider it one of the supreme ironies in life that those who talk the most usually have the least interesting things to say.

******************************************************

Jim Caviezel is my co-pilot.

******************************************************

You know, if I found myself in a desert on a horse with no name, I think one of the ways I might entertain myself would be coming up with a name for that horse.

*******************************************************

Classic metal group Black Sabbath has announced they are planning a reunion in the near future. Commenting recently on the upcoming tour, lead singer Ozzy Osbourne said, "uhwa bluba puh buba fuba duh, uh pwa tuh fuh puhduh uhh."

*******************************************************

In the news: Prince William proposes to long-time girlfriend Kate Middleton - British citizens rejoice to have something to live for again

*******************************************************

Difficulties in life are inevitable, and are God's means of saving His people, of shaping them into what they are to be. The choice is whether one will try in vain to avoid the trouble, or accept it with gratitude as a gift from God, and allow Him to show how to rightly deal with it.

******************************************************

Harry Potter. By the time these kids graduate from Hogwarts, they'll be able to draw Social Security.

*****************************************************

When I worked for a counseling ministry a number of years ago, a counselee I worked with ran across 2 Samuel 1:26, where David said that his love for Jonathan was greater than that of women, and the fellow mentioned the passage to me. He couldn't get past the idea that Jonathan and David must have been gay, and no amount of my trying to explain the passage in light of male friendship got through to him. He was just another victim of our society's sinful perversity. An over-sexualized society, and especially the prevalence of homosexuality in our society, destroys male friendships.

*****************************************************

Notice: This evening's Procrastinators Anonymous meeting has been postponed until Monday evening.

*****************************************************

In a day in which selfishness and self-righteousness are often confused with love and justice, much clarity could be found simply through repeated watchings of Tombstone.

*****************************************************

It is interesting that the two sacraments Christ gave His Church to celebrate are symbolic of death - Baptism, of burial, and the Lord's Supper, of flesh and blood given over to crucifixion.

*****************************************************

Fairy tales are a display of beauty, goodness, and truth, and set before us those things that, though we see them now only in glimpses, we will see fully one day in the resurrection of the dead and the eternal kingdom.

*****************************************************

Nine out of ten people agree that the tenth guy will always disagree with them, because he's just difficult like that.

******************************************************

If Train A is heading west from Raleigh at 55 miles per hour, and Train B is heading east from Greensboro at 50 miles per hour, what flavor of ice cream is the eight year old boy in the third car back on Train A eating?

******************************************************

There are three social strata of adults in American society - "Jeopardy", "Wheel of Fortune", and "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader".

******************************************************

Ah, teas. Just like skin color, black tea isn't black, white tea isn't white, and green tea isn't green. This was pointed out to me by a green friend of mine.

******************************************************

The word "priest" is actually a Latinized, and then Anglicized, form of the Greek word "presbyteros", which is typically translated today as "elder".

******************************************************

I have a feeling that future generations, looking back on our culture, will think the "f-bomb" was a real bomb.

*******************************************************

I've been doing a fair bit of thinking on the theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory, as per Luther, born out of study of Rev. 4 & 5. And watching the Beatification of Cardinal Newman on EWTN. As I watch, I am struck by the bittersweet nature of the traditional liturgy of the Church, though laden in beauty, and how it contrasts with the theology of glory as found in the contemporary church.

********************************************************

I'm atching Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I haven't seen in a long time. What a great movie. It just struck me that there is a common theme throughout the Indiana Jones series - there is such a thing as knowledge forbidden to man, certain things that God has made off limits to us. True "success" in God's world only comes through acknowledging and honoring mystery. This can seem ironic in a movie series about finding out ancient secrets, and yet rightly understood, it is essential to finding all truth. Unless one understands one's limitations - both inherent and given by authority - one cannot become greater than he is.

**********************************************************

Christian cliche #3245: "Jesus Christ - 'H' isn't His middle initial." For some people, I know this is a sincere attempt to address blasphemy. But it's about as effective as the Southern Baptist Convention's boycott of Disney a few years back. Cliches like this trivialize Jesus' name, reducing it to a hollow slogan, and they merely give pagans more occasion to mock and blaspheme.

**********************************************************

I noticed that a local church was holding a ADHD support group, and I'm trying to imagine how that would work out. If nobody has the attention span to listen to you as you complain about your problem, and they're interrupting you the whole time, wouldn't that sort of work counter to the purpose of a support group?

**********************************************************

Christian cliche #3246: "God couldn't be everywhere at the same time - that's why He made grandmothers." Saw this one on a throw pillow in a neighbor's house a couple of years ago. A good example of how sentimentalism is a fertile seedbed for heresy. As a guest in their house, I didn't feel that pointing out the heresy was the most appropriate thing to do.

***********************************************************

Books of the Bible that we would not immediately think of as directly connected, other than the fact that they are God's Word, are often more related to each other than we might realize. The Book of Proverbs, for instance, features the contrast between the Adulterous Woman and Lady Wisdom. Likewise, the Book of Revelation contrasts two women, the Harlot Babylon and the Bride of Christ, the Church. Adultery and harlotry are regular Biblical images for idolatry. To live unwisely is to worship false gods. In contrast, to be part of Christ's Church is to live wisely and purely. All sin is idolatry, but to worship the true God and to be united to Him is to live in accordance with His Law.

*************************************************************

It is often regarded as impolite to discuss religion and politics in social settings. The funny thing is that Jesus went around discussing both, and he did so in social settings, where everyone could hear Him, and could be offended.

*************************************************************

How the word "religion" can to be regarded as a bad thing, or at least redefined such that it came to be regarded as a bad thing, is a bit baffling. But the idea that a religion is a scheme of self-salvation, or man's attempt to get to God by his own doings, and therefore contrary to Christianity, is false. Christianity is a religion, the only true religion, and is about one's relationship with God.

**************************************************************

Tradition is not only inevitable, but is also necessary and good. The question is whether or not your tradition is shaped by a Biblical worldview, and whether or not you're willing to let it go when it becomes an idol.

**************************************************************

Everybody knows generalizations are bad.

**************************************************************

Christian cliche #3247: "You'll never find the perfect church." Absolutely true. But I think people have the right to expect a church that doesn't use that as an excuse for not doing what it should.

**************************************************************

Dispensationalism's self-fulfilled prophecy:

1.) Declare that the world is getting worse
2.) Sit back and do nothing to prevent the world from getting worse
3.) Watch as the world gets worse
4.) Point out that the world - at least within ten miles of your house - is getting worse, just like you said

**************************************************************

The loss of modesty has broader effects than we might initially think. The attack on modesty is in effect an attack on mystery, and therefore an attempt at supplanting God. And one outworking in our society is that we find it hard to believe that there may actually be some things that are none of our business. This is especially manifest in the celebrity gossip subculture. Holiness honors the hiddenness of God, even as it exists in His image, which is man. This is simply another example of loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

**************************************************************

Contrary to the commonly held view today, not all sins are equal in terms of their wickedness, and some sins are actually worse than others. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't have been varying degrees of punishment in the Mosaic Law. When Jesus said, "He who hates his brother has already committed murder in his heart," he wasn't saying that murder is equal to hate, but rather that sin is more than action, it is also attitude, from which sin acts arise.

*************************************************************

It was no mere coincidence that a crown of thorns was placed upon Christ's brow in his suffering. God told Adam that due to his sin, man would tend the ground by the sweat of his brow, and that the earth would brings forth thorns. Christ took Adam's curse, the curse of the ground, upon himself. Man is from the dirt, and the redemption of the earth is inseparable from the redemption of man.

*************************************************************

In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan the prophet comes to Jerusalem to confront King David with his sin by means of a parable. In so doing, David pronounces his own judgment upon himself. Likewise, in Matthew 21 Jesus comes to Jerusalem and confronts the chief priests and the Pharisees by means of a parable with their failure to rightly shepherd the people of Israel. Like David, they pronounce their judgment upon themselves.

**************************************************************

Dante's "Inferno" - was it the fourth or the fifth ring of Hell that contained telemarketers and time share salesmen?

**************************************************************

Genesis 2:18-25: It is interesting that God brought the animals to Adam to name them (in connection with the creation of and naming of Eve), but we find no specific statement of God directing Adam to name other parts of the creation, such as the plants. This is not to say it isn't proper to "name" plants. And yet we see from this that not all living things are equal. In other words, tree hugging isn't allowed.

**************************************************************

New Student Orientation: the term "orient" derives from medieval church architecture, and is to point the direction of the eastern wall in a church, where the altar is, and where Christ was believed to reside in the Sacrament. True education can only come in conjunction with a proper looking toward Christ.

*************************************************************

Do the earthly promises of the fifth commandment still apply in the New Covenant? Scripture seems very clearly to say so: "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit......" (1 Peter 3:8 and following for the context). This life is short, and man is but a vapor in it. And yet we are called to love life, even in its fallen state, and not just the lives of others, but our own life as well. This is a reality that transcends the unique characters of the Old and New Covenants.

************************************************************

True spirituality: Just use the word "broken" alot. "Struggle", "feeble", "real", and "heart" are good ones too. And talk about falling down on your knees. The key is to make sure everyone knows you're being self-deprecating. Hey, what's that in my navel?

************************************************************

One of the glories of the Westminster Divines and the catechism questions they composed is that they understood that the commandments had a broader application than what is explicitly stated in the commandment. This comes out clearly in the fifth commandment (WSC 64). The command to honor father and mother has at its heart the issue of obedience to God-ordained authority, and therefore has application in areas beyond the parent-child relationship.

***********************************************************

If the eternal God, He who never slumbers nor sleeps, who never grows tired such that He needs to rest, still rested on the seventh day, is it not appropriate that we, subject to the weakness of flesh and the effects of the fall, by walking after His example, should also rest on the seventh day?

************************************************************

On Matthew 7:1-5: I always find it funny that those who are quick to quote verse one couldn't tell you what the other four verses say. In fact, I find such people not only ignore the fact that Jesus is passing judgment in this statement, but He does so in ...all that he says elsewhere, as do the prophets and apostles throughout Scripture, by the sanction of God. So this passage obviously doesn't mean what some people want to make it mean. In addition, those who say "judge not" usually manage to do so simply when you say something they don't like, mostly on an issue about which they are thinking more like the ungodly culture around them rather than in accordance with what Scripture says about the matter. And all of this, summed up in the fact that those who tell someone "judge not" are themselves judging, and proving themselves hypocrites. Judgment is inevitable; what God calls us to do is to make a righteous judgment.

**************************************************************

In His prophecy spoken through Jeremiah, God said that He had given the "beasts of the field" to serve King Nebuchanezzar (Jer. 27:6). This is obviously reminiscent of and a continuation of Adam's reign (Gen. 1). But it was the very "beasts of the field" that Nebuchadnezzar was driven out among when God judged him (Daniel 4:32). He lost his rule over them and became like them. Note also that Nebuchadnezzar was walking on the roof of his palace when his vanity overtook him (Daniel 4:30), just as David was walking on the roof of his palace when he saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Samuel 11:2). They were both guilty of the... same vanity and pride, that which those who are in positions of power and authority are so prone toward - that of failing to remember that their power and authority are not their own, and that they answer to a greater King.

*************************************************************

Jesus came as the beginning, or the genesis, of a New Creation. Just as the Spirit of God hovered over the deep in the conception of the Old Creation (Genesis 1:2), so the Spirit overshadowed Mary in the conception of the New Creation (Luke 1:35). And so anyone now who is united to Christ is himself a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).

*************************************************************

Blended worship is like being a little bit pregnant.

**************************************************************

Mark 1:40-45. The significance of Jesus touching the leper as he healed him is easily overlooked. But the point is that in healing him by touching him, Jesus took the man's uncleanness upon himself, becoming unclean in the man's place. This is why Mark adds that Jesus was then forced to walk in desolate places (Mark 1:45, Leviticus 13:46). To be unclean is to be shut out from the Temple, thus from God, as well.

*************************************************************

It would be nice if the minsters of the church were to return to wearing distinctive clothes that symbolized their office, especially in worship. Everything we do, including how we dress, is a symbol, and communicates something about ourselves and how we view God and the world around us. In a unique way, how our ministers dress, especially when they are functioning in their office, points to the God they serve. This is true of all God's people, but particularly for minsters, as their vocation is uniquely to the full-time ministry.

************************************************************

There is no Christian who has "no creed but Christ". It's just that some write it down on paper, while others merely hold it in their heads.

************************************************************

"My Utmost For His Highest" by Oswald Chambers: There was a time in my early twenties when I practically lived on every word in this book. I read it over and over again, and tried desperately to live out what it taught. I have since come to the conclusion that this book was one of the biggest sources of spiritual distress in my life. Chambers' focus in the book is on the surrend...er of all of one's life to God, as if that were possible in this life. Those who are serious about God will confess all of their sins and surrender fully to God, Chambers says. This is the Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian doctrine, and it is a false doctrine that has probably done more damage in the church than we will ever know. There is only one kind of Christian - justified in Christ and striving toward holiness, but constantly faced with his failures as a Christian. He rests in the grace of God, knowing that forgiveness is his, in spite of the fact that he could never remember all his sins to confess them. Lutheran pastor Rod Rosenbladt once said that Oswald Chambers should have stuck with painting rather than becoming a pastor. That might be calling it a little harsh, but if this book is any example of Chambers' teaching, Rosenbladt's statement isn't far from the truth.

***************************************************************

When couples who appeared in eHarmony commercials go through a rough spot in their marriages, do they think to themselves, "we can't get divorced. We laughed together in slow-motion on an eHarmony commercial"?

***************************************************************

So if the race for the office of governor is called a gubernatorial race, is the winner the biggest guber?

****************************************************************

It is true that being in a church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car. Still, there are certain places where one expects to find cars, and the ninth hole on a sunny Sunday morning isn't one of them.

*****************************************************************

I'm regularly struck by the fact that Evangelicals tend to be obsessed with images, sometimes using them as a substitute for the Word. And yet the images they use are from pop culture, rather than folk or high art. What a shame. If you're going to do art, at least do it right.

*****************************************************************

I'm regularly intrigued at the things we have children participate in, that have nothing to do with preparing them for adulthood. This year, rather than sending your child to summer camp, why not stick him in a cubicle for a week?

******************************************************************

Dr. Jeremiah: the text says that the mark of the beast is "on" the hand or the forehead, not "in". Computer chips don't qualify.

******************************************************************

This morning on David Jeremiah's radio show he noted the similarities between Adam and Eve, and Job and his wife. Just as Satan used Eve to get at Adam, so Satan used Job's wife to get at Job. I had never made the connection before. Even a Dispensationalist finds some typology every once in a while, I guess.

So...

2011-02-25T10:33:00.002-05:00

...I've reverted back to the old template for now. I hope to make more changes in the future. The circumstances of life have prevented me from doing much blogging as of late, let alone any site alterations. Hopefully that will change soon. In the meantime, thanks for visiting.

O Magnum Mysterium

2010-12-23T08:55:00.001-05:00

Many Mansions

2010-12-14T02:04:00.001-05:00

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." -- John 14:1-3

One passage of Scripture that has often been pulled out of context in contemporary Christianity is John 14:1-3. Regularly used as a passage of comfort, Jesus describes to His disciples His leaving them to "prepare a place" for them, attaching the promise that they would someday be where He will also be.

One can hardly quarrel with the idea of using this passage to provide comfort to others, especially to those struggling with a life-threatening illness, or those trying to cope with the recent loss of a loved one. After all, the promises in the Gospel include the desire of every true believer, that of being with the Holy Trinity forever.

Yet a mistranslation of a key word in verse 2 in the most commonly used version of the Bible over the past four hundred years, the King James Version, has caused some measure of distraction from the typological significance of the passage. The mistake comes in the translation of the word for "rooms", as most modern translations have it. For reasons that are beyond the scope of my knowledge, however, the translator of John for the KJV saw fit to translate this as "mansions", an entirely incorrect rendering.

This mistake has had no small effect on popular Christianity. Anyone familiar with hymnody over the past couple hundred years is aware of the theme of "mansions" in heaven, a theme also popularized in the Gospel music from the early twentieth century up until today.

For those living through some of the poorer conditions occasionally found in twentieth century America, it is easy to see how the vision of receiving a mansion upon death could be entrancing. Yet Scripture tells us "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9). And so to reduce heavenly glory to a mere mansion seems to show, as C. S. Lewis said in his sermon "The Weight of Glory", that our desires are way too small.

The bigger issue, however, is what the text in question actually says, and that leaves us with the reality that mansions in no way figure into this passage. We are left instead to consider the Father's house with its rooms.

What "house", though, is Jesus talking about? This is where comparing Scripture with Scripture shows itself to be the place to begin in Biblical interpretation. Bible scholars often make much of context, and the broader context of the Gospel of John gives us our answer. In John 2:12-25, we are presented with the occasion of Jesus cleansing the Temple. Furious at the use of the temple as a place of making a profit, Jesus drives out those profiteers, and in the process accuses them of turning His "Father's house" into a market. The Father's house, then, according to Jesus, is the Temple. That the Tabernacle, and then later the Temple, were considered dwelling places for God, albeit symbolically, is confirmed several times in the Old Testament (see 2 Sam. 7:5-17 and 1 Kings 8:27-30, for example).

When we look at the arrangement of the Temple, as originally constructed under Solomon, the reference to "rooms" makes more sense. Constructed on the pattern of the Tabernacle given to Moses, the Temple had two foundational rooms: the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And yet Solomon's Temple was a more detailed structure, having numerous external chambers as well (1 Kings 6:5). It is to these rooms that Jesus seems to be referring.

Whereas the side chambers of the earthly Temple were used for storage, however, Jesus seems to suggest that these rooms would now be used as dwelling places. In the vision describing the restored Temple, Ezekiel sees rooms for the priests within a few feet of the Temple (Ezekiel 42:1-10). Yet in the heavenly Temple, of which Jesus speaks, the priests rooms have merged with the side chambers. The priests now dwell in God's house with Him.

And so, having looked at the typology, the basic thrust is the same as that of popular Christianity: God has a house, and His children will dwell with him in that house forever. But to miss the typology is to miss larger implications of the passage. Not only has the Church taken the place of Israel, God has brought Her into the priesthood itself. Any future restoration of the Temple that excludes Gentiles from any of the promises of Israel is unscriptural. In fact, the Temple of which we are a part is in the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12), which is already coming down out of heaven, to reach its culmination in the end of time. And in this Jerusalem, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28).

A Brief Defense of Postmillennialism

2010-11-01T10:20:00.002-04:00

The following is something I cobbled together in response to a friend on Facebook. It seemed good enough to warrant posting here.

**************************************************

When Jesus ascended into heaven, He proclaimed that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him - Matthew 28:18. In other words, since the first century, Jesus has been King, not just of heaven, but of earth also. On this basis, He then told His disciples to go make disciples of all the nations. He gave no hint of this being a failing mission. Quite the contrary, the fact that He gave them the order the way He did implied success.

If Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth now, then that means there is no future authority to add to Him. And if this is true, then that means the thousand years referred to in Revelation 20:1-6 doesn't refer to a period later in history, it refers to right now. It began in the first century AD. The number 1000 is used symbolically throughout Scripture (God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, etc.), and in this case, it is symbolic of Christ's entire reign from His ascension into heaven until His second coming.

Eventhough Christ is reigning now, there is still evil in the world. There are those who are still His enemies. Christ will reign until the time comes when all His enemies will have been put under His feet (Hebrews 10:13; 1 Corinthians 15:25), that is, until they are finally all conquered. That will be the end of the world, the end of history (1 Corinthians 15:23-28). We are to participate with Him in the conquering of the world, through weapons not of flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:10-20). One might more properly say that He is conquering the world through us. Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). That is not the image of a weak, defeated Church, but one that is strong and conquering. The Church is not on the defensive, but is on the offensive, storming as it were the very gates of Hell, which can't prevent it. Christ is reigning, and will conquer all His enemies (Psalm 2, Psalm 110). And every knee will bow to Him, whether it wants to or not (Phil. 2:9-11). Those who submit to Christ will be part of the many nations God promised Abraham he would be a father of (Gen. 17:4-8). They will receive the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is fulfilled in Christ (Romans 4:9-13). God promised He would bless all the families of the earth through Abraham, He has done that through Christ (Gen. 12:3). All who have faith in Christ are children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9), and inherit not just the land of Israel, or even just the planet earth, but the entire universe (Romans 4:13 - the word usually translated "world" is actually "kosmos" in the Greek, or "cosmos", which means exactly what it says - it means "universe").

The kingdom then, is something that will come into its fullness gradually. It began with Jesus ascension and will continue to grow until He returns. Jesus spoke of this in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matthew 13:31-33). Just like the sanctification of an individual Christian, so it is with the sanctification of the whole world, if you will. If you stare at it at any one point and time, you can't necessarily see it. But it's still happening, just very slowly. You can stare at the mustard seed in the ground right after you've planted it, and it looks like nothing is happening. But something is happening - it's just invisible to you. Only a few months later will you see its progress. The coming of the kingdom is not something that can be observed (Luke 17:20). If it were an immediate, catastrophic event, that wouldn't be true. Jesus speaks the same way in the Parable of the man who sowed seed (Mark 4:26-28).

The Kingdom promised is to more than just Israel - it is to all the nations (Isaiah 2:2-4; Is. 27:6; Is. 56:3-8). There will be cultural ramifications of the spreading of the Gospel, such as in a growth of peace (Is. 2:4; Is. 11:6-9). Physical and material blessings will accompany the spiritual blessings that flow to the nations (Is. 35:1-10; Is. 41:17-20). We are given images of these things in Scripture, but the exact shape they will take only time will tell. It is common for people to go to these passages in Isaiah, and assume that because they don't see them fulfilled right now, that they won't be fulfilled during this age. But, as we've said, the kingdom comes gradually. And since the kingdom comes gradually, so do the blessings that are a part of it. Will there ever be a time during this age in which the things mentioned in Isaiah 11:6-8 literally take place? Or are they merely symbols? The latter may be true, but I see no reason why the God of the universe couldn't make them literally take place in this age.

Peter Leithart, on the Importance of the Shape of the Text of Scripture

2010-10-04T16:24:00.000-04:00

The following is a great quote from Peter Leithart's book Deep Exegesis (pg. 55), which I have been reading as of late. I'll resist the urge to comment on it any at this time, other than to say I highly recommend it for anyone whose task it is to study and teach Scripture. Here, Dr. Leithart has been discussing how texts are like music, and are, in fact, musical. He then comments on our own tendencies in approaching a text:

We are often impatient with music, and we are impatient with texts. A writer lingers, and we want to grab him by the throat and say, "Get to the point, man!" Evangelicals would reverently refrain from throttling an apostle, but the demand for practical Bible teaching often has this threatening subtext. "Don't give me all these names, lists, genealogies, stories. Tell me what to do. Tell me about Jesus."

God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, a very long book, and not a portrait or an aphorism. God reveals himself in his image, Jesus, but we come to know that image by reading, and that takes time. God wants to transform us into the image of his image, and one of the key ways he does that is by leading us through the text. If we short-circuit that process by getting to the practical application, we are not going to be transformed in the ways God wants us to be transformed. "Get to the point" will not do because part of the point is to lead us through the labyrinth of the text itself. There is treasure at the center of the labyrinth, but with texts, the journey really is as important as the destination. "Get to the point, man" is the slogan of the liberal theologian; it is a demand for the kernel without the annoying distraction of the husky twists and turns of the text itself.

The fact that this is a foreign notion to most Evangelicals strikes me as odd. If, after all, we proclaim belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture as a key tenet of our faith, how can anything other than what Dr. Leithart has said above be true?

Summer Movies 2010

2010-09-20T15:21:00.001-04:00

Summer is nearly officially over, yet we continue to have ninety degree weather here in North Carolina. The leaves are gradually falling, and yet it seems to be more from the lack of rain than anything, said lack being visible in the brown grass that surrounds my house. And with all this dryness and heat, who can think of Fall and all that it brings? For that reason, if no other excuse will work, a Summer movie recap seems in order.

My movie pickings were slim this Summer, in spite of all the offerings. Lack of time and money are always a motivator, of course. I opted not to attend some of the famed remakes (A-Team, Karate Kid), for no other reason than they didn't appeal to me. And I have already reviewed a couple of others (Toy Story 3 and Prince of Persia). I did take the time to catch a couple of films after that, though, so let me make a few comments about them.

The first one was "Despicable Me". This one, interestingly enough, is still in a few theaters around here, in spite of having come out over two months ago. It got rave reviews, which would sort of explain it. From my perspective, however, it is hardly worth the praise it's received. I had found myself intrigued with the trailer for the movie, so I made time on my day off to slip out to the theater to see it. Thankfully, the movie was only about an hour and a half long, because I found it to be an utter waste of time. As is often the case, all the good jokes and gags (which were few) appeared in the trailers for the film, leaving nothing left of interest in the film. The dialogue was flat and boring, and the characters were uninteresting. (Come to think of it, the characters were uninteresting because the dialogue was flat and boring. But I digress.) There were some good themes to the film: a measure of reflection on how bad parenting makes children into bad adults, how approval from a parent is a fundamental human desire, and how love can conquer evil, to give a few examples. Yet while it was clear what the filmmakers were attempting to communicate, the setting and presentation were such as to keep the viewer from actually taking these things all that seriously, and left him with the sense that the filmmakers didn't take them seriously either. There was little depth of feeling to the film, no gravity to give the viewer the sense that these are as weighty themes as they in reality are. The evil characters weren't all that evil - when the main character, Gru, goes from attempting to be the world's most evil villain, to being the loving adoptive parent of three little girls, the only thing the viewer is surprised about is that any adoption agency would be so poorly run as to allow such a situation to transpire. No regeneration was necessary for this pseudo-villain.

In addition, I was particularly bugged by the dialogue from the three "little girls". Their dialogue, as well as the delivery of it, carried a sophistication that seemed way disproportionate with the characters' visual depiction. Perhaps next time the filmmakers should choose less precocious children to play such roles. I found it hard to take those characters seriously as a result.

Some of the music of the film was okay, but it was generally poor as well. The presence of more pop styles of music, especially disco and R&B, neither of which I care for, nor that I would want my children to hear if I were a parent, were frequent in the film. This comes to a head in the last scene of the film, when a ballet recital by the three girls turns into a disco party. This is a common enough occurrence in movies, but the implications are rarely understood. The movement from the one to the other implies that a sort of maturity takes place, carried out in the styles of music. Ballet, and the classical style of music that accompanies it, is treated as the more immature style of music. It's something that is fine for children. But true maturity, it seems, comes in popular music, particularly disco, in this case. In reality, the opposite is true. The cultural setting of disco is no accident, a further proof that musical styles, and aesthetic styles more broadly, aren't neutral. Disco has always carried with it many elements of immature and immoral behavior. Lack of responsibility toward one's actions, manifested in many ways, though most recognizable in things like drug and alcohol addiction, plus sexual promiscuity, is a part of the worldview of which disco is a part. In contrast, ballet and classical music communicate order and self-control, key Biblical virtues (Galatians 5:22-24). True maturity isn't the autonomous freedom of disco, but living within the bounds that God has created in the universe and given to His creatures.

All in all, this movie was simply bad, and it was bad enough that I'm baffled that millions of Americans missed that it was bad. Come to think of it, no, I take that back. I know Americans. This doesn't surprise me at all. It is just more proof that ten thousand Frenchmen can be wrong after all, and, believe it or not, it has nothing to do with the fact that they're French. It turns out I'm not the only person to give "Despicable Me" a bad review anyway, as noted on the Wikipedia page for the movie. But the majority apparently disagreed. Oh well. People liked this movie, they think Lady Gaga is interesting, and they elected Barack Obama to the White House. There's no accounting for taste. And so we move on.

The next movie I went to see was "Salt", featuring Angelina Jolie. I don't see alot of action-thriller types of movies, largely because of the "R" ratings they generally garner. So the fact that this one was "PG-13" was a bit of a draw for me. I thought the trailer was intriguing, and I have found Jolie to be a convincing and interesting actress, especially in action films, though this is often clouded over by an overuse of her sex appeal. Still, I felt comfortable that this wouldn't be something to worry about here, given the rating of the film, so I gave it a go.

It turned out to be a good choice. It wasn't what you would call high art - it is, plain and simple, a shoot 'em up, fast paced spy thriller. And yet there was a beauty to it that kept me interested (no, I'm not referring to Jolie). Jolie's character is accused of being a Russian spy, part of an organization seeking to recover the days of Communist occupation, and the viewer gradually learns whether or not the accusation is false. That suspense in itself is enough to maintain interest. But the film was well done all the way around anyway. Great acting, good soundtrack, visually stimulating - just great.

It is a violent film, of course, appropriate to its rating. Beyond this, there is little for a Christian to quibble with. Jolie does appear in little clothing near the beginning of the film - but with all the appropriate parts covered - in a scene in which she is being held captive in a foreign prison. Consequent to the context, there is nothing sexual about the scene (quite the opposite), and Jolie's sexuality is not exploited at all in the film.

I won't say any more, so as not to give anything away. It's still in the theaters, so if this is the type of film you generally like, you should check it out.

I was then prompted by a friend to go see "Inception". I knew it had received high praise, but as this often means little (see above comments on "Despicable Me"), I wasn't in any hurry. But I finally took the time to check it out.

Before I saw it, one friend commented that everybody she talked to either loved or hated "Inception". I hate to be the one exception here, but I sort of stand in the middle of the road on it. The basic concept of the film is that certain people have the ability to enter a person's mind while they're in a dream state, and to implant ideas in that person's mind. The viewer is then taken on a trippy ride of visual effects for two and a half hours as said mind manipulation is explored. Wrapped up in this is the struggle of the lead character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, as he deals with his own dream-associated demons of the past.

There is a lot to be said for "Inception". The concept of the film was clever. The struggles of the lead character were interesting. And the visual effects were stunning. But that said, the movie just didn't do anything for me overall. Part of that, I must confess, has to do with my own view of Leonardo DiCaprio. One reason I was in no hurry to see the film was that I find him utterly unconvincing as an actor. I can't really say why that is. Some actors have the ability to convince me that what is happening on the screen is real, and others do not. For whatever reason, DiCaprio falls into the latter category. Unfortunately, he wasn't the only one in this film for whom this was true. Both of the other lead actors failed on that account for me. Even Ellen Page, who I have thought was excellent in other things I've seen her in, just didn't do it here. Perhaps it was the directing, I don't know. Whatever the case may be, it kept me from being fully engaged in the plot.

In addition, the ending, I felt, was fairly predictable. A long, drawn out ending (like DiCaprio's "Titanic", incidentally) resulted in success, with everyone surviving. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Jack had died - oops, mixing up my films there. At any rate, I found the whole thing fairly boring.

Lastly, and wrapped up with the previous matter of the acting, was the discussions of how dreams work, and how this matter of "inception" took place. And once again, where the blame lies here, I don't know. But the talk about "inception" just came across to me as pretentious and artificial. As I said before, the movie just didn't sell me.

So all in all, it was an okay film. I don't think it nearly deserves the high ratings it has received. But I can't say it was a terrible film. I give it a solid "eh".

A couple of weeks after "Inception", I was scanning the movie offerings online when I ran across a documentary called "Winnebago Man". For whatever reason, my interest was piqued, and I went to see it. The movie was about a twenty year old viral video of outtakes from a Winnebago sales training video, in which the trainer, who is the star of the video, regularly loses his cool and curses up a storm. The documentary follows the filmmaker as he tracks down the "Winnebago Man", whose name is Jack Rebney, to find out what became of him after making the video.

I had never seen the video, but that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie. It was a quite interesting consideration of viral videos, and what causes people to be drawn to them. Rebney's video turns out to be a cult favorite, passed from person to person across the country, long before the invention of the internet. In addition to being a source of humor, it proves to be therapeutic for many, the sort of thing they turn to after having a bad day. Somehow watching someone else in misery is cathartic, allowing people to let go of their own problems.

The main thing that struck me about the video, and how it was used by those who watched it, was how impersonal the whole thing was. The film features all sorts of fans of the Rebney film, their comments on their love of the video, and so on. The end of the film even shows Jack meeting some of his fans at a film festival, and their responses to him. Yet while they express their appreciation, he is clearly only an object to them. His disproportionate anger, his lack of self-control, his own troubles, which go clearly deeper than his immediate circumstances - they are all merely means of the viewer's enjoyment. Take a coliseum, add a gladiator and a couple of tigers, and you have a show. Unlike the fans of the Rebney video, I couldn't get past the fact that this was a man with deep spiritual problems, and the fact that nobody involved in the film seemed to care.

The ending was somewhat moving. This man, wrapped up in his own personal concerns, suddenly found he was a minor celebrity to people he had never met. That he was moved by this fact was noticeable, and that itself was moving to me. And yet here was this man, a spiritual cesspool, without the real solution to his problems. I don't normally react this way to movies, but in this case, I was watching a real man, without Christ. It soured the ending for me, though it provided a place for prayer. Mr. Rebney, the film showed, was a man who had spent much time studying the history of religion. May the true God use his studies to reveal Himself to him.

That is pretty much the summary of my recent movie experiences, with the exception of "What If...", which I will reserve for a separate review. But I close with a question for you, the reader. Is there some movie you have seen recently that you would recommend? If so, let me know. I'll even write a review on request. Just mention it in the comments section, and I'll check it out as I have opportunity.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 88

2010-09-06T18:14:00.002-04:00

Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

A great division exists between modern Evangelicalism and what would rightly be called Historic Christianity, and that division has to do with the question of how God gives salvation to His people. In modern Evangelicalism, individualism is... the operating philosophy. Salvation is about "me & Jesus". The institutional Church, while an okay idea, is secondary, if not a hindrance to spiritual growth. And the main way that a Christian's faith is nourished is through his "quiet time". With such a philosophy, the constant wandering of sheep from fold to fold should surprise no one.

Historic Christianity, on the other hand, sees the individual's salvation as normally connected to the institutional Church. While one's personal time of Bible reading and prayer is a good and normal practice, and while God uses all things in a Christian's life to save him (Romans 8:28), God's primary and normal means of saving a person and nourishing his faith is through the public worship of the Church. The Means of Grace given to the Church by God are public and external to the individual, neither private nor merely internal, though they then work salvation internally for the Christian. Contrary to Evangelicalism, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not mere acts of devotion and obedience on the part of a Christian, but means by which God delivers the salvation procured by Christ to His people. The public reading and preaching of the Word of God, along with corporate prayer, are salvific, and are central to the life of the Christian in a way that one's personal devotions cannot substitute.

If there is a section of the Catechism that the modern Christian needs to hear, it is the next few questions. Jesus Christ didn't die to save lots of disconnected individuals, but to save a group of people, His Church. There are no Lone Ranger Christians.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 89

2010-09-06T17:54:00.002-04:00

This, as well as the previous post, is something I posted on Facebook. I have been posting the questions and answers from the Westminster Shorter Catechism on a regular basis, and occasionally offering some commentary on them, which is what you see here. Whether or not I write commentary on any of the other questions is yet to be seen, though I imagine I will.

******************************************

Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching,
of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners,
and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto
salvation.

The pastors and theologians at the Westminster Assembly, who composed the Catechism, had a very different view of the Word of God than we tend to have today. With the Church havin...g recently come out of a time in history in which the preaching of the Word was left out of the corporate worship service entirely, they understood how central preaching is to the life of the Church, and how necessary it is for the spiritual nourishment of believers. In the late middle ages, the Latin Mass was the form of worship of the Church in Europe. Latin had long been a language no longer spoken by the common people, and so worshipers who bothered to attend Mass never understood a word spoken by the priests in worship. The common Christian was left to obey the rules of the Church, whether Biblical or unbiblical, with no way of examining Scripture to see if those rules were of God, and with no way of actually learning what Scripture has to say on any matter. In addition, literacy rates with regard to the common language were low. Most people were common laborers, with no need to read, it was thought, and certainly no ability to do so. The Church told people what to believe, and any questioning of the Church was held in the same regard as questioning God Himself.

So when the Reformation of the Church began, a great emphasis on education, as well as a reformation of the corporate worship service, began to take hold. Along with the Reformation came a push toward educating the laity, especially the fathers, that they might be able to instruct their own families in the word of God. The corporate worship service ceased to be carried out in Latin, and was carried out in the local language, so that all could understand and learn, worshiping God with their own minds as well as their lips.

(As a brief aside, let me make an important modern application. Contrary to what some professing believers think today, knowledge is not contrary to true faith. The anti-intellectualism of Revivalism and Fundamentalism is an enemy of Biblical Christianity, and has more in common with late medieval Romanism than with Protestant Christianity.)

Yet to the modern Christian today, this might all seem strange. Why the need for preaching then? We live in a time in which the majority of the population can read for themselves. Can I not read and understand the Bible for myself? Why do I need some preacher telling me what it says?

But contrary to the apparent wisdom of this response, our time does not provide as good an argument against preaching as it might seem. While most can read, it is still true that not all can. Today we see the government schools graduating students who can't read at all. And of those who can read, we see a decrease of comprehension when reading a text. Reading has become a pragmatic activity. We seek to do as little work as possible, for the purpose of gaining as little as it takes to get by in life.

In addition, in our time we are especially lacking when it comes to a proper understanding of legitimate authority. We consider it liberating to not need others telling us what to believe. Yet this is also counter to the teaching of Scripture. From the beginning of the New Testament Church, there have been God ordained teachers, set apart to communicate God's Word to those who would hear. Even Christ Himself set apart the first ministers of the Church, the twelve Apostles, and the Church ever since has done the same, based upon the example of Christ. The ministers of the Church are to be especially educated for the purpose of teaching the laity the Word of God. These ministers are not infallible, or above being questioned. And yet, based on their gifting, education, and calling of God through the Church, they are to be regarded with respect. Once having fulfilled the Church's requirements for ministry, and having been lawfully called by the Church, their call is to be considered of God, and their authority to be from Him. And because they are believed to be called by God, when they preach the Word of God, their words are held to be the Word of God itself, insofar as it conforms to the actual teaching of Scripture.

While there are those today who are abandoning the Church for do-it-yourself religion (or "spirituality", as some prefer to call it), we see churches setting aside the Word, especially the Word preached, for drama presentations, testimonies from lay people, and other such things. Aside from the fact that none of these appear in Scripture within the context of corporate worship, one can't help but wonder what would make a church think they are a sufficient substitute for the means of communicating truth that God has given, that being the preaching of God's Word. Whatever the answer to that might be, a simple looking to the decreasing Biblical knowledge of professing Christians should reveal that perhaps these trends aren't the wisest. In conjunction with this is the trend toward the use of video and images in worship. And yet God spoke the world into existence (Genesis 1). Words in Scripture precede images in the order of creation, and as Scripture bears throughout, in the order of priority. To give up words - that is, the Word - is to give up the means of converting power inherent in the world. Images serve no use apart from the Word. They are empty symbols, and can at best give the illusion of salvation. And even with words, those words must contain the Word of God in substance.

While testimonies can encourage people, they are often given by those lacking in substantial Biblical knowledge. We, after all, tend to assign people to that task when they are young, immature Christians, and we do so based on their excitedness. Yet not only do new Christians have a severe deficit of informational knowledge when it comes to the Bible, they are lacking in the appropriate maturity by which to understand it, and by which to instruct others. The result is a case of the blind leading the blind, leaving large portions of congregations merely lying in ditches.

With all this before us, our best hope is to return to the God-chosen means of godly, mature, educated men, reading and preaching Holy Scripture to us. We should rightly ask this question: is the failure to be strengthened by the Word to be found in the Word, or in us (Mark 6:5-6)?

Reflections on Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 90

2010-09-04T09:54:00.001-04:00

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.

Too often today, our approach to the worship of the God of the universe is more than a bit casual. But this would make sense. After all, if the worship of the church is carried out in a flippant manner, it should be no wonder that the congregation would approach it flippantly. We cruise into church, coffee in hand, and schmooze for a few minutes until given the signal by the band or some "worship leader" that it is time to settle down and remember why we're there. And any notion of preparation for worship is out of the realm of thought.

Yet traditionally, the sacred nature of worship has been better understood, and has led those attending corporate worship to approach it with greater care than the contemporary church tends to exhibit today. Preparation for worship has begun at home, even during the week prior to coming to worship on the Sabbath. There is no activity comparable to the corporate worship of God, it has been understood, and while He is with me wherever I may be, and I may worship Him in all that I do, there is something unique and special about gathering with His saints to lift our voices up jointly in praise and adoration of Him. I live my life always before Him - and yet the culmination of all that living before Him is in union with His people. And so I am ever conscious, no matter what day it is or what I am doing, that that day is coming, the day to gather with His Church.

Once coming to worship, the minutes before the beginning of service has been used as a time of silent prayer and meditation. Our God is a Holy God. He is high and exalted, and there is none other like Him. And this reality has shaped the whole atmosphere of the worship service, even the time just before it.

This preparation has special bearing on how we approach the reading and the preaching of the Word of God. We all own Bibles, and by the grace of God we still live in a society where we remain largely free to read it as we wish. And so we grow accustomed to it, like an old friend that we take for granted will always be there, no matter how much we neglect him. Yet this casualness is a failure of our own, not of God's Word. It is a sin to be confessed and repented of.

The reading and the preaching of God's word holds a central place in corporate worship. Without the Word of God, after all, nothing in the universe would exist, let alone corporate worship. He creates by His Word, and He sustains the universe by His Word (Hebrews 1:3). It is by His Word that he raises the dead, both spiritually and, as He will when Christ returns, physically. And it is by His Word that He upholds and strengthens His Church during our sojourn now. We hear God's chosen minister reading the text of Scripture to us, and as God's representative, we hear him explain and apply the text so that we might better live in obedience to God. We are to prepare; we are to listen with diligence; we are to obey it. And so hearing the reading and preaching of the Word is an act of worship. We are not to be passive with regard to the Word. We are not an audience, as at a concert. God calls us to be mentally engaged when His Word is presented to us. And while it is always presented in authority and power, it is especially so when presented by an ordained minister of God, during the time He has set apart for that purpose. We then leave, having heard from the King's emissary, and go out as servants of the King, to do His bidding alone.

As the Catechism question states, the effectiveness of the Word of God in our lives relies upon our approaching it properly. In a time when the Evangelical church drifts further and further morally from the standards of Holy Scripture, perhaps we should consider whether it is not because we do not duly approach His Word, particularly when we present it and receive it in corporate worship. If we truly want to see people saved, and we want to redeem society for Christ, we would do well to consider this matter with care.

A Long Overdue Redesign

2010-08-11T17:05:00.002-04:00

So I've been thinking about doing this for a long time, but am finally now getting around to updating the look of things around here. The old template has been looking dated to me for awhile, though I'm never one for rapid change. But the time has come. There may be some changes back and forth as I make adjustments (I'm not crazy about the current template either), but we'll settle in before too long. To sum up, then, keep visiting - we aren't going anywhere.

Let's Don't and Say We Did

2010-07-21T00:46:00.001-04:00

That's it. I've had enough and I'm calling it, since Hollywood won't.

The movie line "Let's do this!" and its variant "Let's do this thing!", as an attempt at creating dramatic tension:

R.I.P. 7-20-10

May you never be uttered again.

Money in the Bank

2010-07-12T19:22:00.001-04:00

So Creflo Dollar is coming to Greensboro later this week, no doubt because The Dollar is looking for some cash. And I'm sure many will turn out to hear him, a sad testimony to the spiritual state of our city. But this is what I don't get. He's a televangelist, and his last name is "Dollar", allegedly. How much more truth in advertising do you want? Would it help if his middle name was "Imgonnatakeyour"?

A Fifth of Disney: Toy Story 3 & Prince of Persia

2010-07-12T12:18:00.001-04:00

Since I had an extra day off last week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to take in a couple of movies. I doubt I have any long reviews in me, but here are a couple of thoughts.

I first went and saw "Toy Story 3". I went to a noon showing, on July 5th, so it was me, and a theater full of families with little kids, which made the whole experience more enjoyable. That may not be what you'd expect to hear from a single guy, but there you have it.

The movie itself was just wonderful. The only complaint I might have is that it dipped a little deep into the sentimentalism at times. But I'm not sure they could have made a movie with such subject matter as this one without that being an issue. I also couldn't help but wonder if it wasn't a bit intense for smaller children at times. But not being a parent, I really couldn't say for sure. Overall, though, it was fantastic. I have nothing more to say about it at this point, other than that Pixar has hit another one out of the park.

Later that afternoon, I slipped out to another theater and saw "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time". This is a Disney film that came out a number of weeks ago, preceded by all the hype that Disney tends to throw behind its films. It seemed to me to get buried among all the other Summer films that have come out, so I was under the impression that maybe it had done poorly. But quite the contrary is true, according to Wikipedia, although the film seems to have been better received overall in the rest of the world than in the U. S. My impression of the film wasn't helped, I might add, by the turnout at the showing I went to. I thought at first I would be watching it alone, until one lone woman wandered in during the previews. Yeah, I was disappointed. Not by the low turnout, but that I didn't have the theater to myself. I know, it was selfish. Mea culpa.

I knew almost nothing going into the film. I knew there was a dagger that turned back time, and that Jake Gyllenhall spent alot of time in acrobatic stunts through the film, jumping from roof to roof and the like. Yet it seemed like fun, and worth checking out.

And fun it was. Not "stop what you're doing and go see it right now" fun, but "not a waste of money" fun. The cinematography was great. There were lots of beautiful aerial shots, the kind that are only worth seeing on the big screen. The fight scenes were very enjoyable. The acting was mostly good, and the script was pretty good - though both of these could have been better.

Another fun thing about Disney films, though, is that whenever you watch one, you get to play the "Find the Leftist Agenda" game. Disney is often using its movies to promote some Leftist ideology, and it was no different with "Prince of Persia". The fact that the movie was set in Persia provided Disney with an obvious target, and that is United States foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. What was once considered Persia covered what is now Iran, though the Persian Empire at its height covered much of the Middle East, and spread into Europe and Asia. In the movie, we have Persia, the world empire (like the U. S.), invading a city (a smaller power, like any of the Middle Eastern countries), due to spy reports that alleged the city was producing weapons that it was selling to Persia's enemies. If by now the supposed WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq haven't come to mind, then you haven't been paying much attention to world events over the past decade. In addition, the fact that the movie is essentially set in Iran suggests some allusion to U. S. sanctions against Iran, born out of a fear of them attaining nuclear weapons.

Having referred to this as a "Leftist ideology", however, is a bit dishonest, unless one considers Libertarians "Leftist". And while I'm no Leftist myself, my leanings are Libertarian with regard to the subject of intervention in world affairs. My own tendency is to regard the move of U. S. troops into Iraq as an unjust invasion, a view that would equally find a home in classic Conservatism (in contrast to the Neo-conservatism of today). So far as I've been able to determine, U. S. troops never did find the WMD's in Iraq that were the excuse for our invasion (which is mirrored in the false reports of weapons production in the city of Alamut in the movie). And I have a hard time seeing how the U. S. has the right to tell Iran whether or not they should have nuclear weapons. To do so is a violation of national sovereignty, and is more likely to cause more violence, jeopardizing more lives, American and otherwise, and causing more problems all around.

The film leads to a Romantic turning back of time, as if the majority of troubles in the story never happened to begin with, except for the invasion of Alamut itself. This is easily solved through a "why can't we all get along" treaty between Persia and Alamut, which actually makes no sense, in that Alamut was already a Persian city prior to the invasion. Then they all held hands and sang "It's a Small World After All". Okay, not really. But it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. The bad guy gets it, nobody else ends up actually suffering as a result, and they all live happily ever after.

I don't know how other viewers might feel, but there's something incredibly dissatisfying about a movie that proposes a story that is entirely undone by its ending. All the joys and sorrows that the characters went through were for nothing after all. What a waste. It leaves no place for good change, no place for maturity. And it proposes a world which could be forever left in a place of limbo. It could be that everything I go through in my life I will end up having to just repeat sometime later. It is the cyclical worldview of the East, and it is a cesspool of death and depression. And it makes me feel as if I've just wasted two hours of my life on this movie. Eschaton, it turns out, is absolutely necessary, or else nothing in the world has meaning.

None of this is new for Disney, however. "Prince of Persia" is supposed to be the new "Pirates of the Caribbean", and was made by the same group of folks who made the "Pirates" trilogy. I have my doubts about Jake Gyllenhaal having the same draw as Johnny Depp, at least enough of a draw to turn "Prince of Persia" into a series of films as successful as "Pirates". Nonetheless, alot of the same themes are present in "Prince of Persia" that one finds in the "Pirates" trilogy, especially the last two films. There is the cyclical worldview of the East. In fact, what is "Eastern" is generally lifted up as being superior to what is "Western" in both "Persia" and "Pirates". You also have a confusion of gender roles, which is itself counter to Western Christian culture. In connection with this, you have a sort of sexuality that is particularly violent in nature, built more upon power and control than on love and sacrifice. This is also true of the recent "Clash of the Titans". Interestingly enough, actress Gemma Arterton was at the center of said sexual tension in both "Prince of Persia" and "Clash of the Titans", playing "Tamina" and "Io" in each, respectively. In "Pirates" 2 and 3, this is seen in Keira Knightly's character Elizabeth Swann, who departs from the classic feminine role of the first film to take on explicitly masculine roles in the second and third films, a sort of slap in the face of the traditional Western feminine societal role.

At the end of "Prince of Persia", the men of Persia bow to Tamina and confess their error in invading Alamut. The feminine spirit of the East triumphs over the masculine spirit of the West. The masculine West is violent, you see, whereas the feminine East is peaceful. Yet to achieve this a confusion of gender has to take place. To triumph is to have power, even if it is carried out in a passive-aggressive way. And passive-aggressive behavior is, after all, an expression of or a type of violence. While Tamina's actions throughout the movie are at times explicitly violent, they are often passive and manipulative. Such is the feminine way, when the men in a society have failed. And the failure of men in our society is what has led to the confusion of gender roles in feature films such as "Prince of Persia".

This is not to say, of course, that there is no manly sacrifice that occurs in the movie. The main character Dastan is very much so an image of manly, Christ-like sacrifice. And yet such is the state of modern American storytelling. Thankfully, we still have elements of truth in our storytelling, remainders of Christendom that have yet to be fully eradicated from our society, though folks like Disney might be doing their best to complete the task. However, the confusion still remains. In the end, the only truly righteous character in the movie is Tamina, the female character. The men are, in the end, all failures.

So while it may appear that Disney is attempting merely to repeat the success of "Pirates" in "Prince of Persia", they seem to be doing more. They are continuing to promote the same anti-Western, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian worldview that they sought to push via "Pirates". Hopefully they will fail in this endeavor.

Ironic in all of this is that I began the day with "Toy Story 3". It is also a Disney film, and yet, as has usually been the case, the fact that it is a Pixar film seems to have made all the difference in the world. While one can find its share of sleazy masculine characters, "Toy Story 3" is also shot throughout with manly sacrifice. In fact, the film itself ends with Andy's sacrifice of his toys, by giving them all, including Woody, his most prized toy, to a little girl. Andy has grown up, and is leaving for college, and to grow up is to grow in sacrifice.

Maybe someday I'll grow up to be like Andy, and won't be so disappointed when I don't have a movie theater all to myself.

Dr. T. David Gordon, on Worship and Technology

2010-07-11T19:40:00.000-04:00

T. David Gordon, professor at Grove City College, seems to have been a busy man as of late. He is the author of two books on the convergence of Christian worship and the media: "Why Johnny Can't Preach: How the Media Have Shaped the Messengers" and "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal". Unfortunately, I haven't read either one, but they seem to be well worth checking out, if the following two interviews are any indication. First, here is an interview with Todd Wilken on the Lutheran radio show "Issues, Etc." They discuss the declension of worship music in the American church over the past few decades, and how there's no such thing as aesthetic relativism:

http://issuesetc.org/podcast/522062910H1S1.mp3

Then there is the following interview on the White Horse Inn. Dr. Gordon discusses how our lives have been overrun by media and technology, and how succumbing to this takeover has made us a shallow people, incapable of sustained reflection and contemplation:

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/white-horse-inn/listen/distracting-ourselves-to-death-121250.html

Both worthy conversations, and too often avoided in the church.

Mt. Vesuvius and the First Century Tribulation

2010-07-07T16:53:00.001-04:00

Hershel Shanks asks if the the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (79 AD) and the resulting devastation was God's act of vengeance on the Roman Empire for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Scripture would seem moreso to support the idea that it was part of God's answer for Rome's persecution of His Church, which they carried out along with the Jewish people, until the Jews turned on Rome, resulting in Jerusalem's destruction, foretold by Jesus, the end of the Jews' apostasy from God and His Covenant. Vesuvius was a part of "the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world" (Rev. 3:10):

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID=6

Will Rogers on Alcohol

2010-07-06T21:00:00.001-04:00

The Prohibitionists say that drinking is bad for you, but the Bible says that Noah made wine and drank it and he only lived to be 950 years. Show me an abstainer who ever lived that long. - Will Rogers

Clash of the Ridiculously Big Lizards

2010-07-03T22:54:00.001-04:00

Also in the news: Godzilla saves Tokyo from Mothra. More at eleven:

Snake bursts after gobbling gator

Old Posts: Worship of the State

2010-07-01T22:37:00.002-04:00

I've posted this here before, but as the subject of the article continues to be a major problem in the American church, I think it is worth revisiting.

This coming Sunday is Independence Day here in the United States. This, in turn, means that churchgoers this Sunday will be greeted with a myriad of patriotic symbols that don’t normally show up on Sunday morning. Many are used to the American flag being always in front of them during their worship services. But this Sunday, that flag will be saluted, or even carried down the center aisle in a procession, even in churches that don’t normally have processions. Patriotic songs will be sung where hymns usually go. Extra prayers will be said for politicians as well as for our troops deployed throughout the world. Most sermons will carry an American theme. In some churches, those sermons will be of the “let’s get God back in America again” variety, complete with the standard talk about legalized abortion and absence of prayer in schools. In some churches, the sermon will be a vague sentiment about what a great country we live in.

And in all of this, very few people will stop and ask why they are doing all those things. It is the Fourth of July, after all, and this is what you do.

But why? Why is this assumed to be standard practice? I think the reason, as I mentioned in a previous post, is the victory of statism over society. We live in a country where the state wants to own everything, and we gladly oblige. They own our children. They tell us where and when to send our children to school, what they are to be taught, what they are to do while they are there, and what import this has upon their lives. They own our property. If they want a piece of it to build a superhighway, they tell us they are going to buy it or else take it. “Our” land, apparently, is only on loan from the government. They own our other possessions as well. They tax the money we make, then what we spend it on, and what we leave to our children when we die, if they have left us anything to leave to our children.

And we respond to all this by, every once in a while, giving them the one hour on Sunday morning that God has called His own. Now it is clear that the government wants that hour every Sunday. Whenever a church becomes incorporated in the United States, it gives over the rights to what it says and does on Sunday morning to the state, though thankfully the state has yet to assert its “right”. But the church is not an adjunct of the state. The church, as presented in Scripture, is a whole separate institution. It is instituted by God, with its own laws and its own leaders. The leaders of the state have no authority in the church.

When the Church of Jesus Christ comes together on Sunday morning, it is for one reason alone – to worship the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It isn’t to lift up the State as the great saviour of mankind (which it is not).

I recognize that the chances that what I’m writing here will be read by someone in a church somewhere who makes decisions on what goes on on Sunday mornings is very slim. Nonetheless, to those of you who do read this, I encourage you to think through the question and consider it carefully. Pray for your congregation and its leaders. Pray that the pressures of the state will decrease against the church. Don’t be afraid to talk with your church leaders about the matter. And seek to live your own life, insofar as you legitimately can, free from the tyranny of the state.

For a further consideration of the subject of flags and the church, this article written from a Canadian Reformed perspective is well worth reading.

That Plato Was a Clever One

2010-07-01T21:33:00.003-04:00

A little something for the Classical scholars out there:

Manchester historian deciphers hidden 'Plato Code'

Note this statement from Dr. Jay Kennedy, who says he found the code:

"In ancient times, many of his followers said his writings were written in symbols; in modern times that was denied," he said. "So I've rediscovered that the Ancients were correct."

Just another case of the arrogance of Modernity.

I trust the "Plato Code" conforms to reality more than the "Bible Code" of a few years ago did. Ten bucks says this will be the subject of Dan Brown's next novel.

A Few Quick Shots: Music, the Bible, and Other Things I Always Talk About

2010-06-30T01:25:00.002-04:00

Hits have been up here on the old blog, so to those of you who are visiting, I bid you a fond welcome. I have no idea why you're visiting, though, as no new comments have been posted in a couple of weeks. Nonetheless, your thoughts are always welcome on anything I put here, so feel free to offer them if you like.

Circumstances have been such that I haven't been able to write anything of substance in a while. Between work and the customary Summer yard upkeep, I've been fairly preoccupied. I hope, however, to get back in to writing before long, so keep checking back. In the meantime, in lieu of anything of substantial length, here are a couple of brief thoughts.

*****************************

As a guitarist, and a repentant former contemporary worship leader, one thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is music, both inside and outside of the church. Unfortunately, I find it's something that lots of people think much about, as they tend to be more concerned with the type of music used in worship than what the church they attend believes about most anything else. For most people, their pastor could be a rank heretic on any number of issues, and they would never know, let alone care. Hence, the number of professing Christians who think that preachers like Joel Osteen or T. D. Jakes should be listened to. But so long as the Evangelical church either avoids theology, or consistently apologizes whenever theology accidentally slips into a sermon or church life, this will remain a problem. Unless the church teaches and emphasizes the need to learn theology, most people won't seek it out.

Having said all this, music is something that must be considered, if one is to live life to the glory of God. After all, music is, like all things, a theological matter. One approach to the question of music I've never heard taken, though, has to do with maturity and music. If over my life I am called to mature as a person, which includes maturing as a Christian, one would expect that all areas of my life would be affected somehow by my maturity. That is, in fact, the case, though we don't usually think of it in those terms. We may listen to a certain style of music when we are young children, for instance, that we wouldn't when we are adults. But what happens if, as we grow older, our tastes in music don't change?

Let's say I was meeting a friend for lunch. As I pulled into the parking lot of our restaurant of choice, the friend were to approach my car, and hear what I had playing on the stereo: "The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...". Now I'm a single, thirty-six year old man. I have no children. Wouldn't the friend reasonably find this a bit disturbing?

This used to be more easily recognizable in American society. In years not-so-far-past, it would have been understood that a forty-year old man who was still listening to certain music of his youth, with his earring and his Bon Jovi t-shirt, was experiencing some measure of stunted growth. Yes, when I was sixteen, I thought "Ice Ice Baby" was an intriguing song with many layers of depth. But when I became a man, I put away childish things, and this is, I believe, connected somewhat to the graying of what little bit of hair I have left.

This is not to say that every song that has ever made it to pop radio is somehow of the devil, or that it would a sin for me to listen to any of it at this point in my life. Some top forty hits of days of yore still make onto my stereo. Simon & Garfunkel, Jim Croce, Dwight Yoakam, Buck Owens - and more recent ones like Brad Paisley and Norah Jones - all get the occasional spin. But they get mixed in with Bach and Vivaldi now. And were the temptation to break out New Edition's "Cool It Now" to kick in, I'd become very concerned.

*******************************

I have a very basic philosophy when it comes to Scripture: God wrote a really long, complicated book, and He calls me to do my best to learn it and to live it out. And if 2 Timothy 3:16 is true (and it is), then that includes all those verses I can't make sense of yet. True love not only pursues, but also gives the one it loves something to pursue. And because God loves us, He didn't put everything on the low-hanging branches where it's easy to reach. The fact that we think everything in Scripture should be simple to get a hold of finds manifestation in other areas of our lives as well. If we aren't willing to pursue God through His Word, should we be surprised if our other relationships, such as marriage, fall apart as well?

Gaelic Psalm Singing

2010-06-13T17:43:00.002-04:00

A short, beautiful video from the homeland of my forebears. Those familiar with Appalachian music, especially Appalachian church music, will recognize the similarities with the Psalm singing heard here.

"Avatar" Review by Brian Godawa

2010-06-07T15:18:00.002-04:00

The latest issue of the Christian Research Journal features a great review/analysis of "Avatar" by screenwriter and critic Brian Godawa. It's very insightful, thorough, and well-written. The article isn't available on the CRI website, but you can probably pick up a copy at your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, or order it directly from CRI:

http://journal.equip.org/issues/avatar-a-postmodern-pagan-myth

The Life of John Calvin, by Theodore Beza: a Book Review

2010-06-01T01:09:00.002-04:00

The Life of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Evangelical Press, 1997, 144 pgs.

Of all the significant figures in Church history, probably none has been more maligned and misrepresented than John Calvin. One of the key leaders of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, his impact has been far broader than most people, and than even most Christians, realize. And yet he has been the subject of endless criticism, even to the present day, by non-Christians as well as professing Christians, including those who are heirs of Calvin's work, though those individuals may never know.

One of the things a person learns upon reading Theodore Beza's "The Life of Calvin" is that many of the same accusations that have been leveled at Calvin since he lived were also leveled at him during his own life. Written and published just a few months after Calvin's death, Beza's treatment of Calvin's life was clearly designed in part as a response to those who would paint Calvin in a negative light. This is especially evident in the last chapter of the book, where Beza specifically seeks to answer several mischaracterizations of Calvin.

Beza's defense of Calvin was something that I found very refreshing about the book. The most common approach to biography in our day is that of postmodern deconstruction, where it is the tendency to reject the notion of true heroes, to reject the idea that people of good character can exist. Biographers today focus much on bringing out the flaws of their subjects, and question the claims of integrity made by those who were close to the individuals in their lifetimes. Sometimes this is understandable. A biography is one person's viewpoint, after all, and not infallible. Yet the degree to which such skepticism is taken is often quite hilarious, and does little more than show the arrogance of modern commentators for what it is. Aside from this dubious approach, we have in the case of Calvin plenty of reason to accept Beza's presentation of him as a righteous man. Along with Beza's testimony, we have the testimony of others who were close to Calvin, who confirm the truth of what Beza said of him. And if that weren't enough, we have Calvin's own writings and sermons, and all the fruit of his labours, which to this day continue to be an unspeakable blessing in the Church, in Western culture, and in the world.

A few other things stood out to me in particular as I read this book, so let me highlight them in brief.

First, Calvin was a man who recognized his own flaws. In contrast to those who would portray Calvin as self-righteous, he clearly saw himself as a sinner, and noted his own mistakes openly. That said, he was a godly man, and sincere in his efforts to serve God and His people. He was not one who sought to tyrannize others, as he is often represented as being, but rather gave all of his time and efforts for the good of God's people.

Second, he was a man of a weak constitution and poor health. Beza considers this to be partly a result of Calvin's own nature, but also of his tireless service for the Church. Calvin slept little, which no doubt contributed to his many illnesses and led to his early death. In spite of his lack of sleep and poor health, he continued diligently in his duties as pastor and theologian, slowing down as little as possible. He dealt with a number of ailments, such as migraines, gout, and an irregular digestive system. He consequently ate little, limiting himself to one small meal a day, and it was not uncommon for him to go up to forty-eight hours without eating at all. On a personal note, I must say that I find this quite comforting, having my own health problems that plague me regularly.

Calvin also dealt constantly with spiritual attacks against the Reformed Church. Some came from outside of Geneva, especially from the Roman Church. And yet also there were constantly those who sought to undermine the Reformed doctrine who maintained no connection to Rome. In particular, there were many who attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. Much of Beza's work is focused on this aspect of life in Geneva. The most famous person in connection with Calvin to teach heresy about the Trinity is, of course, Michael Servetus, but he was far from the only one. Many were banished from Geneva by the city officials (of which Calvin was not one) for publicly teaching against the Christian faith. Calvin fought through all of this, defending God's Word and His Church from all who would seek to tear it apart.

Lastly, I would like briefly to address the matter of Servetus. If one portion of Calvin's life is brought up to discredit him more than any other, it is this one. Servetus was a well-known heretic in Europe. In fact, he was so well known that the Roman Church already had him in their sights, and would have put him to death for his false teachings, had they been able to get their hands on him. Calvin is often saddled with the blame for Servetus's death, but nothing could be further from the truth.

For one thing, most people would criticize the idea that heretics should be put to death at all. Whatever one might think about this, it was not uncommon, as Beza notes, to put to death not only heretics, but also adulterers, in Germany and Switzerland at that time. To treat Geneva as if it were some sort of unique case in this is historic dishonesty. But in my mind it raises a fundamental problem to the way we think in our time. Basically, the question is this: which is worse, the temporal death of one man, or the eternal death of many? So long as a heretic is allowed to live, he is leading others to Hell with him. We think that Christianity is a relationship that is essentially divorced from doctrine. A person may deny the Trinity, we think, but he still has a relationship with Jesus, and that's what matters. But that is contrary to Scripture. If one denies an essential aspect of the true God, then it is no longer the true God he worships, but a false god - he no longer has any hope of salvation, unless he repents. And so doctrine matters, and eternally so. In the economy of God, it would be better to put to death one obstinate heretic than to allow him to lead others away from God and to eternal death.

Beza makes it clear that both he and Calvin saw the death of Servetus as appropriate. That said, Calvin had done everything he could to prevent it from happening. Before even going to Geneva, Servetus had written to Calvin to tell him he was coming. Calvin promptly wrote him back, telling him not to come, and warning him that he would certainly be arrested and punished by the civil authorities if he did. But Servetus ignored his advice, and went to Geneva anyway. In his trial, Servetus was tried and convicted on charges of heresy, and condemned to be burned at the stake. Calvin petitioned for a lighter sentence, and requested that Servetus's execution be by beheading, therefore much less painful. The court ignored Calvin's request. And even just hours before Servetus's execution, Calvin visited him in his cell and begged with him to reconsider his views, that his life might be spared. Philip Schaff notes this in his multi-volume set "The History of the Christian Church". Servetus, of course, did not change, and was put to death.

I don't expect that many who read this will find themselves in sympathy with Calvin on these things. We are creatures of our time, and our time teaches us that the most important question to ask is, "why can't we all just get along?" Yet to allow ourselves to dismiss all of Calvin's teaching and work because of this one situation shows ourselves to be hypocritical. There is no one person that we have learned from in our lives of whom we couldn't find some aspect of their life that we would consider odious. In addition, the only way to properly critique those of another time and place is in humility. Whether we agree or disagree with him over the Servetus affair, his life overall was one of godliness, and his teaching was characterized by a sincere love for God and His Church. Few of us today could come close to him. And so it is on this basis that both Calvin's life and work are worthy of our consideration.

End Times Fiction, by Gary DeMar: a Book Review

2010-05-26T00:13:00.000-04:00

Though its popularity has been waning in recent years, Dispensationalism remains the most commonly held view of the end times in the church. Thankfully, this is gradually changing, in part due to the work of theologians like Gary DeMar. Published in 2001, DeMar wrote "End Times Fiction" at the height of the "Left Behind" craze, the hugely bestselling Dispensationalism fiction series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins. Since then, the series has ended, though it continues to sell well, and though Lahaye, the theological side of the writing duo, has gone on to write other works on the subject of the end times. "End Times Fiction", as originally published, has gone out of print, though an updated version entitled "Left Behind: Separating Fact From Fiction" is available from American Vision, Gary DeMar's ministry.

"End Times Fiction" is a critique of the theology of the "Left Behind" series, otherwise known as Dispensationalism. Many books have been written to critique Dispensationalism, most of which are very well done, and which have served the Church well. DeMar's book, however, takes a different tact than the rest. Drawing specific passages out of the "Left Behind" books, DeMar sets out the teachings of the books clearly and then offers a Biblical critique.

One of the things I like about "End Times Fiction" is that it is one of the most accessible treatments of Dispensational Eschatology that I have read. Being focused on the "Left Behind" novels and the teaching contained in them, the reader has a specific reference point by which to understand DeMar's critiques. DeMar expands his critiques beyond the "Left Behind" books though, bringing in Lahaye's other writings on the subject, as well as the writings of other prominent Dispensationalist teachers. DeMar's book is also quite thorough. Having just finished the book, I can't think of any aspect of the "Left Behind" series that he overlooked.

DeMar is a Partial Preterist, so his critiques toward Dispensationalism are coupled with explanations of specific passages from a Partial Preterist perspective. In so doing, DeMar offers a sound explanation of Scripture's teaching on passages that are typically assigned to the end times. I especially found his detailed consideration of Matthew 24 to be helpful here. He shows how the chapter is to be understood as relating to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and he does so without getting caught up in the sort of minutiae that often distracts theologians. At only 232 pages, the fact that the book deals with so many issues in such a short space, and so completely at that, is quite impressive.

In closing, I have nothing but praise for this book. For anyone whose only knowledge of the end times comes from what they've learned in the Evangelical church, or from the "Left Behind" series, I would highly recommend it.

J. Gresham Machen, on Not Pitting Life and Doctrine Against Each Other

2010-05-20T23:34:00.000-04:00

The New Testament gives not one bit of comfort to those who separate faith from knowledge, to those who hold the absurd view that a man can trust a person about whom he knows nothing. What many men despise today as "doctrine" the New Testament calls the gospel; and the New Testament treats it as the message upon which salvation depends.

But if that be so, if salvation depends on the message in which Christ is offered as Saviour, it is obviously important that we should get the message straight. That is where Christian scholarship comes in. Christian scholarship is important in order that we many tell the story of Jesus and His love straight and full and plain.

At this point, indeed, an objection may arise. Is not the gospel a very simple thing, it may be asked; and will not its simplicity be obscured by too much scholarly research? The objection springs from a false view of what scholarship is; it springs from the notion that scholarship leads a man to be obscure. Exactly the reverse is the case. Ignorance is obscure; but scholarship brings order out of confusion, places things in their logical relations, and makes the message shine forth clear.

There are, indeed, evangelists who are not scholars, but scholarship is necessary to evangelism all the same. In the first place, though there are evangelists who are not scholars, the greatest evangelists, like the Apostle Paul and like Martin Luther, have been scholars. In the second place, the evangelists who are not scholars are dependent upon scholars to help them get their message straight; it is out of a great underlying fund of Christian learning that true evangelism springs.

That is something that the Church of our day needs to take to heart. Life, according to the New Testament, is founded upon truth; and the attempt to reverse the order results only in despair and in spiritual death. Let us not deceive ourselves, my friends. Christian experience is necessary to evangelism; but evangelism does not consist merely in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. We shall, indeed, be but poor witnesses for Christ if we can tell only what Christ has done for the world or for the Church and cannot tell what he has done personally for us. But we shall also be poor witnesses if we recount only the experiences of our own lives. Christian evangelism does not consist merely in a man's going about the world saying: "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit; you can all be as good and as happy as I am if you will just make a complete surrender of your wills in obedience to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. We can preach the gospel, they tell us, by our lives, and do not need to preach it by our words. But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues; they are not saved by the contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through the gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved.

If you want health for your souls, and if you want to be the instruments of bringing health to others, do not turn your gaze forever within, as though you could find Christ there. Nay, turn your gaze away from your own miserable experiences, away from you own sin, to the Lord Jesus Christ as He is offered to us in the gospel. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." Only when we turn away from ourselves to that uplifted Saviour shall we have healing for our deadly hurt.

- "The Importance of Christian Scholarship", found in Education, Christianity, and the State, pp. 19-21

BP and the Gulf Oil Spill: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

2010-05-20T22:14:00.003-04:00

So today BP apparently admitted that far more oil is spilling into the Gulf than they have been estimating. Here's a link to the Associated Press article on the matter:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9FQPKC00

The question that will be on many people's minds will be to what degree BP has simply not been coming clean about the matter (pardon the pun). This brought to mind the following passage on the attempts at cover-up that came in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, from William Lutz's 1996 book The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone's Saying Anymore:

When the oil tanker Exxon Valdez hit the rocks in Prince William Sound in Alaska, a lot more than crude oil flowed. Faced with such a monumental environmental disaster, the folks at Exxon swallowed hard, bit the bullet, and proceeded to clean everything up with doublespeak.

As the residents complained of polluted beaches and the slow to nonexistent cleanup, the executives at Exxon were calling almost thirty-five miles of beaches in Alaska "environmentally clean" and "environmentally stabilized." but then maybe they never bothered to actually visit the beaches and look at them. Paul Nussbaum, a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, did walk on the beaches that had been declared clean or stabilized and found that they were "still covered with oil. They glisten in the sun, slick with crude. Wipe any stone and come away with a handful of oil. Beneath each rock is a pool of uncollected sludge. In the shallow pools created by the outgoing tide, minnow-sized fish swim beneath rainbows of oil sheen." The reporter for Newsweek magazine walked the same beaches and found "the rocks were gritty, sticky and dark brown. Droplets of spray formed beads on the surface, as they would on waxed paper." But that didn't bother Otto Harrison, Exxon's general manager of the Valdez cleanup operations, because he had a whole new definition of the word "clean": Clean "doesn't mean every oil stain is off every rock.... It means that the natural inhabitants can live there without harm." In a twelve-minute film shown during the Exxon shareholders' meeting, the narrator of the film described the Prince William shoreline as "the so-called beaches, mainly piles of dark, volcanic rock." In its press releases, Exxon stopped referring to the beaches as being "cleaned" but called them "treated."

This is a very effective form of doublespeak. Exxon has simply redefined a common word and used it the way it wants to. (pp. 134-135)

Complete "transparency" (the word in vogue these days) from either the U.S. government or BP in this situation is probably too much to expect. More than likely, the coming months will see the doublespeak flowing about as freely as the oil is now, just as in the Exxon Valdez spill. Of course, that will be, for both parties involved in the current crisis, just business as usual.

America Alone, by Mark Steyn: a Book Review

2010-05-17T22:07:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" originally came out in 2006, and if I remember correctly, that's the year I started reading it. In between reading other books, I've picked it back up and read a few pages at a time, determined at some point to finish it. And since 2006, we've moved from a Republican Bush presidency to a Democratic Obama presidency - a significant shift, considering the book revolves around the place of the U.S. government in international relations. Yet despite this and other changes, Steyn's book (which I've finally finished) still remains largely relevant to current events.

Steyn's thesis is essentially that Islam is a real threat to the Western world, and unless it is resisted, in particular by the United States, the formerly Christian West will become the new Islamic West. He discusses how Muslims, rather than taking over Europe first and foremost through acts of violence, have gradually moved into Europe, and simply outgrown native Europeans by having lots of children. In the meantime, native Europeans have decreased in population by failing to "be fruitful and multiply", a symptom of their post-Christian mindset. He does document, however, the numerous acts of violence that have been conducted by Muslims, and notes the practice of the Leftist Western media in generally covering up the peculiarly religious nature of this violence.

He goes on to discuss the failure of the democratic-socialist state in the West, and how it has amassed debt beyond what future generations can reasonably pay, particularly in light of his first point regarding population decline. And lastly, he discusses how the democratic-socialist state has created a sense of ennui in Western countries, making its older and largely childless citizens ripe for the picking by its idealistic and youthful counterparts found in Islam.

There are a number of positive points to Steyn's book. He highlights in no uncertain terms the fact that Islam at its heart is a violent, intolerant religion. While it's true that there are many Muslims in the world who would never think of harming their non-Muslim neighbors, for them to behave that way is inconsistent with their professed faith. The goal of Islam is world conquest, and while having babies is one good way of accomplishing this, so is violent jihad, as the Koran clearly teaches. Steyn convinced me that Islam is a genuine threat, and I believe his analysis of it is largely correct.

His three points, concerning population decline in the West, the incredible debt of the democratic-socialist state, and its failure to create energetic and motivated citizens, are right on target.

I do have a couple of caveats about his arguments, though. For one, Steyn is a bit more of a Neoconservative than I am. I am not so convinced to the degree he is that it is the United States' duty to police the world. I can see some argument for alliances with other countries, though I am hesitant about even that. And even so, there have been huge problems with the way the U. S. has gone about doing it in the past century. Ron Paul, in the collection of speeches found in his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", given before the U. S. House of Representatives between 1976 and 2006, has provided many illustrations of how the U. S. has repeatedly bumbled its involvement with those countries it has made treaties with, made evident once the bullets started flying. We have often found ourselves supplying troops to one side of a war, and supplying arms to the other side, all because we foolishly entered into treaties with both parties at some time prior to the war in question. We call this "keeping the world free" and "maintaining peace", and yet tyranny and warfare remain. Why the idea that it may be best to just get out of the way never occurs to us is beyond me. This said, I do not entirely know what approach the U. S. should take in driving back Islam, if any, in other countries throughout the world. I do know that I'm not as gung-ho about our intervention in other countries as Steyn is, as we have made more than our share of messes by this approach. So this is an ongoing question for me, and one which Steyn did not help resolve, as he provides relatively little in the way of positive solutions..

Secondly, while I appreciate Steyn's assessment of the condition of post-Christian Europe, I believe he leaves out a couple key factors in considering what may best stop the spread of Islam. Steyn's work is not theological in nature, so one can't exactly expect him to adequately address elements related to the Church. And yet the key cause of the failure of European society is the Church. Wherever the Church goes, the culture follows. When we obey God, then we are blessed, and, incidentally, so are those around us who are not Christians. Those who long for a non-religious State are simply fooling themselves. Everything is by nature religious, including the State. If the State doesn't make Christianity its religion, then some other religion will rush in to fill the vacuum. If the Church in Europe can recover itself, then perhaps Europe will not turn out to be as far gone as it might seem.

My last point relates to this, and that is to point out that Steyn does not take into account the Providence of God. He is the one ultimately Who raises up some nations and puts others down. He can turn whole people groups by His willing it alone. Now it is true that He normally works through the agency of man, and so the best way to assure that Europe be saved from utter disaster would be for Christian men everywhere to repent and return to God. And so the future of Europe as Steyn paints it isn't a foregone conclusion. We can still hold out hope that God will have mercy upon Europe (and the U. S.), and draw us all in repentance back to Himself.

All in all, this is a very good book. Steyn is a clever, witty, and engaging writer. And, all caveats to the side, it is well worth the read.

The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis: A Book Review

2010-05-04T00:37:00.002-04:00

An acquaintance a number of years ago told me that C. S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man" was "the toughest little book" he had ever read. Having now read it myself, I would have to say the same. Subtitled "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools", it was originally three lectures on the subject of education that Lewis gave in the early 1940's. And yet the essays go far deeper matter than that of education, to the question of epistemology. One way to categorize it would be as a defense of Classical Thought, as over against Modernist Thought. Another way to look at it would be as defending Objective Truth, as over against Subjectivism. Or, it can be described as a defense of Natural Law, or Natural Philosophy, as opposed to Relativism.

As I already implied, I found the book to be some tough slogging. I took my time and tried to understand each passage before I moved on, but there are a few brief places that will require re-reading, now that I've finished the book, if I'm ever going to understand them. Anyone who only knows Lewis from "The Chronicles of Narnia", "The Screwtape Letters", or even "Mere Christianity", will likely find themselves baffled, unless they have some background in philosophy. In short, Lewis is arguing that the purveyors modern thought, whether knowingly or unknowingly, undermine what is true, good, and beautiful, as well as the love of such things. Lewis argues that these things exist in the absolute, and that they were found among the Classical cultures. Without them, all cultures, all civilizations, fall into ruin.

Lewis is brilliant in his argumentation, as usual, even though at times I don't agree with him. And that takes me to the place of critique. If I have one major criticism of the book, it's that Lewis makes no attempt to defend the uniqueness of Christianity, as over against the other religions of the world. Now it's certain that Lewis believed the only way of salvation was through Jesus Christ, as he made apparent in some of his other writings, such as "Mere Christianity". And yet he seemed to allow for the possibility of those who never heard the Gospel to be saved, if they were faithful to their own religion. One thinks of Emeth the young Calormene in "The Last Battle" as an example. (The fact that he is named "Emeth", the Hebrew word for "truth", was no accident on Lewis's part.) Lewis is here simply following a more Catholic notion of Natural Theology, so it isn't as if his approach has no precedent here. And yet such an approach seems to me to clearly contradict certain passages of Scripture, such as Romans 1-3, as well as the clear treatment of the "gods" of the nations in the Old Testament.

In addition, Lewis cites a number of examples of "the Tao" (his word for Natural Law, an unfortunate choice, I think) in the writings of philosophers and theologians from various cultures and religions throughout the Classical world. While there are abundant similarities, there are plenty of contrasts that, though the book isn't designed to address them, still seem to me too great to simply brush past. Stoics are cited right next to the Gospel of John, as if Holy Scripture's teaching on self-denial is the same as Stoicism's. And statements from ancient Greek and Roman sources, teaching the notion of the supremacy of the State, are put side by side with statements about the primacy of the family, as if no contradiction between the two exist, let alone any contradiction with God's Word.

And all this leaves out the question of the existence of Natural Law itself. I must say that it is an issue I still need to work through. What exactly is meant by "Natural Law" anyway? Lewis attempts to define it, but the length of the book (that is, the length of the lecture time) didn't really allow Lewis to expound on that question, in my opinion, to the degree it needs to be. In addition, there is often confusion over what exactly is meant by "Objective Truth", a question brought up occasionally in our Postmodern (so-called) context. Does "Objective" mean that I have the ability as a human to get outside of a situation and judge it without any motive whatsoever? Lewis would seem to answer "No." In one of the better portions of the book, Lewis teaches that the affections, or the desires, are not neutral. Therefore they must be trained. Part of a good "education" (to use the word differently than we typically mean it - that is, to use it the right way) is to train the appetites and the emotions. We are to love and desire that which is good, and that is something that can be taught. In fact, it must be taught, or else all other attempts to "teach" are in vain.

So to sum up, and in spite of the negatives, this is a brilliant book, and a worthy read. Proceed with caution, and prepare to have your mind rattled.

A Brief Act of Shameless Self-promotion

2010-05-01T12:35:00.002-04:00

I found out last night that I now have my own entry on the Internet Movie Database site, for a couple of tracks I did for a short film called "Castle Hayne", made by Subcreations Productions. I also did a couple of pieces for a short film called "Juniper and Lamplight", also by Subcreations Productions. I don't imagine my brief stints into the world of movie music will result in a burgeoning career as a "composer" (my official title on IMDB). Nonetheless, it's a nice bit of fun, and I certainly would entertain the thought of any other requests that came my way.

Clash of the Titans - A Movie Review (So-Called)

2010-04-13T19:54:00.002-04:00

First, let me say that I made a mistake of glancing at a review of "Clash of the Titans" by Brian Godawa before going to see it today, so what I'm about to write will be partly derivative and responsive to him.

There are a few commonly-known observations I could make about the movie up front. For one, it's a remake of the 1981 movie of the same name. Both, of course, are more or less based on the ancient Greek myth of Perseus. For those who have seen the old film, as well as the trailer for the new film, it will be apparent that some of the cheesiness of the original has been dispensed with. That, of course, is a welcome change.

The new movie itself is just under two hours long. For those who aren't conscious of such things, let me note for you that this generally means you should expect minimal character development. This is especially true of action films, which tend to suffer in that area to begin with. And it is true of this film. The audience is expected to believe that, after knowing each other for only a few days (or forty-five minutes, depending on how you want to time it), there is supposed to be some sort of deep, abiding bond between the heroes. Kind of like those really close, long-lasting relationships you still have with all those people you spent a week at summer camp with as a kid. The standard movie tricks are utilized in an attempt to deceive the audience this way, deep abiding stares and the like. Whether or not the general public will find all this convincing I don't know - I know I didn't.

The short time span of the film also indicates the fact that one can expect constant action. I didn't time them, but I would guess the breaks in action couldn't have been more than sixty seconds each. So for every action scene, that's two dead brain cells per second, times sixty seconds per minute...

The CGI and cinematography were beautiful, and that is one plus that the film had. And the endless aforementioned action scenes were at least entertaining, if not contributing to the intellectual depth of the viewer. The film had a particularly dark cast to it, much like the Lord of the Rings films. In fact, the was much here that reminded one of the Lord of the Rings films - or, rather, seemed like a deliberate imitation thereof. Minus, that is, nine or ten hours of movie time that allowed for conversation, travel, character development, etc. All the stuff that made Lord of the Rings convincing and interesting, in other words.

Brian Godawa noted in his review that the theme of the film is Humanism, and he is correct. Mankind has grown angry with the gods, but the gods have brought judgment on mankind for failing to offer their worship to them. And the answer is supposed to come in one who is half-man, half-god, namely Perseus. Whether this is supposed by the film makers to be a bastardization of the two natures of Christ one can only speculate. Godawa notes a line by Zeus at the end of the film, in which he says, "I wanted men to worship me. But I didn't want it to cost me a son." He suggests that was intended to be a clear contrast with Christianity. Perhaps it was. But demigods were a part of ancient Greek myth, and Perseus was a demigod in Greek mythology, and the actual son of Zeus. So to suppose that the film makers intended that as a slap in the face of Christianity is a conclusion one can't fully come to. Nonetheless, there do seem to be clear indications that portions of the film were shaped by modern notions of religious fundamentalism, and especially Christian Fundamentalism. The portrayal of organized religion in particular in the film has an especially modern (or postmodern) feel to it, and clearly suggests that religious institutions are untrustworthy, and filled with fools and con-artists. That this is a common view today, held by those who claim to be Christians, and those who don't, should be well-known. As a side note, I personally recognize the failures of the church, and know her leaders aren't perfect. And anyone who knows me is aware that I am more than happy to offer critiques of the church where I think it's appropriate to do so. But when I run across people who know little Scripture, little church history, and little theology, who then attempt to critique the church, my patience runs thin with them. Such people generally shouldn't be listened to. This not only characterizes my reaction to people I talk to who are like this, but my reaction to this film as well. It struck me as a particularly ignorant critique of organized religion. The sad thing is that with the ignorance of the average viewer, the critique will be effective, and will contribute to the further idolatry of self, of Humanism, in our society.

In the end, Perseus rejects an offer to dwell among the gods rather than men. The gods are not really needed, it seems. Or make that organized religion. "Imagine there's no heaven...."

Lastly, I would like to note Liam Neeson's role as Zeus in this film. Now that he's played Aslan (the Christ figure), and Zeus, I think he should continue to increase his deity resume. I would recommend sending him to India, and letting him play Lord Vishnu in some Bollywood film. While he's gone, perhaps another actor could fill in as Aslan in the next Narnia film - someone with a less wimpy voice.

So the film was fun, but watch out for the worldview. That's the short of it. I'll give it three stars out of five for the entertainment value alone, but I'm being generous - that thing those of us in that organized religion called "Christianity" do.

But the King Knew Her Not

2010-04-10T22:19:00.001-04:00

Now King David was old and advanced in years. And although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm.
Therefore his servants said to him, "Let a young woman be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king and be in his service. Let her lie in your arms, that my lord the king may be warm."
So they sought for a beautiful young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not.

(1 Kings 1:1-4)

This passage is one that has intrigued me for a long time. Here, in the opening of 1 Kings, we see King David, the mighty warrior-king of Yahweh, in the twilight of his years. The one who once wrote that he could leap over a wall by the strength of the LORD (Psalm 18:29) now finds himself a frail old man, unable to even keep his own body warm. And so his servants find for him a beautiful young woman to lie in his arms and to serve him. Most importantly, we are told he "knew her not", or did not have sex with her.

So why are we told of this seemingly minor incident in David's life? All Scripture certainly has a purpose (2 Timothy 3:16), so this story isn't included without a reason. And while there may be a few reasons, I think it's primarily in order to show us that David repented of his earlier sins, and learned from them.

David had taken the wife of Urriah the Hittite and slept with her. When she became pregnant, he brought Urriah home from battle and tried to arrange circumstances so that he would sleep with her in order to cover up David's sin. And when that failed, David had Urriah put in a place in battle such that it would be impossible for him to live. Once Urriah was dead, David took Bathsheba as his own wife (2 Samuel 11).

But David paid no small consequences for his actions. First, the child of David that Bathsheba was carrying died after a few days (2 Sam. 12:15-23). Then, David's son Amnon violated his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1-22). In vengeance for this, David's son Absalom killed Amnon (2 Sam. 13:23-39), and then took David's kingdom from him for a period of time (2 Sam. 15-18), which included sleeping with David's concubines in a tent on the roof of the king's palace, a public display designed to humiliate and discredit the king (2 Sam. 16:20-23). David eventually regained his kingdom, but only after his son Absalom was killed in battle, specifically against David's wishes (2 Sam. 18).

His daughter's purity taken, and three of his children killed. David was certainly left with no small measure of grief for his sin. In one sense, this was the LORD's doing, as Nathan the prophet had said it would be (2 Sam. 12:14). And yet in another sense, this is the natural outcome of failed leadership. Those in authority who fail to act according to the revealed will of God reap terrible consequences later on, and bring destruction upon those under their care. And a person always reaps what they sow. If one sows the seeds of sexual immorality, then sexual immorality is what will be harvested. For those who are called to lead others, this will be true not only in their own lives, but in the lives of those they lead. Leaders are not only to strive to be an example; they inevitably are an example. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Likewise, train up a child in the way he shouldn't go, and he will go that way, with little variance.

That this is to be our point of reflection when considering this passage should be of no doubt. Following after verse four, we see that another of David's sons, Adonijah the son of Haggith, sought to take the kingship from David as well. David's rebellion toward God set a pattern to be followed, and created a house of rebellious children. And yet, in a strange turn of Providence, it is Bathsheba and Solomon, along with Nathan the prophet, who had confronted David about his sin with Bathsheba, who work together to save David from losing the kingdom to Adonijah (1 Kings 1). God indeed makes beauty from ashes.

Yet the ashes are real. There are real consequences for sin. In the average believer, sin and its consequences are terrifying enough. But for those called to lead others, the seriousness is on a different level altogether. One can only imagine the weight David carried on his shoulders for the rest of his life. Pierce Pettis sought to capture David's sorrow over the death of Absalom, in his song entitled "Absalom":

Come and smear me with the branches of that tree
Hyssop dipped in innocent blood to make me clean
Let an old man's broken bones once more rejoice
Oh Absalom, you were my little boy

Absalom, Absalom
My son, my son, my son
Caught in the tangles of deceit
Hanging lifeless from that tree

Absalom, Absalom
My son, my son, my son
Caught in the tangles of your hair
Fruit of my own sins to bear
Oh Absalom

You were the laughing boy who danced upon my knee
You learned to play the harp and use the shepherd's sling
Always watching, my impressionable son
Oh, Absalom, what have I done?

You were watching when I took a good man's wife
Gave the order for his murder just to cover up the crime
All the vanity, cruel arrogance and greed
Oh Absalom, you learned it all from me

Absalom, Absalom
My son, my son, my son
Caught in the tangles of deceit
Hanging lifeless from that tree

Absalom, Absalom
My son, my son, my son
Caught in the tangles of your hair
Fruit of my own sins to bear
Oh Absalom

Absalom by a strange twist becomes a picture of Christ. Caught by his hair in a tree, he is put to death against David's wishes. Yet by the law he was cursed - "Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree" (Deut. 21:22-23; Gal. 3:13). Absalom was cursed for his sins, and put to death. But Christ, of whom Absalom was a type, was cursed for sins that were not his, and died in our place.

Yet Absalom was not the last of David's children to die as a result of rebellion against God. Though Adonijah was pardoned at first for seeking to take the kingdom, Solomon later had him killed for seeking the hand of Abishag the Shunammite in marriage, which Solomon no doubt saw as an act of usurpation, such as was done by Absalom in sleeping with David's concubines (1 Kings 2:19-27).

The death of Adonijah occurred after David's death. But it wasn't the end of consequences for David's sins. Solomon himself walked in the ways of his father, multiplying wives and concubines, even from pagan nations, and allowed them to turn his heart after false gods. The kingdom split apart because of this after Solomon's death, and never returned to the state it was in during the days of David (1 Kings 11:1-13).

And this all occurred because David, rather than being with his troops in battle during the time of year that kings were at war, decided to take a leisurely walk upon his roof, and failed to turn away his eyes when he saw a woman bathing (2 Sam. 11:1-2).

David didn't live to see all the consequences of his sin. Others were left to deal with them long after he was gone. And yet he saw enough sorrow in his own life as a result of what he had done, that he did not have any sexual involvement with Abishag the Shunammite.

It is said that it is better to learn from mistakes than not to learn from them. But the best mistakes to learn from are someone else's. David learned the hard way. We are given in his life an example, both to follow, and not to follow. In a time when the church has grown casual in its approach to holiness, we have a great need to return to Scripture, and to meditate on both its explicit teachings and its examples, of which David is one. May we, like David, repent of our sins. And may we, unlike David, prize holiness above all, so that we need not walk in the steps of his sorrow.

Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened - a Book Review

2010-04-09T14:42:00.001-04:00

This book contains three essays that were originally delivered in lecture form at the "Symposium for Church and Academy", held at Crichton College. The first two lectures, on Jesus' Crucifixion and Burial respectively, were given by Craig A. Evans, while the last one, on Jesus' Resurrection, was given by N. T. Wright. They offer a New Perspective reading of the three events, though in a rather compact form, as each essay is the written equivalent of only one lecture. In spite of their brevity, there is much good material here. The essays are really designed for those, however, who haven't encountered a New Perspective approach to these matters. Those who have read much of what, say, Wright has written, will probably not find anything earth-shaking here. Wright's essay, in fact, is simply an abbreviated form of his book Surprised by Hope, itself an abbreviated form of his book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

And while there is much good material here, I can't help but have one major qualm, and that has to do with the authors' general approach to Scripture. These essays, as much of the authors' other works do, have a particularly apologetic quality about them. They are seeking to defend the Scripture's testimony regarding the events of Jesus' trial, death, burial, and resurrection, of which they do a very good job. And yet, in so doing, they seem to me to give up the ship. The major problem, it seems to me, is that they both begin by granting to the skeptic the possibility that Scripture's report of the facts may not actually be true, thereby compromising it as the inerrant Word of God. Both scholars, within the context of their respective essays, affirm the possibility of errors within the text of Scripture itself. Now I appreciate the work both men have done in interacting with more liberal scholars, in an attempt to recover a reliable view of God's Word. But if we can't hold to the view that all of the Bible is without error, then we are tearing the foundation out from under the building we're seeking to construct. For this reason, I couldn't recommend this book to the average reader. For someone who is well-versed in Scripture, as well as historic and systematic theology, this might be a helpful read. But the average reader would do better to turn their attention toward some of the apologetic works produced by more Evangelical and Reformed scholars.

Joshua 13-19, the Distribution of the Land of Israel

2010-04-08T20:12:00.000-04:00

I have no clue how to format this properly, so I hope it isn't too hard to follow.

***************************************************

Joshua 13-19, the Distribution of the Land of Israel

I.) Distribution of Transjordan (13)

Prologue to the Distribution of Transjordan (13:1-7)

A.) Distribution of Transjordan (13:8-13)
1.) Reuben - Leah
2.) Gad - Leah's servant Zilpah
3.) Manasseh - Rachel

B.) Levites' Inheritance was the Offerings of the LORD (13:14)
A'.) Distribution of the Transjordan by Tribe, Detailed (13:15-32)
B'.) Levites' Inheritance was the LORD (13:33)

II.)Distribution of West Jordan (14-19)

Prologue to the Distribution of West Jordan (14:1-5)

A.) Caleb's Inheritance, First Part (14:6-15)
B.) Judah's Boundary Lines (15:1-12) - Leah
A'.) Caleb's Inheritance, Second Part (15:13-19)
B'.) Judah's Cities (15:20-63)

C.) Prologue to the Distribution of the Land to Joseph, Boundary of the Land (16:1-4) - Rachel
D.) Ephraim's Allotment (16:5-10)
D'.) Manasseh's Allotment (17:1-13)
C'.) Epilogue to the Distribution of the Land to Joseph, Boundary Expanded
(17:14-18)

E.) Prologue to the Distribution to the Remaining Seven Tribes (18:1-10)
1.) Israel at Shiloh, Tent of Meeting and land (18:1)
2.) Joshua rebukes Israel for not taking possession, and takes steps toward conquering the land (18:2-10)

a.) Benjamin (18:11-28) - Rachel
b.) Simeon (19:1-9) - Leah
c.) Zebulun (19:10-16) - Leah
d.) Issachar (19:17-23) - Leah
e.) Asher (19:24-31) - Leah's servant Zilpah
f.) Naphtali (19:32-39) - Rachel's servant Bilhah
g.) Dan (19:40-48) - Rachel's servant Bilhah

E'.) Epilogue to the Distribution to the Remaining Seven Tribes, Epilogue to the Distribution of West Jordan (19:49-51)
2'.) Joshua receives land and he conquers it (19:49-50)
1'.) Israel's representatives at Shiloh, Tent of Meeting and land (19:51)

Evangelicalism, and the Use and Misuse of Art

2010-04-06T13:00:00.000-04:00

We tend to move slow as molasses in Bible study. That would, of course, be my fault. I can be incredibly long-winded for an introvert. (To defend myself a little, I might also note that there are many, many symbols in Revelation, and adequately explaining their significance takes some time. At least, that's my excuse.) The result is that I've been studied up ahead of schedule for a while now, and I've been able to turn my attention to other things. I've had in mind to read a couple of books that have been popular in Christian circles over the past few years, so I can intelligently interact with other believers about them, and maybe even write a critique or two. After a few pages of each, however, I was ready to shoot myself in the head. Evangelicals just don't know how to write. When I have reactions like that, though, I try to back up and give my own criticism some criticism. Perhaps I am being hasty in my response? I decided the best thing to do would be to take the time to read some classic literature - to sort of remind myself of what good literature is like, in order to offer a reasonable critique of the Christian literature in question. So I've read some short stories, and a couple of novels. Perhaps most importantly, I've returned to reading some of the works of Flannery O'Connor, both her fiction and non-fiction.

Few people understand fiction - or art in general - the way that O'Connor did. After her death, a collection of her essays was published, entitled Mystery and Manners. Out of all that I've read on art, this book stands near or at the top of the list. She discusses what it is to be a fiction writer, giving special attention to her status as a Southerner and a Catholic Christian. While she was a highly intelligent woman (she read a portion of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas every night before she went to sleep), her non-fiction writing was no-nonsense. Her are a couple of my favourite quotes from her, which I've posted before, but which bear repeating:

“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”

"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."

The second quote, I believe, is especially important in considering the question of so-called Christian art. Along with considering popular Christian literature, I've been listening to some Contemporary Christian radio stations, mainly out of curiosity. There's alot I've noticed, but one thing I've learned that's relevant here concerns the purpose of Christian art. I've realized that its purpose, generally speaking, is not that the form of the art itself in any way be for the good of the individual participating in it. Rather, the form of the art is merely as a vehicle for communicating a message. In fact, I've even heard popular CCM artists admit as much. The "art", to the degree that it is art, is simply Utilitarian, or Pragmatic, in its reason for being. Cultural critic Ken Myers notes this in his book All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes, as he compares Popular Culture with Traditional and High Cultures. He points out that in Popular Culture, art is something that's used. In Traditional and High Cultures, however, art is something that is received. In other words, in Popular Culture, the art is something that I am sovereign over, which must submit to me. It meets me where I am, and raises me no higher. But the art of Traditional and High Cultures require that the participant submit to it. It is greater than the participant, and challenges him to ascend beyond himself.

The fact that Evangelicalism, in its worship, its music, its teaching, and so on, tends to make chief the idea of God meeting us where we're at seems no coincidence here. As in Popular Culture, whether Christian or non-Christian, the God of Evangelicalism is Immanent, and never any different. He is common, and in no way mysterious. There is no room for what is communicated by Traditional and High Cultures - a God who is Transcendent, who demands we approach Him in reverence and with awe. I have been in many different churches over the past several years, and in all of the ones that are Contemporary in their approach to worship, this has been true. If there is any fear of God before their eyes, it sure doesn't come out in the way they worship.

My point in all this is to note that Evangelicals seem to not understand the importance of form. They only see Scripture as a summary of the Gospel and a few good teachings, and they don't think the form of it really matters. Consequently, large chunks of it go unexamined. Just as O'Connor noted in the way some people approach her stories, so we tend to approach Scripture. We want to take it, shake out the chaff, and keep the wheat. But all of Scripture is inspired, including those portions of Numbers that seem totally irrelevant to your life. None of it is chaff.

We think the way we do ministry or worship doesn't matter. As long as the message gets across, then we've done our job. And yet think of how contrary to Scripture this way of thinking is. Just look at how many pages of Scripture are devoted to the constructing of the Tabernacle and the Temple (both Solomon's and Ezekiel's). Look at the attention given to the dividing of the land of Israel in the Book of Joshua. Consider the detailed way in which Israel was to march and to camp while in the wilderness. If Scripture reveals the character of God - and it does - then these and other passages would suggest that our God is One to whom form, matter, and order are important. Just as with O'Connor, if you want to know the meaning of God's Story, then you need to learn the whole Story, because the whole Story is the meaning.

And so, leaving aside a critique of any specific musician or author, I would encourage my fellow believers to think more carefully about the forms of media they participate in. In fact, here's an idea. Insofar as it is in your power, take a period of time - at least a month - and separate yourself from all forms of popular media. That includes TV, movies, and music. It's especially important that you stay away from commercial TV and radio. Take the time to engage more fully in prayer, in meditation, in silence. Shop as little as possible. Stay away particularly from Christian stores. Read some classic Christian literature - don't read anything written in the past twenty years. C. S. Lewis is very accessible, and would be a good choice. It would be good to read some classic literature that isn't specifically Christian as well. If you listen to music, listen to some classical, or traditional folk music, whether American, or of some other culture. Once the time is up, go back and begin to live as you had before. See if you respond to your old music and TV the way you used to. If you are open to the experiment, I expect you will find yourself a changed person, and that for the better.

Eastertide

2010-04-06T12:19:00.000-04:00

Easter was day before yesterday, and as most Americans (especially Protestants) celebrate Holy Days, Easter ended day before yesterday. But traditionally the Church has recognized the whole period from Easter until Pentecost to be Easter Season, also called Eastertide. Jesus' death fell exactly in line with Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as was established by Yahweh in the Jewish calendar as a part of the Mosaic Law. It also fell such that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, the typological Eighth Day. This established our celebration of Holy Week, as well as the New Covenant Sabbath, which we call Sunday (Leviticus 23:3-8). Forty days later Jesus ascended to Heaven and took His place on David's throne, from which He now reigns the universe. The Church has traditionally observed that day as Ascension Day. Ten days after his ascension was Pentecost, also called the Feast of Weeks, originally established in the Mosaic Law. In Acts, we are told that the Spirit descended upon the Church during the Feast of Pentecost. And so the Church has historically celebrated Pentecost as the day of its birth. This is the beginning of Ordinary Time, or the Trinity Season, as it is sometimes called. Trinity Season lasts until Advent. The point of all this is to say that we in America tend to observe only part of the Church calendar. The calendar most of us actually observe is a secular calendar, as established by the civil government, a mixture of Christian holidays and state holidays. But the Church is perpetual; no State is. As Alexander Schmemann said, man is by nature liturgical. It is inevitable that we will mark times and seasons. The question is: will we mark them by Redemptive History, or by the false narrative of a Secular History? I think we are wise to prefer the former.

Why I Won't Go to a Seder

2010-04-02T00:52:00.001-04:00

As I begin writing this, it is the night of Maundy Thursday. Traditionally on this day the church has remembered Jesus' upper room discourse and the establishing of the Eucharist. This has usually involved a standard corporate worship service in which the congregation has partaken of Communion. It has sometimes also included the practice of the washing of one another's feet, and/or the "stripping of the altar", which involves the removal of all celebratory items from the altar and the sanctuary.

It seems to have become more common in recent years, however, to observe the Passover Seder feast on or on a day near Maundy Thursday. I've known of individual families to do this in their homes, but I hear more and more of local congregations observing it together. The Seder is still a traditional Jewish practice. But I'm a bit baffled as to why Christian congregations would want to do it. I can't pinpoint the origin of observing the Seder in modern Christian churches exactly. It might have begun among Messianic Jewish congregations; I'm not certain. But the idea seems to have really taken off in Evangelical (that is, non-Reformed) churches. And now, I find some traditional liturgical churches are taking up the practice.

The logic seems to be thus: Christ celebrated the Passover feast with his disciples on the night in which he was betrayed, i. e. Maundy Thursday. It is reasonable then, it is thought, for us to celebrate it as well. Also, it supposedly brings us more in touch with our Jewish heritage.

The fact that it has been predominant among Evangelicals, though, suggests to me that a couple of other things are going on. For one thing, there is the obsession with all things Jewish that is common among Evangelicals, and which is fueled by a Dispensational misunderstanding of Scripture. In spite of the clear teaching of the New Testament that the Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is now God's Chosen People, we hanker after Jewish practices with the jealousy of the second favorite child. ("Oh, to be loved as much as the Jews! Too bad the Church is Plan B." Thankfully, that isn't the case.) I also think the dearth of a deep liturgical practice and culture in the Evangelical church is to blame. In ancient cultures - Jewish or otherwise - there is a strong draw upon modern American Evangelicals who find a great lack of the nobility of age in their own culture and church life. The answer to this, of course, is the ancient Christian liturgy (we are Christians, after all) and not a Jewish - or non-Christian - liturgy.

Beyond this sort of socio-theological analysis, though, I would suggest that this is an inappropriate thing for a church to do. And the reason is simple - we aren't Jews. We live in the New Covenant, and the Seder is an Old Covenant practice. Just as it would be inappropriate to sacrifice bulls and goats to God as an offering in the manner of the Tabernacle system, so it is inappropriate to observe the Seder. At the Last Supper, our Lord replaced the Passover with the Eucharist. That is now our ritual meal. In it, we feed on His Body and Blood, as he has commanded us to. To go back to the Passover Seder is to return to the shadows of the Old Covenant, a thing which Scripture strongly condemns.

Now if a family wants to do a mock Seder as a sort of homeschool learning tool, I could see that as permissible. The original Seder was celebrated in individual homes anyway, so why there would be a trend to bring it into the church is a bit strange anyway. But it must be clear that it isn't a ritual meal for today. The Old has gone away; all things have been made New.

The Windows - George Herbert

2010-03-28T22:32:00.001-04:00

THE WINDOWS.

LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.

But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.

Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.

"Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress - a Review

2010-03-21T23:26:00.001-04:00

This is probably the most even-handed critique of Dispensationalism available. There have been many books that have critiqued Dispensationalism's founding and history, as well as some of the more bizarre tenets of its chief teachers and adherents. And there is a place for that. Vern Poythress, however, takes a completely different approach. His goal, which he states very clearly, is one of dialogue, rather than immediate alienation.

Beginning with Darby and Scofield, and then moving on to more recent Dispensationalists, Poythress looks at some of the key hermeneutical distinctions that separate the system from Covenant theology. He then notes some recent developments in Covenant theology, and moves on to a critique of Dispensationalism.

Poythress raises alot of good issues, and the various lines of critique he offers are deserving of much consideration by Dispensationalists. He shows Dispensationalism’s failure to adequately deal with the New Testament’s interpretation of Old Testament-based typology. And his criticism of the lack of clarity and consistency in one of Dispensationalism’s main hermeneutical positions, that of the claim of a “literal” hermeneutic, is right on track. Poythress is an all-around brilliant guy, well-studied in linguistics as well as theology, which makes him particularly suited for this task.

And this brings us to a few minor problems I have with the book. Poythress is an Amillennialist, and not a Preterist. His exegesis is off in a couple of places because of this, but this is relatively tolerable. The real difficulties come with Poythress’s brilliance. Along with his knowledge of theology and linguistics, Poythress is a professor of science and mathematics. While he brings a technicality and detail to the discussion that is much needed because of this, the book is consequently very laborious reading in places. The sections particularly where he incorporates his linguistic knowledge would prove tough plowing for even most educated readers, if they have no understanding of linguistics themselves. Thankfully, this is not true of the entire book.

In summary, “Understanding Dispensationalists” offers a helpful critique of Dispensationalism, but is probably left to trained theologians and those laypeople who have a greater measure of theological knowledge. For the average layperson, I would recommend Keith Mathison’s “Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?” instead.

This Bread I Break - Dylan Thomas

2010-03-15T15:10:00.001-04:00

This bread I break was once the oat,
This wine upon a foreign tree
Plunged in its fruit;
Man in the day or wind at night
Laid the crops low, broke the grape's joy.

Once in this wine the summer blood
Knocked in the flesh that decked the vine,
Once in this bread
The oat was merry in the wind;
Man broke the sun, pulled the wind down.

This flesh you break, this blood you let
Make desolation in the vein,
Were oat and grape
Born of the sensual root and sap;
My wine you drink, my bread you snap.

The sun worshipper

2010-03-13T19:44:00.001-05:00

I sacrifice my body, nearly naked, to you,
O Helios, charioteer of the sky,
With three pieces of Lycra
Feigning to conceal my shame.
Anointed in coconut oil, with a libation of mimosa,
I lay before you on this altar of vinyl and aluminum
As you send down your fire to consume me.

Worthy are you, o bestower of brown skin,
Of this my offering and praise;
For you give much, and ask little in return.
You stand almost supreme in the pantheon;
You are next only to Captain Morgan and Jack Daniels.

But soon I must return to my dark cubicle
Where I will lament my difficult life
And complain of my bondage to other gods,
Imagining true freedom
And longing for an exodus
To other temples where I might drink away my pain,
Or to you, to recline in obeisance once again.

They say I am vain
But this is no surprise to you
For beneath you is nothing new
And there is no one above to see me
But You.

I Hear the Accuser Roar

2010-03-08T19:29:00.001-05:00

The following is a hymn I learned while working for His Mansion Ministries in New Hampshire. Internet searches have turned up pieces of the hymn in various forms, but never exactly the way I learned it, nor as complete. So I thought I would post it for the benefit of others. The only tune I know for it is a contemporary one, though it is apparently an older hymn. The author was Samuel Grandy, about whom I know nothing.

***********************************

I Hear the Accuser Roar

I hear the accuser roar,
Of ills that I have done;
I know them well, and thousands more;
Jehovah findeth none.

Sin, Satan, Death, press near,
To harass and to appall;
Let but my risen Lord appear,
Backward they go and fall.

Before, behind, around,
They set their fierce array,
To fight and force me from my ground
Along Immanuel's way.

I meet them face to face,
Through Jesus' conquest blest;
March in the triumph of His grace,
Right onward to my rest.

There, in His book I bear
A more than conq'ror's name,
A soldier, son, and fellow-heir,
Who fought and overcame.

His be the Victor's name
Who fought our fight alone;
Triumphant saints no honor claim,
Their conquest was His own.

By weakness and defeat
He won the meed and crown
Trod all our foes beneath His feet,
By being trodden down.

He hell in hell laid low;
Made sin, he sin o'erthrew;
Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,
And death, by dying, slew.

Bless, bless the Conq'ror slain!
Slain in His victory!
Who lived, who died, who lives again,
For thee, His Church, for Thee!

Marginalia by Billy Collins

2010-03-01T23:06:00.002-05:00

Sometimes the notes are ferocious,
skirmishes against the author
raging along the borders of every page
in tiny black script.
If I could just get my hands on you,
Kierkegaard, or Conor Cruise O'Brien,
they seem to say,
I would bolt the door and beat some logic into your head.

Other comments are more offhand, dismissive -
"Nonsense." "Please!" "HA!!" -
that kind of thing.
I remember once looking up from my reading,
my thumb as a bookmark,
trying to imagine what the person must look like
who wrote "Don't be a ninny"
alongside a paragraph in The Life of Emily Dickinson.

Students are more modest
needing to leave only their splayed footprints
along the shore of the page.
One scrawls "Metaphor" next to a stanza of Eliot's.
Another notes the presence of "Irony"
fifty times outside the paragraphs of A Modest Proposal.

Or they are fans who cheer from the empty bleachers,
Hands cupped around their mouths.
"Absolutely," they shout
to Duns Scotus and James Baldwin.
"Yes." "Bull's-eye." "My man!"
Check marks, asterisks, and exclamation points
rain down along the sidelines.

And if you have managed to graduate from college
without ever having written "Man vs. Nature"
in a margin, perhaps now
is the time to take one step forward.

We have all seized the white perimeter as our own
and reached for a pen if only to show
we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages;
we pressed a thought into the wayside,
planted an impression along the verge.

Even Irish monks in their cold scriptoria
jotted along the borders of the Gospels
brief asides about the pains of copying,
a bird singing near their window,
or the sunlight that illuminated their page-
anonymous men catching a ride into the future
on a vessel more lasting than themselves.

And you have not read Joshua Reynolds,
they say, until you have read him
enwreathed with Blake's furious scribbling.

Yet the one I think of most often,
the one that dangles from me like a locket,
was written in the copy of Catcher in the Rye
I borrowed from the local library
one slow, hot summer.
I was just beginning high school then,
reading books on a davenport in my parents' living room,
and I cannot tell you
how vastly my loneliness was deepened,
how poignant and amplified the world before me seemed,
when I found on one page

a few greasy looking smears
and next to them, written in soft pencil -
by a beautiful girl, I could tell,
whom I would never meet -
"Pardon the egg salad stains, but I'm in love."

Buttprints in the Sand

2010-02-08T17:44:00.000-05:00

From Greensboro's own Charlie and Ruth Jones, better known as Peculiar People - http://www.peculiarpeople.com/ - a spoof of the sentimentalistic and theologically dubious poem "Footprints in the Sand":

Buttprints in the Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream
One set of footprints there was seen
The footprints of my precious Lord
But mine were not along the shore.

But then some strange prints appeared
I asked the Lord, "What have we here?"
Those prints are large and round and neat
"But Lord, they are too big for feet."

"My child," He said in somber tones
"For miles I carried you along
I challenged you to walk in faith
But you refused and made me wait."

"You disobeyed, you would not grow
The walk of faith you would not know
So I got tired, I got fed up
And there I dropped you on your butt."

"Because in life there comes a time
When one must fight and one must climb
When one must rise and take a stand
Or leave their butt prints in the sand."

Greensboro, the Gospel, and the International Civil Rights Center

2010-01-30T20:56:00.000-05:00

As those of you who live in the Greensboro area know, the International Civil Rights Center was to finally open this weekend, after a long time of planning, and following no small measure of controversy. My knowledge of what has been going on the past couple of years with regard to the Center has been limited. And I have made no attempts to follow the controversy, though, working with the public as I do, I can hardly avoid hearing a little bit about it. The opening of the Center was to be celebrated by a number of events, which were to be attended by a handful of African-American celebrities. I expect, however, that since Greensboro has been hit with a fairly heavy snow storm this weekend, not all the events have gone on as scheduled. It's rather strange for us to get this much snow, and disappointing for the event organizers, I don't doubt.

Greensboro was a fairly important player in the civil rights movement in the sixties. Those not familiar with the history can read about it here:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/

Growing up here as I did, I learned about the civil rights movement through history class in grade school. And living here most of my life since, I've also learned that not everyone was happy about it then, and many still aren't. It seems pretty clear that Greensboro is still an area of great racial tension. I follow Greensboro politics little (as I actually don't live in the city, but just outside), but enough to notice how this tension has manifested itself in the past few elections, as well as in the meetings of the city council.

The most familiar event, and most celebrated, of the civil rights movement, was the famous sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counter in 1960. What is lesser known - entirely unknown to me, until a few years ago - is the street demonstrations of 1963. In some sense, it was actually the events of '63 that made it possible for African-Americans to begin to participate in all the aspects of society that White citizens had access to. Here is a good intro to those events:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/topicalessays/busdesegprotest.aspx

I first learned of the demonstrations of 1963 through a class on Southern History after the Civil War that I took at UNCG a few years back. We were required to do an oral presentation on one of a handful of topics relating to the civil rights movement in Greensboro, and I chose the events of '63 at random. This led to my finding my way into a largely neglected (but very nice, I might note) part of the UNCG library where microfilm of Greensboro's newspapers - formerly the Greensboro News (sold in the morning) and the Greensboro Record (sold in the afternoon) - were kept stored.

What was especially interesting for me as I searched through several days of newspaper was coming across something I didn't expect. I ran upon a response to the demonstrations, published around the beginning of June '63 in one of the Greensboro papers (I failed to make a note of which one, sadly), and written by a handful of local Christian men, who were more than likely all ministers. (I say more than likely because I am only familiar with two of the names - H. G. Mackay and Roy Putnam, both of whom were ministers in the area: Forest Avenue Tabernacle - now Shannon Hills Bible Chapel - and Trinity Church, respectively. Though I would assume that the other men were ministers as well, I can't say for sure.)

Their response took the form of a doctrinal statement, and is worth the reading, especially for those who are from or live in Greensboro. You will find it posted below. While I might differ with a minor point here or there, I would agree with it, and that almost wholeheartedly. It articulates something that desperately needs to be considered again in Greensboro today and which, I suspect, rarely is by those who regularly seek to take the reigns of power in Greensboro. You can fight for your rights and for the rights of others all you want. But if the Gospel is left out, your warring will be disastrous, for yourself as well as for others. The civil rights movement has usually been accompanied by a pseudo-Christian belief and church life that affirms a "Social Gospel", which is no Gospel at all. I'm in favor of honoring one's heritage, and the liberation that God has given the African-American community is something to praise Him for. But if the worship of Christ and the preaching of the True Gospel are to be replaced by the worship of one's own racial cause, then that is idolatry, something God doesn't take lightly. And ultimately, the Gospel entails the tearing down of racial divisions, not the establishing of them. Hopefully, the International Civil Rights Center won't just be another Tower of Babel. Considering Greensboro's recent history, I can't say I'm particularly encouraged that that will be the case.

**********************************************

A Statement of Evangelical Concern

We, the undersigned, as individual believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, desire, in view of the racial tensions now distressing our city and nation, to set forth the following statement of evangelical concern:

1. Our only recourse in this or any problem is to the God of the Bible and the Lord of History. Because He is the One with Whom we have to do, we "cease from man" and every human solution. We also bow to the truth that "God is no respecter of persons." He plays no racial favorites, but all men are accountable to Him, their Creator and Judge, on the basis of their common humanity. (Ps. 60:11, Jer. 3:23, Acts 10:34, Rom. 14:14.)

2. The humanity which men share, however, has been deeply dyed by sin with the result that they are estranged both from God and from each other. No longer do they view their fellows, as God does, without partiality. Rather do their sinful natures express themselves by an inborn pride which glories, among other things, in racial distinctions. (Rom. 3:23, Is. 59:2, Luke 18:11, John 4:9.)

3. We must acknowledge that the current unrest had its origin in the sin of our forefathers, North and South, who for their own selfish ends brought an unwilling people to these shores. Furthermore, we admit that we too bear a measure of blame, for we have been reluctant to face the spiritual implications of the gulf existing between the races.

4. Because we know our own hearts and because we believe God's Word, we can see no permanent solution arising out of man's efforts to right wrongs and conciliate grievances. Human attempts to bring the races together in Northern cities have only compounded the problem. There racial pride has been driven underground - by legislation, executive order and judicial decision - only to reappear in subtler forms and uglier guises. (Job 14:4, Matt. 12:43-45, John 15:5, II Cor. 3:5)

5. We submit that the only Scriptural hope for any lasting reconciliation between men is to be found, not in one race demanding justice from another race, but in individuals of both races humbling themselves as sinners and claiming the grace of God in Christ. In that act they will experience what Christ described as a Second Birth, with the changing of heart attitudes and the redirecting of personal motives. We do not claim that the new Birth will automatically resolve all tensions but that it alone opens up the possibility of a true solution. (John 3:3, II Cor. 5:17, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11)

6. In support of this claim we point to the decisive results of the Great Evangelical Awakening which came to England two centuries ago. When that nation was poised on the precipice of a bloody social revolution, hundreds of thousands in all classes experienced the New Birth. As a direct consequence the whole atmosphere of English life was improved and the needed reforms peacefully introduced. Nor was it a coincidence that the Emancipation of the slaves, first in the British Empire and then in the United States, owed its inspiration to William Wilberforce, a product of the Awakening.

7. It is our deep conviction that the living God is speaking to Greensboro through its present troubles. He it is Who, more that any racial group, is shaking the foundations and calling the citizens of this city to repentence and saving faith in His eternal Son. Increasingly the message of a Savior slain and risen has been “despised and rejected” by both Negroes and Whites in favor of manmade programs of social betterment. Now, with these failing, God would summon us back to the redeeming Cross around which men of both races can stand together on level ground. (Acts 20:21: I Cor. 1:23,24; Eph. 2:13, 14.)

A. L. Parker
Roy C. Putnam
Frederick W. Evans, Jr.
H. G. Mackay
James A. Raines
R. Harold Mangham
Russ A. Heyne
Edwin L. Smithwick.

Four Approaches to Interpreting the Book of the Revelation

2010-01-14T19:55:00.001-05:00

This is the last of the prepatory notes designed to precede our study of Revelation. My goal was to give short definitions of the four positions, and offer a brief critique of the three views I disagree with. Brevity was a chief goal here, as you will notice. Of all the sets of notes I've prepared recently, these cover the subject of which I'm the least knowledgeable, particularly with regard to Idealism and Historicism. I trust those of you who are more familiar with these positions will offer your thoughts if you feel I have misrepresented them.

**************************************

Four Views of Revelation

American satirist Ambrose Bierce accurately reflected the sentiments of many who have attempted to make sense of the last book of the Bible when, in his book The Devil's Dictionary, he defined "Revelation" as "a famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing." Such cynicism is understandable, in light of Revelation's complexity. And yet, if we are to take Paul's words seriously when he says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), then to allow such cynicism to keep us away from a deep study of the book is inexcusable.

Acknowledging this, of course, doesn't make the task any easier. There have through the years been endless attempts to come to a conclusive, systematic understanding of the book. From these many attempts, however, have emerged four dominant approaches. A consideration of these before examining the book itself should prove helpful in our own study.

I.) Futurism

Futurism is the view that holds that the major portion of Revelation (from chapter 4 to the end of the book) has yet to be fulfilled in history, and will be fulfilled at the end of the current age. The seven year Tribulation, the coming of the Beast, the last battle, the Millennium, and other common themes of Bible prophecy, have yet to happen. This view is the majority view in the church today, as the majority of the church is Dispensational. Not all Futurists, however, are Dispensationalists.

Because of its wholly future nature, Futurism is subject to "newspaper exegesis". Each generation of Futurists, when encountering the evil of the world around them, has a tendency to come to the conclusion that they must be living in the "last days". The fruit of this is a proclivity to attempt to fit current events into prophetic passages, often resulting in bizarre and even humorous interpretations. Any political leader, for instance, who finds himself with an unusual amount of influence on world events is subject to the suspicion of being the Beast of Revelation 17. Yet while Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, and Ronald Reagan have all returned to dust, Futurism continues to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, ignoring all its prior failures to predict the happenings of the end of days.

II.) Historicism

Historicism teaches that the central portion of Revelation is an unfolding of the course of history from the establishing of the Church until the Second Coming of Christ. Certain elements in Revelation are regarded as corresponding to specific historical events, such as the destruction of Rome, the rise of Islam, and the Protestant Reformation. A key aspect of the Historicist view is the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and that the Papacy is the Beast. Historicism was the view held by the vast majority of Protestant theologians up until the 19th century. It is in our time probably the least commonly held of the four positions.

When it comes to the obstacles this position faces, Historicism suffers from much the same problem as Futurism. While one might comfortably align passages with historical events from earlier centuries, the struggle comes when one seeks to find one's own era in Revelation. The Reformers thought that the end of the Church age would be soon and, seeing themselves freed from "the Beast", thought that they would certainly be entering the Millennium very shortly. And yet, as its predictions have failed, Historicism has undergone repeated revision. This state of flux has no doubt been a contributing factor to the majority of interpreters abandoning this approach.

III.) Idealism

The Idealist approach (also known as the Spiritualist approach) sees Revelation as a series of allegories of the life of the Christian and the Church. Rather than attaching the events in the book to specific historical occurrences, Idealism views Revelation as containing images of the struggles every Christian goes through in life, or that individual churches will experience in history. These are to be taken as a source of encouragement. Idealism is a common view in our time, particularly among Amillennialists.

While it is proper to look to Revelation for examples of how to conduct oneself in the world, to reduce it in all its complexity to mere moral lessons seems to dishonor the text. Would God really give us such details, only to have them correspond to nothing in particular? For God to everywhere in Scripture be concerned about place, matter, and history, to then give us a book that has no link to these things, seems to me to be incongruent with His character as Scripture reveals it to us.

IV.) Preterism

Preterism teaches that the majority of the Revelation was fulfilled in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A. D. Building off of and fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, Revelation shows God bringing destruction upon Israel and specifically Jerusalem for her repeated failure to trust and obey Him, which culminated in her rejection of her Messiah. While it is still a minority view, Preterism has become more common in recent years.

There have been attempts at combining the above views in various ways. Most common is the attempt to combine elements of Preterism with Idealism, such as is done by Hank Hanegraaff. Nonetheless, these four are the major views taught in the church today.

Dispensationalism Notes

2010-01-12T00:51:00.002-05:00

The following is my brief examination of Dispensationalism that we went over in our Bible study group a couple of months ago. I got mixed reviews on it, and that's why I didn't initially put it on here. But after some thought, I decided to post it anyway. Let me note a couple of things as a preface to it.

First, it isn't the best writing I've ever done. So if you're thinking that as you read it, be comforted that I think that as well. Secondly, one can hardly leave their house nowadays without stepping on a Dispensationalist. Though the system is becoming more and more discredited by actual scholars, the average layman still believes Dispensationalism to some extent, though he may not be able to identify it as such. Consequently, any number of Dispensationalists may read this and say, "that isn't my position." But the goal here is mainly to represent Classic Dispensationalism, as taught by people such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield, not the hybrid systems that most individuals hold to today. The reader may think what I have written is overly harsh, or a misrepresentation of the system. But what I have presented here is accurate, I would contend, and I have been much gentler than one finds in critics such as John Gerstner, Cornelis van der Waal, Lorraine Boettner, Hank Hanegraaff, Reginald Kimbro, or Michael Williams. It is true that I have brought up some radical issues at times. But whereas I did not provide references to substantiate my claims, anyone wishing to track them down may consult the aforementioned authors.

*********************************************

In the life of the Church there have been various approaches to understanding God's way of working in the world through time. An exhaustive study of this would be impossible, even after a lifetime of research. Nonetheless, certain approaches have been more generally accepted, and therefore an examination of them is not only profitable but necessary.

Two views on God's overarching plan for the universe stand out in particular: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

I. Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism originated around 1830 in the British Isles. While elements of the system emerged from various teachers of the Plymouth Brethren movement, its main systematizer was John Nelson Darby. In the United States, Dispensationalism was disseminated largely through the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Eventually the system became the predominant approach to interpreting the Scriptures among Christians in the United States.

Dispensationalism teaches that God's working in the world is carried out in a series of dispensations or stewardships. At the initiation of each dispensation, God comes to man and gives man a fresh revelation of Himself. Man is then faced with new obligations before God, through which God tests the faithfulness of man. So long as man is obedient, the dispensation continues and man is blessed. But in each dispensation, it is said, man inevitably fails, bringing God's judgment upon himself.

There is disagreement among Dispensationalists on how many dispensations there will be. But the majority, drawing off of the writings of C. I. Scofield, hold that there will be a total of seven dispensations:

1.) Innocence - from Creation to the Fall
2.) Conscience - from the Fall to the Flood
3.) Human Government - from the Flood to Babel
4.) Promise - from Abraham to Egypt
5.) Law - from Moses to Christ's 1st Advent
6.) Grace - from Christ's 1st Advent to His 2nd Advent
7.) Millennium - from Christ's 2nd Advent to the Final Judgment

But while an ordering of history by a scheme of dispensations is a key feature of Dispensationalism, it is not the most important feature. The most important feature of Dispensationalism is the distinction it makes between Israel and the Church. Israel and the Church are considered to be as unmixable as oil and water. The distinctions that Dispensationalists make between the two groups are numerous. Chiefly, Israel is regarded as a physical and earthly people, whereas the Church is regarded as a spiritual and heavenly people. All other distinctions between the two arise from these.

Dispensationalists claim that God's primary concern in the history of the world is Israel. And so when Christ first came to earth, His purpose was to set up His kingdom in the earthly Jerusalem, as promised by God through the prophets. And yet Israel crucified him, having rejected His offer to rule over them.

Having risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, Jesus Christ now sits as a rejected Messiah. The kingdom is postponed until His second coming, at which time He will set up His reign in Jerusalem as He sought to do in His first coming.

So what, according to Dispensationalists, is the time we are living in now? This is the Dispensation of Grace, also known as the Church Age. Since Israel has rejected His legitimate offer, Christ has set Israel aside and has inaugurated the Church. The Church is not God's primary concern; Israel is. And so some Dispensationalists have gone so far as to refer to the Church as "God's Plan B". The Church Age is regularly considered and referred to by Dispensationalists as a "parenthesis" in God's prophetic scheme.

The Church, we are told, is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. They say that the Church was entirely hidden and unknown prior to its being revealed by Christ during His earthly ministry. And so all the prophecies in the Old Testament apply only to the nation of Israel and her interaction with the Gentile nations considered apart from the Church.

Since there are, in the Dispensational scheme, O.T. prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and the Church is not in them, and since God can only deal with one "people" at a time, then the Church must be taken out of the world before God can begin His work with Israel again. Hence, Dispensationalists propose that the Rapture occurs prior to the Tribulation.

In the Tribulation, Israel, God's first love, will return fully to the land of Israel and be restored as a nation. During that time, the Antichrist will arise and rule the world, until Christ returns and destroys the Antichrist and all those who aligned themselves with him.

One of the features of this idea of the reconstituted Israel that has come under critique by non-Dispensationalists has been the belief that Solomon's Temple will be rebuilt, in which the O.T. sacrificial system will be reinstated. The sacrifices will not only exist during the Tribulation, but will continue throughout the Millennium. This is believed, in spite of the fact that the Messiah, whom the sacrifices were originally instituted to point forward to, will Himself be seated on David's throne in Jerusalem. This is also criticized by non-Dispensationalists because of the Book of Hebrews' teaching that in His death Christ fulfilled all the types of the O.T. sacrifices through his once-for-all sacrifice, and actually propitiated sins, which Hebrews tells us the O.T. sacrifices could never do.

At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will return with the Church, will destroy His enemies, and will set up His Kingdom in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the earth for a thousand years. This is the Millennium, the seventh dispensation. In the Dispensational scheme, this means that believers who were raptured and therefore already have their resurrected, perfected bodies will dwell on earth and live forever, while those saved during the Tribulation will die and be buried. Non-dispensationalist theologians, of course, have noted the strange nature of this arrangement fairly regularly in their critiques. It would also seem contrary to the Israel-Church distinction to have the Church return with Christ and dwell on the earth with Israel, when the Church is considered a non-earthly people. Some have proposed, however, that after the Millennium, when God creates a New Heavens and a New Earth, Israel will inhabit the new Earth for eternity, whereas the Church will inhabit the new Heavens for eternity. And so the two groups will remain forever separate.

Classical Dispensationalism differs from historic orthodox Christianity on so many points that Dispensationalists have found themselves having to defend their doctrines fairly regularly since their system emerged in the 19th century. Here are a few more controversial ideas found in Dispensationalism.

1.) Classical Dispensationalism sees the world as ruled by Satan. They define the world as the works of man apart from God, which to them includes practically all aspects of culture. Sometimes, however, Dispensational theologians have slipped into condemning the material universe altogether, thus falling into the ancient heresy of Dualism, which states that all matter is evil. In condemning all culture, the result among consistent Dispensationalists has been to withdraw from society to a large extent, which in turn has led to the creation of the Christian subculture.

2.) Classical Dispensationalism sees man as made up of three parts: soul, spirit, and body. Historic Christianity regards man as composed of two parts: spirit and body. The latter view is called Dichotomy. The former view is called Trichotomy, and was condemned in the theology of Apollinaris by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

3.) Classical Dispensationalism has often been confusing in many ways when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. Historic orthodox Christianity teaches that man does not achieve favor before God (that is, salvation) by good works. And yet, good works accompany salvation in such a way that no person who is without good works will be saved. In other words, good works are the natural and necessary result of salvation, not the cause of it. Dispensationalism takes these distinctions and reverses them.

On the one hand, Dispensationalism makes a strong distinction between a Christian's position in Christ and his practice before Christ. A person may be saved, they say, and his position in Christ is therefore secure. And yet that person in practice may be living in total rebellion against God. This also shows up in the distinction between the "spiritual" Christian and the "carnal" Christian. A "spiritual" Christian is one who is saved and living according to God's word; a "carnal" Christian is one who is saved but is living contrary to God's word.

On the other hand, some Dispensationalists have fallen into teaching that the people of God have been saved in different ways in different dispensations. In particular, certain statements made by C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, suggested the belief that, whereas people in the Church Age are saved by grace, those who lived in the Age of Law were saved by good works. Later Dispensationalists have denied that their system teaches different ways of salvation, and have sought to prove that this is not what Scofield and Chafer believed. Nonetheless, no small measure of confusion on this exists in their writings.

Dispensationalism has gradually changed since its inception, as its adherents, through dialogue with non-dispensationalists, have sought to correct its more egregious errors to bring it more in line with historic Christianity. This is most notable in the school of thought known as Progressive Dispensationalism. Progressives view the dispensations as progressively building one on another (hence the name) through time, in contrast with the Classical Dispensational view, which sees each new dispensation as an entirely new era of God's dealing with man. Progressives believe, along with Covenantal theologians, that Christ is now seated on David's throne in heaven, though they believe in a future Millennium. They also see the Church and Israel in a more united fashion, though they maintain that certain promises made to Israel remain Israel's alone.

While Progressive Dispensationalism has gradually grown through the past twenty years of its existence, it has yet to make many inroads into local churches, its impact being felt moreso at this point at the seminary level. The vast majority of Evangelical churches still hold to Classical Dispensationalism as I have outlined it here, though they may not hold to every detail. And while the differences between Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism are so great that many consider Progressives to not even be Dispensationalists, they still maintain enough of traditional Dispensationalism that they cannot be considered Covenantal.

The Millennium

2010-01-07T00:20:00.002-05:00

The following is a continuation of our study of eschatology. I wrote it about a month ago, and we finally read and discussed it tonight. Having re-read it now, I think it was moderately well done. The goal in presenting this to the group was not an extensive discussion of millennial views, so much as it was a cursory overview, sufficient to prepare everyone for a detailed Bible study on Revelation. It gets a little sarcastic at times. And rather than making fun of Dispensationalism, as is my custom, I decided this time to pick on Amillennialists a little bit. Feel free to post your comments.

*************************************

The Millennium

One of the unique aspects of this moment in Church history is the amount of detailed attention given to eschatology, also known as the study of last things. While there have always been plenty of theories on the end of the world, both in Christian and pagan cultures, never before have there been positions so neatly defined and distinguished such as we have now, particularly in Christian theology. Whether or not the theologians have successfully gotten at Scripture's teaching on the end times is, as is the case with most everything, still a matter of debate. For now, we have a handful of choices to make in navigating the eschatological waters, and only history will tell which theologians are the closest to the truth.

It is a testimony to the strangeness of the Christian Church that in categorizing various views on the end times, we would begin by going to the most complicated and highly symbolic book in Scripture, choose one number out of the many in the text, translate the word for it into a dead language, and make it the hinge on which everything else turns. And yet this is, in fact, the current state of affairs in the study of Biblical prophecy. Inquire of anyone who is moderately theologically cognizant as to what their view of the end times is, and they will more than likely respond that they are either Premillennial, Amillennial, or Postmillennial. Derived from Revelation 20:1-7, the word "millennium" is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek word "chilia", both of which mean "one thousand". No other passage anywhere in Scripture, outside of these few verses in Rev. 20, speaks of Christ reigning for a thousand years. And so some theologians have reasonably asked whether it is wise to make so much of such a unique passage. Whatever the answer to this may be, the state of affairs in eschatology is such that naming one's millennial view is the starting place for interpreting the rest of Biblical prophecy.

We have already named the three basic millennial positions above. For each, however, there are two common variations, bringing the total to six. We will survey each in turn, taking note of some similarities and contrasts along the way.

I. Premillennialism

Premillennialism in its simplest form is the view that Christ's Second Coming is to occur prior to the establishing of His Kingdom upon the earth. And yet more is included in the idea of Premillennialism than this, as we will see. There are essentially two forms of Premillennialism: Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism.

A. Historic Premillennialism

Historic Premillennialism is called such because it is a view attributed to certain of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. Because of this, Historic Premillennialists have often stated that their view is the single view of the early church. And yet much evidence has surfaced over the past few years to suggest that there was a greater measure of diversity among the early theologians on eschatology, and that the more prominent view among them might have been more along the lines of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism. Nonetheless, the name remains.

The basic outline of Historic Premillennialism is as follows:

- Christ is now reigning in Heaven, and yet the full establishment of His reign as David’s heir will not occur until His Second Coming.

- The current age in which we live will be one predominantly characterized by defeat, as the Church’s attempts to spread the Gospel and influence the world for good will be overwhelmingly thwarted by Satan’s work.

- As the Second Coming approaches, the world will grow more and more wicked. The Great Tribulation will begin at the end of the age, and the Antichrist will arise to dominate the world.

- Christ will return at the end of the Tribulation, defeat all His enemies, bind Satan and throw him into the Lake of Fire, and set up His throne in Jerusalem. His reign, most say, will be for a literal one thousand years. This will be a period of worldwide peace and prosperity.

- At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released, and he will lead a revolt against Christ. God will send fire from heaven, which will consume all the enemies of Christ.

- God will then make a new heavens and a new earth, and the eternal state will begin.

B. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensational Premillennialism agrees largely with Historic Premillennialism, only allowing for Dispensationalism’s unique views on the Church and Israel. Whereas Historic Premillennialism holds that there is one people of God through the history of the world, Dispensationalism teaches that there are two peoples of God. And so Dispensationalism generally teaches that the Church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation, while Historic Premillennialism teaches that all those living at the end of the age will go through the Tribulation, including the Church.

II. Amillennialism

The term “amillennial” literally means “no thousand”, and whether or not Amillennialists believe that there is no thousand year reign of Christ depends on which one of them you ask. Some Amillennialists claim that the reign of Christ in Revelation 20 refers strictly to the reign of Christ in the hearts of the elect through Church history. Some say that it is the reign of Christ with the departed believers in Heaven. And some say that it is His reign in His Church on earth. Generally speaking, Amillennialists agree that the thousand years is a symbolic number, referring to the period of time between the first and second comings of Christ. And yet it is not uncommon to hear Amillennialists, seeking to distance themselves from both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism, say, “there is no one thousand year reign of Christ”.

There are two forms of Amillennialism. One we will call Pessimistic Amillennialism, and the other Optimistic Amillennialism.

A. Pessimistic Amillennialism

Pessimistic Amillennialism in its basic form looks like this:

- When Christ ascended to Heaven forty days after His resurrection, He took the throne of David in Heaven, where He reigns until His second coming.

- During the period in between the two comings, the righteous and the unrighteous will both dwell together in the world, neither having particularly greater sway over society than the other. The Church’s efforts in spreading the Gospel will have mediocre success, despite the fact that Satan is bound during this period.

- Toward the end of the Millennium, evil will grow worse and worse, culminating in a great tribulation

- Christ will return, destroy His enemies, and a new heaven and a new earth will be created.

B. Optimistic Amillennialism

Optimistic Amillennialism is a very new term in eschatology. As of yet, there have been no lengthy systematic works written to defend it, and so laying out the position in any detail is currently impossible. It largely follows the pattern of Pessimistic Amillennialism, except it expects greater success for the Church in the spreading of the Gospel between the two Advents. The degree to which it expects the world to get better depends on which theologian is addressing the question. And yet one thing is for certain for all Amillennialists - there will be no “Christianization” of the world as is taught by Postmillennialism.

III. Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the view that leading up to the Second Coming there will be a gradual overall betterment of the world. The Gospel will be met with success as it is preached throughout the world, so much so, in fact, that when history has come to an end, the majority of people who have lived will be saved. Consequently, blessings will abound to every part of life. Peace will increase; there will be great strides in technology, the arts, politics, and every other sphere of society. These things will come slowly, however, as yeast works its way through a lump of dough. During the Millennium, Christ is reigning on the earth through His saints, who exercise His reign in their respective callings. When Christ returns, He will return after the Millennium to a world that is mostly Christianized, though not every person will be saved.

There are two basic Postmillennial views. We will call them Puritan Postmillennialism and Modern Postmillennialism.

A. Puritan Postmillennialism

I have named this view “Puritan Postmillennialism” because it is the view that was held by the vast majority of Puritans, not to mention the majority of the Protestant Church, until the 19th century. For the Puritans, the Millennium was not the entire period between Christ’s two comings. Instead, the Millennium referred to a golden age that would come toward the end of the New Covenant period. Some believed that this would be a literal one thousand years, while others did not.

B. Modern Postmillennialism

This is a variation of Postmillennialism which emerged in the 20th century, and that, like Amillennialism, saw the entire period between the first and second comings of Christ as the Millennium. Yet, unlike Amillennialism, Modern Postmillennialism holds to a more positive outcome to the influence of the Gospel in the world.

One of the problems in Eschatology that is often discussed is the question of terminology. The term “amillennial”, for instance, is a very new term, having been coined in the late 19th century. Prior to that, what we call “Amillennialism” was just a variety of Postmillennialism. Both, after all, hold the view that Christ will return after the period delineated by the “one thousand years” in Revelation 20. For this reason, some Amillennialists are quick to note their dissatisfaction with the term used to identify their view.

While these are the most common views of the end times, there are endless variations on these, due to the complexity of the subject matter. For instance, some Amillenialists believe in a future personal Antichrist, while others do not. Also, most Premillennialists believe the Millennium is exactly one thousand years long; but it’s perfectly possible to be a Premillennialist and take that number to be symbolic of an undisclosed period of time. As we continue our study, we will find the possibility of even more variations, many of which concern the Book of the Revelation itself.

A poem by John Donne, for the leaving of the old year and the coming of the new

2010-01-02T11:11:00.001-05:00

A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER.
by John Donne

I.
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

II.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

III.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.

Plague Victims Catapulted Over Walls Into Besieged City - by Thomas Lux

2010-01-02T11:10:00.000-05:00

Early germ
warfare. The dead
hurled this way look like wheels
in the sky. Look: there goes
Larry the Shoemaker, barefoot, over the wall,
and Mary Sausage Stuffer, see how she flies,
and the Hatter twins, both at once, soar
over the parapet, little Tommy's elbow bent
as if in a salute,
and his sister, Mathilde, she follows him,
arms outstretched, through the air,
just as she did
on earth.

I live in Greensboro, NC.

2009-12-31T18:39:00.001-05:00

CNN reports: Historic New York restaurant Tavern on the Green will be serving its last meal tonight after being unable to avoid bankruptcy. This is why I love New York-based cable news channels. They always report on things that have a great bearing on my life.

"Oh, My God!" by Billy Collins

2009-12-31T18:14:00.001-05:00

Not only in church
and nightly by their bedsides
do young girls pray these days

Wherever they go,
prayer is woven into their talk
like a bright thread of awe

Even at the pedestrian mall
outbursts of praise
spring unbidden from their glossy lips.

C. S. Lewis on Theology and Devotional Literature

2009-12-25T23:50:00.002-05:00

Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

-- C. S. Lewis, from his introduction to "On the Incarnation of the Word of God" ("De Incarnatione Verbi Dei") by St. Athanasius

And Politicians, and Televangelists, and That Snake Lucifer...

2009-12-07T12:22:00.001-05:00

"Consul," remarked the detective, dogmatically, "great robbers always resemble honest folks. Fellows who have rascally faces have only one course to take, and that is to remain honest; otherwise they would be arrested off-hand. The artistic thing is, to unmask honest countenances; it's no light task, I admit, but a real art."

--Around the World in Eighty Days, Chapter 6, Jules Verne

The Idolatry of Rationalism

2009-12-05T23:27:00.000-05:00

The Manicheans did no idols make
Without themselves, nor worship gods of wood,
Yet idols did in their Ideas take,
And figured Christ as on the cross he stood.
Thus did they when they earnestly did pray
Till clearer Faith this idol took away.

We seem more inwardly to know the Son
And see our own salvation in his blood
When this is said, we think the work is done
And with the Father hold our portion good,
As if true life within these words were laid
For him that in life never words obeyed.

If this be safe, it is a pleasant way,
The Cross of Christ is very easily borne;
But six days' labour makes the sabbath day,
The flesh is dead before grace can be born,
The heart must first bear witness with the book,
The earth must burn, ere we for Christ can look.

--Sonnet 89, from Caelica, by Lord Brooke Fulke Greville (1554-1628)

Covenant Theology Notes

2009-11-30T00:14:00.001-05:00

In a Bible study I attend, we've been doing a brief overview of the two major Evangelical approaches to interpreting Scripture, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. I drew up a short overview of both approaches, and below is my overview of Covenant Theology. I also drew up notes on Dispensationalism, but they didn't turn out as well as I would have liked, and the general response I got was that they weren't as clear as they could have been, so I don't intend to post them. Our next foray into theology will be a survey of major Millennial positions, and then a survey of the four major approaches to interpreting the Book of the Revelation. I intend, Lord willing, post each of these in time. All of this is in preparation for a lengthy study of the Book of the Revelation.

The more theologically astute will note that I left out many key issues in Reformed theology, such as church government, the sacraments, family life, and worship. The reason for this surrounds the purpose of my notes. The goal was to give an overview of Covenant Theology as a hermeneutical system, and to show how it places the Gospel in the center, as opposed to Dispensationalism, which places eschatology and God's dealing with Israel at the center. My goal also was to show the unity of God's people in Christ through the Gospel, also in contrast to Dispensationalism. In these things I believe I succeeded.

************************************

II. Covenant Theology (or Reformed Theology)

Because of their prominence in Scripture, covenants have been a matter of discussion by theologians throughout church history. But it was the late medieval theologians who, through a more careful consideration of the covenants, laid the groundwork for the systematization of Covenant Theology under the Reformers.

While the structuring of history by covenants is a foundational matter, a more basic issue exists for Covenant Theologians. That issue is the Sovereignty of God.

What is proposed by the Sovereignty of God is the belief that all things that take place do so strictly by the will of God. Before the creation of the universe, God foreordained all that would come to pass in history. All event were decreed by God, and happen infallibly as He decreed. Included in this is the belief that God determined in advance who would or would not be saved. God has predestined certain men and women, His elect, to salvation, leaving others to perish in their sins. This predestination is not determined by the acts of men and women, but by the will of God alone (Unconditional Election).

God's foreordaining of all things in no way makes God the author of sin. Nor does it mean that the choices that people make aren't real choices. And so Covenant Theologians recognize a mystery here. God's reasons for these things He alone knows, though we can rest assured that He has done this for His own glory, as he does in all things.

Having foreordained all things, God oversees all events in history, personally directing all things that come to pass. This is known as the doctrine of Providence.

Covenant Theologians are fairly consistent on the number of covenants they believe to be taught in Scripture, holding that God established two basic covenants with mankind: the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect and having positive righteousness. God gave them the responsibilities of tending the garden, ruling over the earth, and bearing children. Amid these responsibilities, God gave them one specific negative command - to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While this command was a requirement of both Adam and Eve, God gave the command specifically to Adam. As the Federal or Covenantal Head of mankind, Adam was the representative of all humanity, and the state of mankind's relationship with God depended upon Adam's obedience to this one command. And so when Adam disobeyed and ate of the fruit of the tree, he not only fell into sin himself, but brought mankind into a state of corruption and guilt before God and plunged all of creation into sin. The will of man was bound to sin, and man in himself was unable any longer to choose good (Total Depravity).

Upon the fall of Adam, God made a new covenant with mankind, called the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Grace, God promises salvation to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ, who is the Second Adam, the Federal Head of the Covenant of Grace. Prior to the coming of Christ, the salvation He would provide was foretold and administered through Scripture, as well as the types and shadows provided in history and in the law. This period before Christ's first advent was known as the Old Covenant. After Christ's coming, this salvation has been provided through Scripture, and through the worship and discipline of the Church. This period, which we now live in, is called the New Covenant. And yet there is a union to God's people in both Covenants. There is no fundamental Israel-Church distinction as in Dispensationalism. Since all who trust in Christ are in union with Him, we are in union with one another, and to divide them is to attempt to divide Christ.

Covenant theologians recognize the other covenants in Scripture such as the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic. These covenants, however, are viewed as administrations of the one covenant referred to in Scripture as the Old Covenant.

When Christ came to live and die in our place, the salvation He provided was sufficient in every way. Christ fulfilled the Law through His life, so keeping the requirements of the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to keep, and made full atonement for sins in His death. For this reason, Covenant Theologians hold the view that Christ's death was not for all people who would ever live, but for the elect alone. This view is most commonly called Limited Atonement, though some prefer the term Definite Atonement.

In time and according to God's purpose for each elect individual, God would draw that individual irresistibly to Himself (Irresistible Grace). Having been saved, that elect individual will necessarily persevere in faithfulness to God until the end of his or her life (Perseverance of the Saints). This does not mean, however, that elect individuals can never fall into serious sin, or go through a period of rebellion against God. Yet none whom God has chosen can fully and finally fall away from Him, but God sustains them in salvation, and the general tenor of that individual's life will be one of obedience to God. In Covenant Theology, there is no "Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian" distinction. All Christians are Spiritual, and anyone who is Carnal is an unbeliever.

Covenant theologians are in agreement on certain issues regarding the end times: Christ will return, a single resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous will occur, His saints will meet Him in the air, He will destroy His enemies, there will be one final judgment, He will create a New Heavens and a New Earth, and His saints will dwell with Him forever. But beyond that, Covenant Theology allows for a broad selection of views on the end times and the interpretation of prophecy. Though there is a basic union between all people who are in Christ, some Reformed theologians have held that one feature of the end times will be that God will reestablish Israel in the land He originally gave her. It is considered out of the bounds of accepted belief, however, to believe in a reinstitution of the Temple sacrifices during the Millennium. It is also considered out of bounds to believe that Christ is not yet reigning on David's throne. No matter what one's view is on other events of the end times, all Reformed people hold that Christ took His seat as the Davidic king in His ascension, and so now reigns in Heaven.

The Wisdom of A. W. Tozer, Part 1

2009-11-19T15:04:00.001-05:00

I've been thinking a fair bit recently about the twentieth century Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor A. W. Tozer (1897-1963). Various terms have been applied to him, such as "prophet" and "mystic", in an attempt to characterize just what a uniquely great man he was. But whatever one may call him, he was a godly man, a great Bible teacher, and especially insightful in his consideration of the interaction of the Church with secular culture. Because of his unique contributions, I thought I would start a series of quotes from Tozer, posted every now and again as I run across them. There is a great need for the Church today to interact with the wisdom of other generations, those who are not trapped in the same way of thinking that we are. A. W. Tozer, I believe, is a good one to look to.

The first quote is one of my favorites, and comes from the book Man: The Dwelling Place of God.

******************************

It hardly need be said that most of us are not selective enough in our reading. I have often wondered how many square yards of newsprint pass in front of the eyes of the average civilized man in the course of a year. Surely it must run into several acres; and I am afraid our average reader does not realize a very large crop of his acreage. The best advice I have heard on this topic was given by a Methodist minister. He said, "Always read your newspaper standing up." Henry David Thoreau also had a low view of the daily press. Just before leaving the city for his now-celebrated sojourn on the banks of Walden Pond, a friend asked him if he would like to have a newspaper delivered to his cottage. "No," replied Thoreau, "I have already seen a newspaper."

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

2009-11-19T00:24:00.000-05:00

Once there was a fellow who, sentenced to life without parole, found himself in the top bunk of a cell on his first night in prison. The prison was quiet until, after a while, a prisoner in a nearby cell yelled out, "34!" The whole prison erupted in laughter. After a few more minutes of silence, another prisoner called out, "56!" Again laughter broke out. A little bit later, a third prisoner yelled out, "22!" Once more, the prison echoed with laughter.

Finally, curiosity got the better of the new inmate. "What's the deal with the numbers?" he asked his cellmate. "Oh," said the cellmate, "we only know a few jokes, so we've given each joke a number. So rather than saying the whole joke, we just call out the number, and everyone knows what the joke is."

The new prisoner said to himself, "I think I'll give it a try." So he called out, "47!"

Nobody laughed.

On the bottom bunk, his cellmate mumbled to himself. "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

I'm around...

2009-11-18T12:33:00.002-05:00

...I've just been too busy to blog. Working, studying Hebrew locally at Westover Church, a group book study on Calvin's Institutes, and Bible study on the basics of Eschatology, soon to move into a study of the Book of the Revelation. Hopefully I'll return to some substantial posting soon. Meanwhile, visits to the page here have been up, so thanks to all of you. Keep coming back - I'll get back into the swing of things before long.

The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry: A Movie Review

2009-10-30T22:29:00.003-04:00

I was off work today, so I decided to run by the movie theater and check out the latest Evangelical movie making the rounds, the title of which is The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry. Since it's fresh on my mind, let me offer a few thoughts on it.

Set in small town America in 1970, the movie is based on a true story, and revolves around a young boy named Dustin, his two best friends, and an elderly man named Jonathan Sperry. Sperry takes it upon himself to strike up a friendship with Dustin and his two friends, and starts a Bible study with them, inspiring the boys to give the Gospel to others, which leads to more boys joining the Bible study. Much of the film surrounds Dustin's fascination with a young girl and his desire to date her. Then there is the town bully, who Sperry himself leads to Christ. Lastly, there is a crotchety old neighbor, whose role in the tale remains largely mysterious until the last few minutes of the film. For any who are planning on seeing the film, I will leave the rest of the plot for you to discover for yourself. Having said that, let me recommend that you don't go see this film.

In short, this is the worst film I have seen in a very long time. "Harsh words," you might say. An understandable response. I have heard from others who thought this was a fantastic film, which inspired me to go see it. I hate to question their taste, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable. My intention is neither to offend nor to stand in the way of something that might be used for the good of the kingdom of God. I just think it's time that Evangelical Christians stop supporting bad art made in the name of Christ.

And this film is bad art, if anything. Granted, there are redeeming qualities here. For one thing, the Gospel is present in the movie. One can hardly complain there. And the moral lessons of Scripture that are given are, of course, wonderful. But just as the some of the best of Evangelicalism is on display here, so is some of the worst.

First of all, the script is terrible. The dialogue was so bad it hurt (I mean that quite literally - it was painful to listen to). A disproportionate part of the film is spent listening to the three boys prattle on about Dustin's love interest, a young girl who was a classmate and who worked at a local diner that about half the film was shot in. And prattling it was. Certainly, we're talking about young boys here. And anyone can sound pretty annoying when fascination over the opposite sex kicks in. But this was incomparable. First they are in the diner, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then they are walking across a bridge, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then Dustin is calling his friends on the phone and whining over the girl. Then back to the diner... sheer misery. A couple of brief scenes would have been enough to get the point across. But the moping going on was beyond anything resembling masculinity, even young, immature masculinity. The movie may have been clean, but if I was the father of a boy, the last thing I would want to do would be to expose him to such garbage.

Almost all of the dialogue of the film was of this nature. Even the lessons which Sperry taught to the boys, lessons based in Scripture, were told in such a mundane fashion that they hardly resembled the depth one finds in Scripture itself. Was this a reflection of how the actual Jonathan Sperry spoke to the boys? I have no clue, of course. But I highly doubt that the boys (now adult men) who actually learned from Sperry remember his lessons word for word, leaving hope that the real Jonathan Sperry was a far more interesting teacher. He was evidently a man of great character; that doesn't say anything about his teaching, however. All in all, the basic outline of the story had great potential. But the script itself was nowhere near to doing justice to the ideas behind it.

Then there was the acting. The film featured two seasoned actors in Gavin MacLeod and Robert Guillaume. I didn't even recognize MacLeod, and only discovered it was him in watching the credits. I remember watching him on "The Love Boat" as a child, and he fit his role there. But any other time I remember seeing him act I found him less than interesting, and there was no exception here. Robert Guillaume was his typical splendid self, and was the only bright spot acting-wise in the film. And yet even he seemed hindered by the terrible script, though this was probably helped along by some bad directing as well.

The rest of the cast was fairly painful to watch. One can only expect so much from child actors, I suppose. But while watching them was torture itself, the other actors faired little better. The best word I can come up with is "wooden", though even that is insufficient. Words can't really express how bad both the body language and line delivery were.

There was throughout the film a prevailing sense of sentimentalism, something which is common whenever Evangelicals attempt to make art. It is interesting that Evangelicals as a whole tend to carry with them the feeling that ever since the 1960's, the pagans have taken over the culture, and morality has gone down the tubes. And in a minor sense, I suppose that's true. But a more accurate account of it recognizes that Evangelicals actually retreated from society, a retreat that started long before the '60's. And as nature abhors a vacuum, the pagans simply rushed in to fill in the void. This can be attributed to a number of things, though a large measure of blame, I would say, lies at the feet of Dispensationalism and its self-fulfilling prophecies of the downturn of society. So while it is a fact that small town America was a more moral place in 1970, it wasn't idyllic. Children go astray because their parents go astray. The rebellion of the sixties took place because Christianity had come to be defined as external conformity to certain behaviors deemed "Christian", and the Gospel had been replaced by the fear of man. So those who would return to mid-twentieth century America would simply be setting us up for another cultural revolution as ungodly and tumultuous as the one we have been through in the past thirty years. Not something to be desired, I dare say.

Then there is the whole purpose of the film. As is customary in Evangelical art, it was clear that the goal that the film makers had in mind was not to make good art, but rather to use the film merely as a vehicle through which to spread the Gospel. Once again, one can hardly criticize the desire to see people saved. But as inevitably happens whenever Evangelicals take such a route, the art suffers at the expense of sharing the Gospel. Part of this is due to the unbiblical and hokey way we tend to express the Gospel in the Evangelical church. As much as my Evangelical friends react against this, the Gospel is not "asking Jesus into your heart". It also is not "having a personal relationship with Jesus". These are sentimentalistic attempts at expressing the Gospel, and one will search in vain to find anything resembling these phrases in Scripture. According to Scripture, the Gospel is repenting of one's sins and trusting in Christ for salvation. There are other ways this is expressed, but none of them come even close to the above two phrases. Does this mean that I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus? Of course I do. But the phrase reflects a romantic and sentimentalistic approach that comes not out of Scripture, but out of Western culture, and as such is at odds with Scripture. Why we get so hung up on these Evangelical catch phrases and choose them over Scripture's way of speaking is bizarre to me. It suggests that we look to find our comfort not in Christ, but in the Evangelical subculture.

We seem to think that all God cares about is what we deem to be the substance of the Gospel. We think that form is irrelevant. But nothing is so unbiblical as that. The same God that said, "repent and be saved" spent pages and pages of His word detailing specifications for Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the ordination of the priesthood, the rituals of cleansing, the genealogies, the numbering of the tribes of Israel, and so on. God loves detail, and He has great concern for form and order. The fact that we pay little to such things is a demonstration that we have fallen far short of thinking with the mind of Christ.

And this is not limited to some segmented sphere we call "religious life". As God created all the world, and did so with deliberate form and order, so He continues to be concerned with these things throughout all creation. This includes the meals we eat, the order of our homes, the clothes we wear, and, yes, the art we create. Beyond this, why can't Christians just make good movies? Where does Scripture say that the only art we can make has to be for spreading the Gospel? It doesn't. God didn't have to slap a Bible verse on every tree in the forest, because His glory spoke through it as His handiwork. Even so should we imitate Him in our art. Paintings don't become Christian because they have a Bible verse underneath them. If it's a good painting, it will reflect God's glory.

What's sad is that pagans recognize this importance of form, while the church does not. As a side note, this in itself, I would suggest, has more to do with driving youth away from the church than we realize. It isn't because we aren't following the secular culture in our modes of worship. It's because we aren't following Scripture in even thinking carefully about our modes of worship.

So when we present the Gospel, the same is true, whether it be in a movie, or some other context. Truth and Goodness aren't sufficient. Our presentation must be beautiful as well, not by the ungodly culture's standards of beauty, but of God's. Here, The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry fails miserably.

And yet, with all of the Evangelical church's abandonment of secular culture, we turn and pander after it as if we are its servants. The presence of the two aforementioned secular actors in the film itself is an indicator of this. But then there is the actor who plays Dustin. While he has made a number of appearances on TV and as the voice of cartoon characters, he wasn't chosen, I would suggest, for his great resume. And I hope he wasn't chosen for his acting skills. His name, in fact, is Jansen Panettiere, and I think it should be obvious why he was chosen. He is the younger brother of actress Hayden Panettiere, who has appeared in numerous TV and movie roles, and is probably best known for her lead role on the TV show "Heroes". Evangelicals are so obsessed by pagan Hollywood that all it will take to get them to go see a Christian film is a recognizable name like that. Quick quiz: how many professing believers spend more time reading People Magazine than they do reading their Bibles? I'm scared to even guess the answer. It's one thing to appreciate some of the products of Hollywood - an appropriate thing, so far as they are allowable by Scripture's standards. It's entirely another matter that we think the only way we can get Christians to watch Christian movies is by using Hollywood stars and their younger siblings.

Some would say that this is an attempt to draw unbelievers in to see the Christian film, hear the Gospel, and hopefully be saved. This is a good desire. But isn't the definition of insanity to repeat an action and expect different results? This never happens on any broad scale. Sure, one might be able to name the occasional person who comes to one of these films and trusts in Christ. But where are the masses of people who are supposed to be saved this way? The silence is deafening. I suppose it would be a true miracle for an unbeliever to get past the bad art and hear and believe the gospel (though salvation itself is always a miracle, no matter the circumstances). But the fact that this is rare at best should make us reassess this approach, and reconsider how we allot the resources over which God has made us stewards.

So if I haven't made it clear by now, I didn't like this film. I don't question the motives of anyone involved in the making of it. I'm sure the intention was the salvation of souls and the glory of God. And by that intention alone, God will be glorified. The question here is rather whether or not there are better ways of glorifying God, and I would suggest there are.

And if you've dying to see a movie this weekend, rent WALL-E, or wait a few days for UP to come out on DVD. I can guarantee that they won't be a waste of money.

Martin Luther on Justification by Faith Alone

2009-10-26T22:20:00.000-04:00

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, "the justice of God," because I took it to mean that justice whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust. My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Therefore I did not love a just and angry God, but rather hated and murmured against him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...

If you have a true faith that Christ is your Saviour, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who sees God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face.

The Parallel Structures of Ruth 1 & 4

2009-10-22T17:12:00.003-04:00

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we just completed the Book of Ruth. As we were going to be finishing up ch. 4 the other night, I threw together this bare bones outline to show the parallel structures of Ruth 1 & 4. Ruth 2 & 3 also parallel one another, the result being that the book functions somewhat chiastically. In chapters 1 and 4, the Prologue in ch. 1 (I.) parallels the Epilogue in ch. 4 (III.). The Negotiation in ch. 1 (II.) parallels the Negotiation in ch. 4 (I.). And the Rest in ch. 1 (III.) parallels the Rest in ch. 4 (II.). The reader should also take note of the preponderance of "threes" in the outlines. This is something inherent to the text, not simply an arbitrary choice I made in outlining it. I would suggest also that this is a manifestation of the Trinitarian foundation of the Covenant, which plays a central role in the Book of Ruth, as in all of Scripture, and all of life, for that matter. But that is a discussion for another occasion. Lack of time has prevented me from doing either a basic outline of chs. 2 & 3, or an outline of the whole book. For now, at least, I thought I would post what I had.

********************************************

Ruth 1 - Structure


I.  Prologue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 1-5


II.  Naomi "arose" - Negotiating a relationship on the way back to Bethlehem

 A.  Naomi's First Speech - vs. 8-9a

  A'.  Ruth and Orpah's verbal and nonverbal response - vs. 9b-10

 B.  Naomi's Second Speech - vs. 11-13

  B'.  Ruth and Orpah's nonverbal responses - vs. 14

 C.  Naomi's Third Speech - vs. 15

  C'. Ruth's verbal response - vs. 16-18


III.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Naomi and Ruth arrive in the land - vs. 19a

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 19b

 C.  Naomi renames herself - vs. 20-21



**********************************************

Ruth 4 - Structure


I.  Boaz "had gone up"- Negotiating a relationship at the gate of Bethlehem

 A.  Boaz's First Speech - vs. 3-4a

  A'.  Redeemer's verbal response - vs. 4b

 B.  Boaz's Second Speech - vs. 5

  B'.  Redeemer's verbal and nonverbal responses - vs. 6-8

 C.  Boaz's Third Speech - vs. 9-10

  C'.  Elders' and People's verbal response - vs. 11-12


II.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Boaz and Ruth "arrive" in the land - vs. 13

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 14-16

 C.  Women name Obed - vs. 17


III. Epilogue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 18-22

The Subtleties of Statism

2009-10-12T11:36:00.000-04:00

A couple of older pieces on His Holiness in D. C. The first is something I sent a year and a half ago to James Ostrowski, a contributor to the Lew Rockwell blog, who then honored me by posting this on said blog. The second is a response to a friend who emailed me to ask what problems I saw the President's speech to school children a few weeks back. A little past their date, perhaps, but still relevant. And when you write something that is only read by one or two people, you sort of feel compelled to put it out there in such a way that others can read it too. The first may not seem currently relevant, but actually remains so, when one is reminded of the President's recent rallies (read: revivals) to drum up support for a Socialized health care system.

*************************************

In a piece from the PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, E. J. Dionne pointed out that Obama is actually speaking in the fashion of a revivalist. I’ve noticed the same is true of his wife Michelle. This seems to fit in nicely with the idea of Obama’s movement being a sort of cult following. Revivalism from the beginning has only thrived insofar as a single individual is the focus of the devotion of the faithful, and that individual is chosen based on his ability to stir up excitement in his followers. Objective truth and deep sustained intellectual reflection are substituted with shallow rhetoric and easily attained emotional fervor. So, in fact, Obama actually has more in common with Charles Finney than with any former president, in that his views on policy are largely irrelevant to his supporters. In the modern context, Joel Osteen comes to mind. People don’t care what he says, so long as he makes them feel good. But what we’re witnessing is a sort of resurrection of the Caesar cult. People believe that the government is to be their savior, and they think Obama would make a good messiah.

***************************************

The topic of Obama's speech may be a moot one now, but I still thought I'd respond to your question. Even though the speech is over, the topic is still relevant.

I think in a sense your assessment of McCain and Obama was correct, at least in terms of how we define "democrat" and "socialist" more popularly. But the truth is that they were both socialists. In fact, almost everyone who was running for President and was recognized as a legitimate contender was a socialist, except for Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich. Whenever you support the idea of the government serving as a means to redistribute wealth, you are a socialist. It doesn't matter if you intend the wealth to be used for "universal health care", the National Endowment for the Arts, State parks and monuments, subsidized housing, subsidized farming, or so-called "free" education. As soon as a government begins to redistribute wealth, it becomes a socialist system. The question then is how socialist it is, not whether it is.

The act of taking money from one party and giving it to another is called "theft" by Scripture. Just because the one doing the taking has all the tanks doesn't make it okay.

So both major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are socialists. They just differ on what to do with the money once they've collected it. The Democrats are usually worse, of course, because their social policies are more so at odds with Scripture. But this doesn't mean that the Republicans are always wearing white hats.

Both parties are, for the most part, Statist. By that I mean that they believe that the supreme authority in the world is the State. It chiefly defines who we are. We are political animals. I am not first and foremost a Christian, or even a Lewis, according to Statism. I am first and foremost an American, and everything I do is to serve its goals and ends. If anything gets in the way of that, it has to go. Sure, the politicians speak of "family values". But that's partially because Statism is inconsistent with the world God has created, and there's no escaping the family. To some degree, however, this is merely lip service. Service of the State is the foundation of all of life for the Statist.

We fail to recognize this, so we have a hard time seeing it in something like the President's speech. But whenever he says things like, "you need to do your best for your country," or "if you quit school, you're quitting on your country," or "don't let your country down," that's the assumption behind those statements. He isn't saying that we just live together and therefore have an effect on each other's lives. He's saying we belong to the U. S. Government. In this, there are ultimately no individual rights, despite what the founding fathers stated and believed. That's the reason for Government-run schools. They don't exist to make sure everybody's educated. Government schools have always been a chief means of instilling propaganda in the citizenry wherever Socialism has existed. That's why religion is shut out of the schools. True orthodox Christianity provides competition with the supremacy of the State. This may not be a comfortable thing to hear, since you're a parent and send you children to the Government school. Most parents don't even think of such things, and just send their kids to the Government school because they're already paying their taxes for it, or because it's just what you do. And why don't we think of these things? Because the issues were never raised for us. And why were they never raised? Because we learned our history and political theory in Government schools, were we ourselves were propagandized. Let me make it clear, though, that I'm not criticizing parents in this, because I think most don't know better. I also think there are almost no teachers that think of themselves as "agents of propagandization". They're just doing what they were taught to do, and that's teach the curriculum.

The Government sets itself up as the Savior of its people. It says, "you have a problem? We'll take care of it for you." They then use that as a way of increasing taxation and legislation. But it's just a means of controlling the people and destroying liberty. We fall lock and step, and look to the State to take care of us, and it's gradually becoming cradle to the grave. So Statism actually is a religion. It's worship of the State. There's a reason that all the monuments and buildings in D. C. were designed to look like temples to the Greek and Roman gods.

In fact, the President himself believes that the children that live in the United States belong to him. They are "America's children", in the sense of possession. That's why the State can take your children away from you if they want to - because they belong to the State, not you. You're just raising them in the place of the State, because you're a servant of the State, too. And if the State wants to take your children away from you for six hours a day, and teach them things you disagree with, including evolution, or that all religions are created equal, or that certain "lifestyles" that clearly contradict Scripture are okay, they have the right to do so, because the children belong to the State. In the case of the President, he is America personified. That's why he can say, "I expect all of you" to do thus and such. Or "I'm calling on each of you" to do thus and such. But what the children do is, in reality, none of his business.

So there were content things in the President's speech, but not the kind we tend to look for. I get the impression that most Republicans thought that maybe he would say something like, "I'm trying to convince your parents that Socialized health care is a good thing, but they aren't listening to me. We all know they're wrong, right? How about going and convincing them for me." But he isn't going to do that. He's too smart for that. Content-wise, the problems in his speech lay in areas where Republicans and Democrats tend to agree.

But why did he even give the speech then? It was an act of propaganda. He hasn't been having much luck with the adults, so he turned to the children. They would pick up on the idea that their basic allegiance is to the State, though they generally couldn't articulate it. And they would walk away with the idea that that Mr. Obama is a pretty darn nice guy. "Hey look, he cares about me! He's going to make sure I have everything I need to get a good education. He loves me." This has been a common tactic of Socialist and Communist regimes. In Communist China in the sixties and seventies, they had what the West called "The Little Red Book", a collection of quotations from Mao Zedong. It was their Bible. Not only did adults read it, it was taught in the schools. You don't just indoctrinate adults. It's easier to convince children of something, and if you get them while they're young, they're less likely to question when they get older. In the case of Communist China, or the U. S. S. R., as well as Barack Obama, the goal is to create a cult of personality. That's how Obama won in the first place. He's just trying to increase the size of the cult.

So that's the sum of it. Sorry for this being so long. I just wanted to be clear. I'm sure this isn't quite the response you were expecting. I'm a Republican, but I fall more in line with the views of someone like Ron Paul, though I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on everything. I voted for McCain-Palin, however, because of abortion issues.

No progress, I believe, is going to be made without questioning the President's intent. Republicans try to be nice and not judge people's motives, but I think it's mostly because they're cowards. They've bought into the cult of personality too. They are afraid because Obama comes across so confident and convincing, and, quite honestly, because they are afraid of looking like racists. Obama is a Socialist, if not a Communist, and he is intentionally carrying out a Socialist agenda. The goal is to take freedom away from us. He has been lying about the health care bill. His goal is not love, but power. I don't generally go around questioning people's motives. But I don't trust Barack Obama at all.

I'm not sure in anything I've said here that you'll find something that's convincing to Democrats. To most people, I know I'd sound like a lunatic. Beyond that, Obama (or his speech writer) designed the speech in such a way as to prevent critiques of single lines. A real critique requires some in-depth discussion of political theory, which is what I was getting at here, but which most people don't have the interest or attention span for.

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and Covenant Structure

2009-10-11T23:28:00.001-04:00

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we are currently in chapter three of the Book of Ruth, after having studied our way through Deuteronomy 27-34, Joshua, and Judges over the past year and a half. Once we've finished Ruth in a couple of weeks, we will then move on bravely to the Book of the Revelation. A broader connection exists between all of these books than the fact that they are all in the Bible, though this connection is rarely recognized or discussed. With this in mind, I thought I would post the following piece which I put together for our group when we first jumped into Deuteronomy.

***************************************

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties

In recent years, scholars have learned of a general pattern found in treaties in the Ancient Near East. Called Suzerainty Treaties, they involve the covenanting of a suzerain lord (the conquering king) and a vassal (the conquered king).

“After a war, the victorious king would make a covenant with his defeated foe, making certain promises and guaranteeing protection on condition that the vassal-king and all under his authority would obey their new lord. Both lord and vassal would swear an oath, and they would thenceforth be united in covenant” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 14

It has been noted that the same basic structure is utilized in the Biblical covenants.

Five-point Covenantal Structure

1. Preamble (identifying the lordship of the Great King, stressing both his transcendence [greatness and power] and his immanence [nearness and presence]

2. Historical Prologue (surveying the lord’s previous relationship to the vassal, especially emphasizing the blessings bestowed)

3. Ethical Stipulations (expounding the vassal’s obligations, his “guide to citizenship” in the covenant)

4. Sanctions (outlining the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience)

5. Succession Arrangements (dealing with the continuity of the covenant relationship over future generations)

Covenantal Structure of Deuteronomy

1. Preamble (1:1-5)
2. Historical Prologue (1:6-4:49)
3. Ethical Stipulations (5:1-26:19)
4. Sanctions (27:1-30:20)
5. Succession Arrangements (31:1-34:12)

Other elements of Near Eastern treaties are often included in the structure, such as The Invocation of Witnesses (cf. Deut. 30:19) and Directions for the Deposition and Regular Public Reading of the Covenant Documents (cf. Deut. 31:9-13). Adding these would, of course, make this a seven-point model. But there is much disagreement on this, as scholars suggest various ways of outlining the covenant documents found in Scripture and the various Near Eastern vassal states. Also, the five-point model is the one most commonly held by scholars.

“If a vassal kingdom violated the terms of the covenant, the lord would send messengers to the vassal, warning the offenders of coming judgment, in which the curse-sanctions of the covenant would be enforced. This turns out to be the function of the Biblical prophets…They were prosecuting attorneys, bringing God’s message of Covenant Lawsuit to the offending nations of Israel and Judah. And the structure of the lawsuit was always patterned after the original structure of the covenant. In other words, just as the Biblical covenants themselves follow the standard five-part treaty structure, the Biblical prophecies follow the treaty form as well.” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 15

Four Biblical Covenantal Models

1. Pre-Creation and Post-Creation Covenants

A. Pre-Creation Covenants - Covenants made between the Persons of the Trinity
B. Post-Creation Covenants - All covenants made after God created the world

This is a common Reformed teaching, though it is hard to substantiate from Scripture.

2. Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace

A. Covenant of Works - This is the covenant God established with Adam in the Garden. It is also called the Covenant of Life or the Creation Covenant.

B. Covenant of Grace - Established in Gen. 3, all subsequent covenants between God and man fall under this categorization.

3. Old Covenant and New Covenant

A. Old Covenant - The term is used to refer to the entire covenant administration prior to the coming of Christ, though the New Testament at times seems to use the term strictly to refer to the Mosaic Covenant.

B. New Covenant - The covenant instituted with the coming, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

4. The Six Historical Covenants

A. Creation Covenant (Gen. 1-2)
B. Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3)
C. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 6-9
D. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17)
E. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19-24, Deut.)
F. Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7)
G. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34)

Hear our cry, Obama

2009-09-29T21:51:00.000-04:00

The emperor cult of ancient Rome has returned.

The Red House

2009-09-27T21:51:00.000-04:00

A commercial for a furniture place in High Point. Furniture for black people, white people, and "exspanic" people too.

Actual Analogies and Metaphors Written by High School Students

2009-09-21T22:11:00.002-04:00

The following came to mind earlier this evening for some reason. These are statements taken from actual essays written by high school students. They were making the rounds on blogs a couple of years ago, and I was thinking I had posted them here at that time. I haven't been able to find them, so I might not have. I've re-read them many times, and I end up with my sides hurting from laughter every time I do.

1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.

2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.

5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.

6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

7. He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.

8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM.

9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.

11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30.

12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.

13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.

15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.

16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.

17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the East River.

18. Even in his last years, Grandpappy had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.

19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.

20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.

21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.

22. "Oh, Jason, take me!" she panted, her breasts heaving like a college freshman on $1-a-beer night.

23. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

24. The ballerina rose gracefully en pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

25. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

26. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

27. She was as easy as the TV Guide crossword.

28. Her eyes were like limpid pools, only they had forgotten to put in any pH cleanser.

29. She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs.

30. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall.

Boring is Good

2009-09-12T00:01:00.001-04:00

A great post from George Grant on why boring is good:

http://grantian.blogspot.com/2009/09/yearning-for-boring.html

Taking a Vampire - or a Fad - by the Tails

2009-09-11T23:56:00.000-04:00

I haven't read any of the Twilight series, so I can't comment on it myself. But Doug Wilson wrote a few posts about it recently which are worth the read, even if you disagree with his conclusions:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6882
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6885
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6890
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6899

I'll start respecting the office of the President as soon as the President does.

2009-09-10T22:48:00.002-04:00

Oh, Joe Wilson. After a brief moment of masculine courage, in which you dared question the divine right of kings, you have bowed in exchange for lands and titles. He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom.

The parallels are multitude, and that's because our government emerged from the history depicted here. But few people know these things anymore. If you haven't seen the movie, you need to. For our purposes, the most pertinent statement comes at the 7:13 mark. Whether or not it actually happened, I don't know.

Only in America...

2009-09-07T16:18:00.000-04:00

...would we have a holiday that was named in such a way as to make us feel bad for taking the day off.

This just in from CNN...

2009-09-01T20:25:00.002-04:00

...fires are moving rapidly throughout California. The cause? The Duggars are having too many children. Those darn resource consumers...

How to Propagandize a Funeral

2009-08-30T23:25:00.002-04:00

I have generally steered clear of the media blitz surrounding the death of Teddy Kennedy over the past few days. I know some people get a kick out of such coverage, but I must admit that I find it less than interesting. It isn't that I don't respect how difficult a time this is for the Kennedy clan. But schmoozefests turn my stomach more often than not, and cavalcades of limousines alongside of commentaries spoken in golf-match hushed tones put me to sleep.

Saturday morning, however, I did happen to visit the BBC News website, and, noticing that Ted Kennedy's funeral was in process, I thought I would watch a few minutes of it. I tuned in about the time that the Kennedy children were offering the Prayers of the Faithful, a regular part of the Mass, whether it be a funeral Mass or otherwise. Call it Providence - I couldn't have happened in at a better time.

This was the prayer I heard as soon as I began watching, offered by twelve year old Max Allen, Teddy's grandson:

"For what my grandpa called the cause of his life, as he said so often, in every part of this land, that every American will have decent quality health care, as a fundamental right, and not a privilege, we pray to the Lord."

This was followed by the prayer of Jack Kennedy Schlossberg, Teddy's nephew:

"For a new season of hope that my Uncle Teddy envisioned, where we rise to our best ideals, and close the book on the old politics of race and gender, group against group and straight against gay, we pray to the Lord."

Followed again, by this prayer from Robin Lawford, Teddy's niece:

"For my Uncle Teddy's call to keep the promise, that all men and women who live here, even strangers and newcomers, can rise no matter what their color, no matter what their place of birth."

And finally, the following, from Kym Smith, another of Teddy's nieces:

"For my Uncle's stand again violence, hate and war, and his belief that peace can be kept through the triumph of justice, and that truest justice can come only through the works of peace, we pray to the Lord."

In case you're missing it, those are prayers addressing the issues of universal health care, gay rights, open borders, and the legitimacy of warfare. (If you would like to see a transcription of all the prayers, they are available here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/29/774063/-Prayers-Of-The-FaithfulTed-Kennedy-Funeral-Mass)

I leave aside the debate on the substance of these issues, however, to make a different point. The issue here is that this was a church service, a worship service to God, and it was being used as a means to promote the agenda of our current Socialistic administration.

It has always been the Liberal Left who have made a big-to-do about the supposed distinction between Church and State. The Church is not to speak out on matters that are reserved to the state, they say. The Church deals with religious matters, the State with secular matters, and ne'er the twain should meet, we are told. But it's situations like this that show where Socialistic Democrats actually stand. It isn't that they don't want the Church involved. They're fine with that, as long as the Church exists as a wing of the State, rather than as a competing authority. What they hate is orthodox Christianity. They hate God's Law and they don't want to be subject to it. If they can use the supposed notion of a Church-State distinction to make that happen, they will. If they can use the Church to promote the ideals of Statism, as was done in the U.S.S.R., and as is done in China today, they will do that. For them, the goal is autonomous power, autonomous from God, but using God for their ends if need be.

The question is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church will speak out on this. I must say I have my doubts. After all, this was a man's funeral, (and as an American politician and a Kennedy, a deified man, apparently) and they wouldn't want the image of turning such a sacred and solemn event into an opportunity to battle. This will be their position, all the while missing the point that the first shot was fired by the other side during the Prayers of the Faithful, a misnomer on this occasion, if it ever was.

I watched eagerly through the Communion portion of the service. I was curious to see which of the many governing officials present would partake of the Communion. In particular, I was curious about John Kerry, especially after he supposedly "excommunicated himself" over his stance on abortion a few years back:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=32830

Amazingly, the camera angles were such that none of the politicians were shown during the Communion. Funny how things like that work out. A request of the White House, I don't doubt. How many supposed Christians, whether Catholic or otherwise, who support abortion, partook of the elements that day? All while the Church stands against the murder of the unborn, but does nothing to discipline her members who stand for it. And we wonder why our nation is a cesspool of immorality, when neither the leaders of the Church nor the leaders of the civil government will do what God has asked of them. We should not be surprised when God lets us go to the consequences of our sin. Yet, Lord, have mercy.

That's "Mufti McLaren" To You

2009-08-28T22:21:00.002-04:00

Brian McLaren observes Ramadan, and Douglas Wilson calls a spade a spade:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6869

Court orders Christian child into government education

2009-08-28T22:09:00.001-04:00

In New Hampshire, no less. So much for "Live Free Or Die".

Court orders Christian child into government education

Shared via AddThis

Advanced Cat Yodeling

2009-08-14T23:26:00.001-04:00

Grandpa, Pregnant Mom Tasered at Baptism Party

2009-08-13T21:26:00.001-04:00

I found this one on Mark Horne's blog. His comments are worth checking out, as well as this blog he linked. As Horne said, "Since you’re not a Harvard Prof who is personally friends with the Prez, no one cares."

Housing Residents in High Point Must Stop Worship Services

2009-08-13T19:58:00.000-04:00

http://www.wxii12.com/news/20382490/detail.html

"Public" housing, of course, means "government" housing, which shouldn't exist. But poverty is the cause, a poverty caused by excessive taxation and a civil government that messes around in an economy that should be none of its business. All this to the side, all civil government officials should declare that Jesus is King. Not only should the worship services be allowed to take place, the civil government should suppress any competing "religions". "Secular" society is ultimately a myth. This isn't neutrality; there's no such thing. This is anti-Christianity.

Glorifying God Through Architecture

2009-08-13T07:46:00.002-04:00

If you're going to build a church building, why not build one that looks like a church building? A novel idea these days, I suppose, but some people still get it:

http://www.blueskyfilmworks.com/covenant/Sanctuary_Video.html

Here's hoping that what is preached is worthy of the building.

HT: Internet Monk

A Primer on Worship and Reformation by Douglas Wilson: a Book Review

2009-08-11T23:04:00.001-04:00

"What's wrong with America" is a common topic of both sermons and conversation among Conservatives, and has been for a number of years now. It is understood that the problem has vaguely to do with a pushing of Christianity to the periphery of American life and, as nature abhors a vacuum, other clearly non-Christian ways of thinking and living have rushed in to fill the empty space. This has left Conservatives scrambling to find any available piece of real estate, lest they find themselves completely pushed off the edge of the map. And so the battlefields of the culture war we are familiar with - abortion, homosexuality, prayer in school, etc. - have been the places we have put up our flags. Yet all the while our demeanor betrays that even we believe each of these battles is our last stand, and that we might as well concede that the battle isn't the LORD's after all, let alone ours.

In all our attempts, well meant and otherwise, to regain the culture, could it be that we have been going about it all wrong? Douglas Wilson thinks so. In his book A Primer on Worship and Reformation, Wilson sketches what he believes to be some of the chief components necessary to cleaning up the cultural mess we're in. And the subtitle, "Recovering the High Church Puritan", gives us more than a hint towards knowing where he derives those components.

Wilson spends the first two chapters discussing the circus that is Evangelicalism and how it became what it is today. Overrun by consumerism and triviality, the church has drifted far from what Scripture indicates it should be. This drift is no more noticeable elsewhere than it is in the worship of the church. But worship is not isolated from the rest of life. Rather, a person is what he worships; or, to put it another way, culture is worship externalized. And what the Evangelical church has done, by and large, is to replace the worship of the Triune God with the worship of the individual person. We want a church that reflects who we are rather than who God is, because we are comfortable with who we are. An encounter with God, who is wholly Other, can't help but put us at some dis-ease. And who wants that? Certainly not the average self-contented American, whether he be a professing Christian or otherwise.

Believing that the modern Evangelical church is a picture of the Late Medieval Roman Catholic Church, Wilson looks back to the first generation of English Puritans, who sought to bring the Church of England fully out of her Roman Catholic past, as providing the model for reformation needed in the church today. Wilson corrects the common misunderstanding that the Puritans were prudes and killjoys, and, after laying out the Biblical worldview of the Puritans that we should imitate, spends the rest of the book discussing how these things should be applied in practice.

The first of these concerns the question of evangelism. Much guilt has been heaped upon believers in the Evangelical church for several decades, all based on the belief that God has given the task of evangelism to every believer. It is true, Wilson says, that every believer should be prepared to explain his faith whenever an opportunity arises. But that is not the same thing as suggesting, as is often done in the Evangelical church, that every believer is to make sharing the gospel his primary vocation. This, in fact, is something Scripture nowhere says. Some people are gifted as evangelists. But some are called simply to work faithfully in their jobs, take care of their children, and participate in worship at their local churches on Sunday. This should provide some measure of relief to anyone who has ever felt guilty for not presenting the gospel to others on a regular basis.

The one area in which God calls all His children to participate in the building of His Kingdom is in the corporate worship of the church. But to do this, we must regain an understanding of what "corporate" means. We tend to approach both worship and Scripture with a "me and Jesus" attitude. But primary to the Christian life is the covenant, through which we are united not only to God, but to one another. We are united with Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, and being freed from the Law, we are to come boldly and reverently, with joy and thanksgiving, to worship at the feet of King Jesus, where He sits enthroned in the Heavens. In Christ, we are united, and therefore there are no solo Christians.

We come together to hear God's Word preached in worship. By "Word", we are not to understand this to be either a pep talk, a laundry list, or a theological lecture. Theology is involved. The practical teachings of Scripture are to be given. And where Scripture encourages, preachers are to encourage. But preaching is to be carried out on Scripture's terms. Preaching must be alive. It must tear down and build up. It must be filled with Biblical language. And, as Scripture is, it must be filled with metaphor.

God not only gave us His Word, He gave us His Table as a way through which He nourishes us. When we partake of this table, we partake of Christ Himself. Therefore, this partaking should be as frequent as the preaching of the Word - that is, weekly.

A recovery of Biblical worship will mean a return to singing the Psalms. This means entire Psalms, not just the snippets one finds in Contemporary Worship Music. This also means all of the Psalms, not just the ones we more readily relate to. Singing should be passionate and loud, orderly and reverent. And it should be done by the congregation, not by a group of professionals putting on a performance.

Sunday is to be set aside as the Sabbath. It is the Lord's Day, which He has given to us for both rest and worship. But it isn't a day for fasting, rather for feasting. Carrying this out in detail will require much careful thought. But God has given the Sabbath to us as a gift, and therefore we should observe it gratefully.

Then there is the question of the children of the church. Are they actually "of the church", that is, of the covenant, or do they fit into some separate category? Wilson answers with the former. We are not to try to look into the hidden things of God to find out if we are elect. Nor are we to look to our own works to confirm that we are justified. Rather, we are to look to the perfect righteousness of Christ, promised to us in the covenant, as the means of our salvation. As this salvation is found in the covenant, it belongs to all those in the covenant, including our children. And so covenant children are neither to be treated as sinless, nor as "vipers in diapers". They are united to Christ. On this basis, we are to raise them as Christians, and to include them in the corporate worship service of the church.

At a short 76 pages, A Primer on Worship and Reformation fits the bill as the introduction is title professes it to be. There are few other books available that cover the same ground it does, let alone so skillfully, and none that I know of that do so in such little space. This will make it handy to give to friends who are just beginning to wrestle with the matters it discusses. No doubt much of its contents will be controversial to many. But in the face of Evangelicalism's regular failure to impact the culture, one can hardly justify taking Doug Wilson's book lightly.

The Secret of Living

2009-08-08T12:38:00.000-04:00

Steve Wilkins talks about the secret to health and a long life:

http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/you-cant-do-it-alone/

"This is My Body... This is My Blood" - Five Views on the Presence of Christ in the Supper

2009-08-07T08:13:00.000-04:00

I threw the following together for the guys I'm in Bible study with. I think it's pretty decent for a short summary, so I thought I'd put it up here.

It is commonly assumed and taught among Evangelicals that there have only been two views in the history of the church concerning whether or not Christ is actually present in what we call the Lord's Supper (also known as the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Communion, etc.). To the contrary, there have been, in fact, five major views in the history of the church.

1.) Mystical Presence - The Eastern Orthodox View

The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically held that in the Eucharist we really commune with the body and blood of Christ. The bread is His Body, and the wine is His Blood. But as the Eastern Orthodox have a tendency to appeal to mystery in many aspects of their theology, so they do here. They do not attempt to give any further explanation as to how this happens, and they reject as rationalistic much of the theologizing that has taken place about the Supper in the Western Church. The bread and wine are symbolic, but not merely symbolic, as in them we are sanctified by really receiving Christ.

2.) Transubstantiation - the Romanist View

This is the view that has been largely held by the Roman Catholic Church and all in communion with her since the doctrine was formulated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, though the doctrine was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in 1551. Drawing off of Aristotelian ideas of form and matter, Aquinas taught that when the priest who is officiating at Mass says the prayer of consecration over the elements of bread and wine, these elements transform literally into the body and blood of Christ. There is no change in the outward form (the "accidens") of the bread and wine - they continue to look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine. Yet, mysteriously, the matter (the "substance") of the bread and wine really and fully become the body and blood of Christ. This view has also been held by many Anglicans and some Lutherans.

3.) Consubstantiation - the Lutheran View

While the Reformers are often referenced for the way they brought to light doctrines of salvation that had been obscured or long neglected, they were above all things concerned about the state of corporate worship, and this included the doctrines concerning the Eucharist. The reformer who maintained a position the closest to that of Rome was Martin Luther. His view has come to be called "consubstantiation", though it is a name that Lutherans generally detest. Luther stated that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that Rome had come to accept there were all sorts of frivolous miracles taking place during Mass, referring to the idea that the bread and wine could change matter without changing form. Instead, Luther taught that Christ was truly "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine in the Supper. And so when a person takes the bread and wine, Christ's body and blood really pass over the person's lips and down his throat into his stomach. He really chews Christ's body with his teeth. To support this idea, Luther taught that Christ's post-resurrection body took on certain of the aspects of His Deity, such that His post-resurrection body was ubiquitous, or spatially unbound. In other words, Christ's body was omnipresent or everywhere at the same time. And so a thousand churches could be taking of the body and blood of Christ all at the same time. In this way, Luther was able to explain his literalistic interpretation of Christ's words "this is My Body... this is My Blood".

4.) Real Presence - the Calvinistic View

Influenced largely by the Eastern Orthodox Church, John Calvin taught that when a person partakes of the bread and the wine in Holy Communion, he really partakes of the body and blood of Christ. Unlike Luther, he held that Christ's body was physically in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, or else Christ's body couldn't be a real human body. Yet he believed that in Holy Communion, by the working of the Holy Spirit, and by faith, we are joined to Christ, both His Body and His Spirit, seated in Heaven, and truly receive Him mystically. This can be illustrated by this passage from the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29, section 7:

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

It should be pointed out that the word "spiritually", as it is used here, does not indicate that it is only Christ's Spirit that we receive, but rather that "spiritually" is the mode of our receiving Him, as opposed to the Lutheran's view that they actually eat Him. When we receive Christ in the Supper, we mystically take all of Him into our bodies, both His Body and His Blood.

5.) Real Absence - the Memorialist View

The view most commonly held in the Evangelical church today, it says that the bread and the wine (sorry - grape juice) used in Communion are merely symbolic, and a means of stirring the participants' minds up in order to meditate on the work of Christ. There is no connection to Christ's body and blood themselves. It is usually the one attributed to the third of the Magisterial Reformers, Ulrich Zwingli. Some study of Zwingli has suggested that this is inaccurate, and that he actually held a view more similar to that of Calvin. Unfortunately, conflicting thoughts in his own writing make it hard for scholars to truly determine what Zwingli's views were.

It should be noted that, whereas Evangelicals normally assume that the Memorialist view is the majority view in the history of the church, the prior four views listed and the size of the church movements they have been affiliated with demonstrate that the Memorialist view is, in fact, the minority view in the church's history. It should also be noted that whereas Memorialists generally downplay the idea that the Lord's Supper is, on their view, a means by which grace is given to the individual, nonetheless, if there are certain benefits derived from meditating upon the Supper, and they are good, then they must be salvific in nature. The real difference here between the Memorialist view and the other four views in that regard is that in the other four views the act of delivering grace to the individual is dependent on the work of God, whereas in the Memorialist view, whether or not the individual receives any benefit from the Supper is entirely dependent upon his own work - that is, whether or not he properly meditates upon Christ's work during the partaking of the Supper. And the theological term for that approach to receiving grace is Pelagianism.

There have been, of course, other major differences within the church on the Lord's Supper. Is the Supper in any sense a sacrifice? Is the Supper only to be overseen by an ordained minister? Can it be carried out in a context other than the worship service of the church? What kind of actions should take place during the administration of the Supper? Is it appropriate to bow or kneel to the elements of the Supper? How are the elements to be treated that are left over after the Supper? These are all legitimate questions. But the foundation to answering all of them begins with determining which of the above views is the Scriptural view.

Wes King Returns

2009-08-05T07:09:00.002-04:00

Those of you who listened to Contemporary Christian music through the late eighties and early nineties like I did will be familiar with Wes King, guitarist and vocalist extraordinaire. I saw him in concert three times when I was younger, and spent some time as a guitarist studying and trying to imitate him. He is also a fairly astute Presbyterian, and has spent a fair bit of time studying with George Grant, a fact that can be heard in his music. He began to suffer from lymphoma a number of years ago, and with it being as serious a form of cancer as it is, I wondered if we'd ever hear from Wes again. I'm glad to say he sounds like he's doing well (though he isn't 100%, he says), and he has begun putting out some new music. His website can be found here, and he can also be found on Facebook.

Satan Worship In America

2009-07-31T23:37:00.000-04:00

I don't agree with some of the doctrines that James David Manning holds to. I don't believe we're living in the last days that Scripture speaks of, and I don't believe that Barack Obama is either the Antichrist or the Beast. That said, Manning's criticisms of Obama and Alinsky are largely correct. For more on Alinsky, see Doug Wilson's comments on him:

http://www.dougwils.com/?Action=Search&searchstring=alinsky

Soviet Healthcare - Please Read

2009-07-31T21:38:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. It's a must read.

From: Mizie Finke (Rep. Blackwood) [mailto:Blackwoodla@ncleg.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Rep. Blackwood Newsletter 7-30-09

Representative Curtis Blackwood

NEWSLETTER

July 30, 2009

Folks, while going over some emails in the office, I came some interesting information on the Democrats’ big health care bill, H.R. 3200, America ’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. While this is federal legislation and not state, the topic is of enough significance that I thought many of you would be interested in reading it. Please find below page references and direct quotes from the proposed bill.

Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that.)
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individual s.
Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

The N.C. budget appears to be in its final stages; will have more state and budget news for you in the next newsletter.

Representative Curtis Blackwood is serving his fourth term in the N.C. House, representing District 68 ( Union County ). He may be reached at his Raleigh office, Room 1317 State Legislative Building , Raleigh , NC 27601 , (919) 733-2406, or via email at curtis.blackwood@ncleg.net.