Watson on Affliction, Part VII

(7). Afflictions work for good, as they are a magnifying of us. " What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him, and that thou shouldest visit him every morning? " (Job vii. 17). God does by affliction magnify us three ways. (1st.) In that He will condescend so low as to take notice of us. It is an honour that God will mind dust and ashes. It is a magnifying of us, that God thinks us worthy to be smitten. God's not striking is a slighting: " Why should ye be stricken any more? " (Isa. i. 5). If you will go on in sin, take your course, sin yourselves into hell. (2nd.) Afflictions also magnify us, as they are ensigns of glory, signs of sonship. " If you endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons " (Heb. xii. 7). Every print of the rod is a badge of honour. (3rd.) Afflictions tend to the magnifying of the saints, as they make them renowned in the world. Soldiers have never been so admired for their victories, as the saints have been for their sufferings. The zeal and constancy of the martyrs in their trials have rendered them famous to posterity. How eminent was Job for his patience! God leaves his name upon record: " Ye have heard of the patience of Job " (James v. 11). Job the sufferer was more renowned than Alexander the conqueror.

Tannahill Weavers in concert

Next Saturday, October 14, the traditional Scottish band Tannahill Weavers will be performing at the Arts Center in Carrboro, NC, beginning at 8:30 pm. If you’ve never heard the Tannahill Weavers, you’re missing out on the best Scottish music around.

Be there or be English.

Watson on Affliction, Part VI

(6). Afflictions work for good, as they make way for comfort. " In the valley of Achor is a door of hope " (Hos. ii. 15). Achor signifies trouble. God sweetens outward pain with inward peace. " Your sorrow shall be turned into joy'' (John xvi. 20). Here is the water turned into wine. After a bitter pill, God gives sugar. Paul had his prison songs. God's rod has honey at the end of it. The saints in affliction have had such sweet raptures of joy, that they thought themselves in the borders of the heavenly Canaan.

Watson on Affliction, Part V

(5). Afflictions work for good, as they are the means of loosening our hearts from the world. When you dig away the earth from the root of a tree, it is to loosen the tree from the earth: so God digs away our earthly comforts to loosen our hearts from the earth. A thorn grows up with every flower. God would have the world hang as a loose tooth which, being twitched away does not much trouble us. Is it not good to be weaned? The oldest saints need it. Why does the Lord break the conduit pipe, but that we may go to Him, in whom are " all our fresh springs " (Psalm lxxxvii. 7).

Of Visions and Revelations

…I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 12:1


Those that know me know that I am about as non-Charismatic as they come. This is true by my practices in worship, no matter who I’m worshipping with. I’ve never raised my hands in worship, for instance, even when worshipping with Charismatic folks - unless it was to scratch my head.

This is also true in my theology. I grew up in a church that was Cessationist in its viewpoint, meaning that they believed that certain gifts that they called the “sign gifts” ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture around the end of the first century. Those sign gifts, in their view, included things like miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, and discernment of spirits. These were supposedly in existence for the purpose of supporting the church in its infant stages, but, when the perfect came (as they interpret I Cor. 13:10), these gifts ceased. I have for the most part adopted this viewpoint.

I have had some variation in this through the years, though, as I have come to have a broader view of God’s working in the world. I think my cessationist friends would agree with me that God actually heals miraculously sometimes. I think the problem with the cessationist view is more foundational, though. Without knowing it, the Christian who takes this line has adopted a basically Deistic approach to viewing the world, which says that God only steps in every once in a while to tamper with what He created. Otherwise, the world has continued on since He first created and stepped away from it, leaving it to operate by itself according to Naturalistic principles. It seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of Providence specifically counters this idea. God is always active in the world, down to the smallest detail, taking it the direction moment by moment that He wants it to go. Then again, one has to be a Calvinist to believe that, and most Evangelicals aren’t Calvinists or are at least inconsistent in their Calvinism. But I’m digressing from my topic.

Another hit to my cessationism has been through my adopting a Sacramental view of the world. This is really just an extension of what I just addressed. God, through the work of His Second Person, has procured salvation for all His people. He then extends the fullness of that salvation to them in this world through sacramental means. This is, as the Reformed theologians have taught us, primarily through the means of grace given to the Church, but, as Doug Wilson has pointed out in his book Mother Kirk, this is broader than just the means of grace as they are traditionally defined. All of the world is sacramental, in that it communicates or delivers salvation to the one being saved.

I haven’t generally thought about these things in relation to cessationism, however. The question of what spiritual gifts continue today and in what capacity they continue is a question I have yet to address sufficiently in my theological studies, and I recognize it as a gap in my thinking. I have known of Reformed theologians who are decidedly non-cessationist. One immediately thinks of John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee, and the late David Chilton. I also think of James Jordan who, in his book The Sociology of the Church, proposes that God can and occasionally does work “language miracles” today. Although Jordan would probably still classify himself as a cessationist, he distinguishes the speaking of tongues that took place before the establishing of the canon and these “language miracles” he speaks of. Jordan rightly connects the developments that have taken place in the lands most impacted by the Reformation to the rationalism and mechanism of the Newtonian world view. It is no coincidence that Newton himself rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

I also know that a number of theologians both past and present have addressed these issues. Some of their books are on my shelves, relatively untouched.

There have been those who claimed to have a conversion of sorts to the Charismatic movement and have later recanted it. Dave Hunt, who documented his own Charismatic experience in his book Confessions of a Heretic (or so I am told – I haven’t read the book), is an example of this.

My church background was somewhat inconsistent in its teaching on this. I was taught that I was to be led by the Spirit, and this was cast in terms that were decidedly Charismatic, although my fellow church members didn’t recognize this and wouldn’t have admitted it. In fact, the worship of the Plymouth Brethren is based around the principle that the Holy Spirit would lead worship himself rather than any man. But with the idea of free will running around, this caused no small measure of confusion. I was to listen for “the still, small voice” of God in prayer, a misappropriation of Elijah’s experience (I Kings 19:12) if I’ve ever heard one. I tried listening for that still small voice, believing as I had been taught that that was the way God would communicate to me. When I didn’t hear it, I believed that it was because I wasn’t holy enough, and that there was some unconfessed sin in my life. This was a source of much unnecessary emotional struggle in my young adult life. I later discovered that I wasn’t the only one to suffer under this sort of teaching. Here are a couple of articles that address these very issues, and they are articles that I would still recommend to anyone considering these things.

Having said this, I have had unusual experiences in my life that I have been unable to explain and that have left me wondering how they fit into God’s normal means of working in the world. Sometimes these seemed to be sudden and profound spiritual workings of God in my life. Sometimes these have seemed to be sudden spiritual afflictions of the “principalities and powers”, as Paul refers to them. These have been very rare in my life, but they have happened. I won’t relate the specifics. I can’t say I’ve always known why those things happened. In fact, maybe I’ve never really known. I haven’t ever been able to nail those experiences down theologically.

The reason I raise all this now is two-fold. I have a friend who had a serious emotional experience recently through which God communicated something very important to him. I won’t go into the details here, but the nature of the situation gave the clear impression that this wasn’t just something the guy ate for lunch coming back to haunt him. God actually seemed to tell him something that he wouldn’t have known apart from some miraculous revelation.

The other reason is an experience I just had earlier this week, being an unusual dream experience. Now unusual dreams, especially right before I get up, are nothing uncommon for me. One morning a few weeks ago, right before I woke up, I was dreaming I was sitting on what appeared to be a college campus listening to Ravi Zacharias speaking in the open air. As it turns out, my clock radio had come on and Ravi’s radio show was on. My mind had simply brought this into the dream.

This dream, however, was a bit more unusual, as I think you’ll see. In the dream, I was at what seemed to be a retreat center of sorts. I was there with some friends, and we had met there to talk about some serious matters that remained undefined in the dream. This part of the dream I could make sense of. I had had a similar experience over the weekend, and this was just turning up again in my dream. At this point, the setting in the dream shifted somewhat, as dreams often do. It turned out that I was actually at the Bible camp that I grew up at as a child and worked at as an adult. I then went into the chapel where worship and Bible classes were held. The dream chapel was different from the real chapel, however. It was definitely the same chapel, but much larger, more the size of a small auditorium. It had the same floor, the same folding chairs, and the same cinder block walls. And pretty close to the same color paint.

Worship was about to begin. The room was full of people. I was up front by the stage where those who led worship would be standing. At the camp I grew up at, I began to help leading the singing in my later teen years. So I spent a lot of time on the stage, and therefore my being there in the dream made sense. In the dream, I started to go get my guitar (which apparently wasn’t with me). Realizing that worship was starting and that I wouldn’t have time to get it, I sat down off to the side of the stage next to a girl in a group of people. It turned out to be a girl that I had had a crush on during my teen years. This girl was one of the few girls that I had ever regarded as being godly. And to this day, she still is. She and I have hardly ever spoken even until now. But I always admired her from afar. The strange thing about this is that through the years I attended the camp, she hardly ever came. After I first saw her, I always hoped she’d be there at the next year of camp, and she never was again until we were young adults. When we met again, I was recovering from a breakup, and we didn’t really seem to hit it off. She has since married, and in the dream I was aware of that.

During worship at the camp, we would at best have two or three guitarists and maybe a pianist. In the dream, however, there was a whole worship team on the stage, complete with male and female singers. Everybody in the room stood up as they began to sing. Normally with music in my dreams I wouldn’t actually hear a song, I would just know music was playing. But in this dream, I actually heard the song. Strangely, it wasn’t a song I think we ever sang at camp. It was instead a song we sang when I served at His Mansion Ministries. It is called You Are Worthy of My Praise. It is sung in a round, with the men taking the initial line and the women echoing immediately with the same line. And the men and women in the chapel were singing the parts in my dream. I haven’t heard that song in years, and I never play it on guitar. I don’t even like praise and worship music anymore. So this was a bit strange too. To add a bit of kookiness to the dream, the men were dancing and signing the lyrics to the song as they sang. I guess there had to be some humor in there somewhere.

And then I woke up. During the worship scene and right after I woke up I found myself overwhelmed with feelings of longing for those things from my past. And I guess all this would have been bizarre enough if not for what happened right after I awoke. I hadn’t been awake for a minute when, in my sleepy stupor, these verses popped into my head:

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

It was verse fifteen in particular that I thought of, though I didn’t have any of these memorized, and the passage was vague in mind. I hadn’t read Hebrews recently, and, so far as I can remember, I haven’t heard it read in church or on the radio recently either. Considering that I hadn’t heard them or read them recently, the fact that these verses came immediately to mind was the strangest part of the whole event. I would have counted the dream as being like any other aside from this.

So, what should I make of all this? Was God attempting to communicate something to me through this? Obviously the more Charismatic of us would say “yes”. And the cessationist would say “no”. And a whole bunch of people in between wouldn’t know what to say.

Do I think that God was attempting to communicate to me through this? The best answer I’ve been able to come up with as I’ve thought about it is, “Yes. I think. I’m not entirely sure. Maybe.”

I know that the past several years for me since I left the church I grew up at have been difficult in their own way. I have moved from church to church, just looking for a place I could call home. I have often felt like Adam as God brought the animals to him to name. Adam finished naming them all, and not a one of them was a suitable mate for him. And I haven’t found the church that I really feel like is suitable for me. Ending the analogy here, I’ve just dealt with each situation as best I could while I was in it.

I’ve never really regretted leaving my home church. I wouldn’t go back there. But I left much security, much certainty, and much community behind, and I wish I could have it again. But in a larger sense, I didn’t leave a church behind - I left who I was behind. This wasn’t such a voluntary thing. If I was going to mature, I had to leave. I had no idea it would lead to such a wandering in the wilderness. But I still wouldn’t go back.

Having said all of this, the best I have been able to make out of my experience is this: God has His hand on me. He is taking me to a better country than the one I left. And I may never live to see the fruit of anything I’ve done in this life. But those things done in the name of Christ and for the sake of His kingdom shall not fail, but shall serve to accomplish the goal they are purposed for. And I can rest assured that this is true.

But, as I’ve said, this is the best I can make out of the experience. I’m not going to change my theology over what happened to me. I’m not going to start attending the local Pentecostal church because of this. God has left this, as he has other experiences in my life, hidden behind a veil of mystery. If He wants to lift that veil, He can do it at any time. And until He sees fit to do that, I will strive to continue according to the truth I know from His word. That is sufficient.

Watson on Affliction, Part IV

(4). Afflictions work for good to the godly, as they are destructive to sin. Sin is the mother, affliction is the daughter; the daughter helps to destroy the mother. Sin is like the tree that breeds the worm, and affliction is like the worm that eats the tree. There is much corruption in the best heart: affliction does by degrees work it out, as the fire works out the dross from the gold, "This is all the fruit, to take away his sin" (Isa. xxvii. 9). What if we have more of the rough file, if we have less rust! Afflictions carry away nothing but the dross of sin. If a physician should say to a patient, "Your body is distempered, and full of bad humours, which must be cleared out, or you die; but I will prescribe physic (1) which, though it may make you sick, yet it will carry away the dregs of your disease, and save your life" : would not this be for the good of the patient? Afflictions are the medicine which God uses to carry off our spiritual diseases; they cure the timpani (2) of pride, the fever of lust, the dropsy of covetousness. Do they not then work for good?

(1) Medicine.
(2) A tumour, a swelling.

Dawgawnit

I don’t get what’s up with the current obsession by a certain portion of our society with small dogs. You know which ones I’m talking about. The tiny ones. The ankle biters. The toe snappers. That’s the dogs, not the ones obsessed with them. And, of course, you know who the “certain portion of our society” is. I’ll say no more.

I was on my way to church this past Sunday when I passed by a lady with one of these dogs in her car. She was driving one of those cars just a hair smaller than the QE II – I think it was a Cadillac. She was steering the car with one hand and holding her dog in the other. Which makes sense, of course. When transporting a small dog in a car, there’s no safer place for it than carefully sandwiched between the driver and the steering wheel. I guess if you wanted to do one better, you could just strap that puppy to the front bumper. Everybody knows that the majority of people injured in a car accident are inside the car at the moment of impact. (And dogs are people, too.) Then again, I guess it’s kind of hard to keep the warm fuzzies going with half a ton of steel between you and your poochie-woochie.

It occurred to me later that she was probably on her way to one of those “Blessing of the Animals” services. At the rate that dog’s life was going, it needed some blessing.

Watson on Affliction, Part III

(3). Afflictions work for good, as they conform us to Christ. God's rod is a pencil to draw Christ's image more lively upon us. It is good that there should be symmetry and proportion between the Head and the members. Would we be parts of Christ's mystical body, and not like Him? His life, as Calvin says, was a series of sufferings, " a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief " (Isa. liii. 3). He wept, and bled. Was His head crowned with thorns, and do we think to be crowned with roses? It is good to be like Christ, though it be by sufferings. Jesus Christ drank a bitter cup, it made Him sweat drops of blood to think of it; and, though it be true He drank the poison in the cup (the wrath of God) yet there is some wormwood in the cup left, which the saints must drink: only here is the difference between Christ's sufferings and ours; His were satisfactory (1), ours are only castigatory (2).

(1)To make satisfaction for (pay the price of) sin.
(2)By way of chastisement.

Watson on Affliction, Part II

(2). Afflictions work for good, as they are the means of making the heart more upright. In prosperity the heart is apt to be divided (Hos. x. 2). The heart cleaves partly to God, and partly to the world. It is like a needle between two loadstones: God draws, and the world draws. Now God takes away the world, that the heart may cleave more to Him in sincerity. Correction is a setting the heart right and straight. As we sometimes hold a crooked rod over the fire to straighten it; so God holds us over the fire of affliction to make us more straight and upright. Oh, how good it is, when sin has bent the soul awry from God, that affliction should straighten it again!

Watson on Affliction, Intro and Part I

Fall has begun to settle upon us here in North Carolina. Due to a variety of experiences in my life, I find that it is this time of the year that my mind is turned to thinking about the 17th century reformers of Britain and Scotland, in particular, the English Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, and the English Separatists. One of the things I thought I would do because of this is to post some of the writings of English Puritan Thomas Watson.

I know little of Thomas Watson, but what I do know is significant for the text I will be posting. He lived during the English civil war and stood in opposition to the intrusion of the state into the matters of the church. But being a Presbyterian, he worked during the Interregnum with fellow Puritan Christopher Love in effort to establish Charles II on the throne in his father’s place. For this he was temporarily imprisoned. Charles was later restored to his throne, but this no doubt brought results other than what Watson expected. He was ejected from the church with approximately 2000 other ministers during Charles’s reign for refusing to conform to the standards of the national church. Like many other Nonconformists, he continued to minister in private until the Declaration of Indulgence allowed him to return to the ministry.

Under his fellow Puritans, he was imprisoned. Under a crypto-Catholic king, he was ejected from his pulpit. It's easy to understand how Thomas Watson could tell us something about the good providence of God in affliction.

For this reason, the text I have chosen to post comes from Watson’s work A Divine Cordial. It is now published by Banner of Truth Trust as All Things For Good. Those interested in reading the entire work may do so here. I will be posting, a little bit at a time, a series of pieces from chapter two of the work, which is entitled “The Worst Things Work For Good To The Godly”.

Before getting to Watson himself, though, let me point out a couple of wonderful things the reader will find in the better Puritans’ writings. For one, I am struck by the affection the Puritans had for those who they hoped would read their writings, as well as for God. These were not mere theological exercises. These men were pastors, and had a sincere desire not only for the glory of God, but also for the spiritual comfort and benefit of believers. Secondly, I am amazed by the Puritans’ use of metaphor and analogy. Their writings were rich in pictures, both from Scripture and from nature, and served to beautify their writing and to clearly illustrate their teachings.

We will be jumping a couple of pages into the chapter, in the section “The evil of affliction works for good to the godly”, as Watson begins to list the ways this is true.

As the hard frosts in winter bring on the flowers in the spring, as the night ushers in the morning star: so the evils of affliction produce much good to those that love God. But we are ready to question the truth of this, and say, as Mary did to the angel, " How can this be? " Therefore I shall show you several ways how affliction works for good.

(1). As it is our preacher and tutor - "Hear ye the rod" (Mic. vi. 9). Luther said that he could never rightly understand some of the Psalms, till he was in affliction. Affliction teaches what sin is. In the word preached, we hear what a dreadful thing sin is, that it is both defiling and damning, but we fear it no more than a painted lion; therefore God lets loose affliction, and then we feel sin bitter in the fruit of it. A sick bed often teaches more than a sermon. We can best see the ugly visage of sin in the glass of affliction. Affliction teaches us to know ourselves. In prosperity we are for the most part strangers to ourselves. God makes us know affliction, that we may better know ourselves. We see that corruption in our hearts in the time of affliction, which we would not believe was there. Water in the glass looks clear, but set it on the fire, and the scum boils up. In prosperity, a man seems to be humble and thankful, the water looks clear; but set this man a little on the fire of affliction, and the scum boils up - much impatience and unbelief appear. "Oh," says a Christian, "I never thought I had such a bad heart, as now I see I have: I never thought my corruptions had been so strong, and my graces so weak."

That Hitchcock was such a kidder

Turner Movie Classics has been showing reruns of The Dick Cavett Show. I happened upon an episode last night in which Cavett was interviewing Alfred Hitchcock. After showing a scene from Hitchcock’s movie Frenzy (which was new at the time), Hitchcock went on to describe the scene in the most bland fashion possible. The scene featured a corpse falling out of a potato sack in the back of a truck. He concluded the description by saying that the point of the scene was that the corpse improved the taste of the potatoes.

And I am feeling that much better about my own sense of humor.

Snakes In My Basement

This past Sunday morning at church, my minister announced that on an upcoming Saturday he would be holding a service for the blessing of the animals. “Bring all your pets,” he instructed us, “except snakes.” Having forgotten temporarily that God had cursed the snake (Gen. 3:14-15), I was surprised to hear that current Anglican outreach practices aren’t ecumenical enough to extend to our serpentine friends. If snakes were blessed at the service, I thought, it wouldn’t be the first time they were welcomed by the Anglican communion. At any rate, since I don’t own a pet, this didn’t apply to me. Or so I thought.

It wasn’t until later that evening that, in the spirit of the least creatively titled movie of all time, I found a snake in my basement. I was on the way to the washing machine when what appeared to be a baby copperhead slithered across my path. If he had been stretched out, I imagine he would have been about nine inches in length. I didn’t let him live long enough to find out. I thought later that it might have been more appropriate to kill him by stepping on his head, if for symbolic reasons alone. Instead I opted to hack him to pieces with a flat-nosed shovel, after which I cast the remnants of his body into the outer darkness of the night. This method proved to be wise enough.

The night found me sleepless and concerned that my deceased adversary might have near relatives somewhere hid in the recesses of the basement. An acquaintance has since assured me that this was probably just a fruit snake, which looks like a small copperhead, and that they like to come in the house when it’s raining, which it had been. (Let them build their own houses, I say.) Eventhough I’m feeling confident that this fellow knew what he was talking about, only time and a lot of searching the basement will tell for sure.

The Zeitgeist

He who would marry the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower.

- Anglican theologian W. R. Inge

Leithartian Poetry

You know, I really, really enjoyed this. Somebody apparently was knee-deep in the Iliad at the time. I especially liked the invocation of the goddess at the beginning and the graphic, Homer-like description of the game of dodge ball. Fun stuff.

Fernando Ortega on Worship

One of the few Contemporary Christian artists I listen to is Fernando Ortega. It was hearing his rendition of the hymn “I Will Sing of My Redeemer” that sold me on his music. I immediately ran out and bought the cd that that song was on, This Bright Hour.

I ran across this interview with him from a few years ago this evening. Something about his music sets him apart from other Christian musicians, and this interview helps to show what is behind that difference. Aside from performing beautiful and faithful yet contemporary renditions of hymns, the music he writes conveys a sense of wonder at the transcendence of God and a joy in the world He has created. It’s no surprise that he was raised a Presbyterian and, at the time of this interview, was attending a Christian Reformed church. In the interview, he gives some great insights into the nature of worship, attacking sentimentalism, utilitarianism, seeker-sensitive worship, and, in his words, “the dreaded ‘drama team’”. Well worth the read.

Music Recommendations

When I find music that I think is really good, I like to be able to recommend it to others. Because of this, I have decided that I will attempt to, once a week, place one or two album recommendations on this blog. I will be putting links to Amazon simply for the convenience of those interested in tracking these cd’s down. I’m not receiving any reimbursement from Amazon for this, but their website is a good place to start in learning about what’s out there and what others have said about the music. You might want to try to get these else where, and if you do, then I say do it.

Here are a couple to start out with. I thought I would begin with a couple from a more classical direction.

First is this rendition of J. S. Bach’s French Suites for keyboard. I am aware that these have been performed and recorded numerous times on piano, but I’m a bit partial to the harpsichord. So that’s the instrument used on this recording. These are solo keyboard pieces. It is a two disc set, and it is incredibly inexpensive at that. I wish I was well enough educated in music theory and history to comment further on this, but I’m not. I just like them.

Second is a cd that appears to be out of print, but I will recommend it anyway. It is this recording from the early music ensemble Hesperion XX. This is a compilation cd from many of their works. It is the only cd I have by them, but I love it. I have a great interest in early music instruments, the most of which I have no idea what their names are. But once again, my ignorance in the technicalities of the music doesn’t prevent me from enjoying it. If you can track it down somewhere, pick it up.

The Hesperion XX cd might be showing as out of print on Amazon's website because it is imported from France. If you go looking for it, then, you might consider checking on a website that specializes in International music.

Ain't America Great?

Today my Scotch-Irish mother was given Amish Friendship Bread by a Costa Rican. Sometimes multiculturalism is just a hoot.

Masculine Nurture

I have been attending a parish of the Anglican Province of America for almost a year now, and began Confirmation classes this evening. And so, since the APA is now in full communion with the Reformed Episcopal Church, I have been reading Allen C. Guelzo’s book For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians on and off for a few months. I’m over half way through at this point. So far it has been a rather sad account of the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church and the REC’s formation. Some of the reviewers of the book over at Amazon accuse Guelzo of strong bias in his writing and clearly inaccurate information in the book. I can’t verify that there is inaccurate information, since I know little of the history of the church outside of what I’ve read in Guelzo’s book. I can verify that he often inserts much personal conjecture in the book, which I think adds to the rather depressing nature of the work and makes it hard to read without constantly questioning the information presented. Considering also that Mr. Guelzo defected from the REC some years back and went to the ECUSA, one wonders all the more how much of what is written in the book can be trusted. Nonetheless, I labor on, assuming there is enough truth for it to merit the effort.

On a some what different note, I have on occasion run across things in the book that I’ve found curious enough that they have stuck with me. The following quote, which speaks of George Cummins, the first bishop of the REC, is an example of this:

And more than describing it, Cummins worked to internalize that ideal of Evangelical self-sacrifice. In the summer of 1849, when cholera ravaged Norfolk, Cummins stayed “at his post of duty through all those terrible months, visiting night and day, and ministering not only to his own people but to many poor colored persons, who suffered most from the dread pestilence.” It was this in Cummins that made Charles Edward Cheney remember Cummins’s “sweet and beautiful spirit of sunshine” and that made Benjamin Leacock describe him as “one of the loveliest Christian men I ever knew,” with “the nature of a gentle, refined woman.” (p. 93)

I’ve gone back and read that quote several times, and every time I do, the only words that come to mind are, “Ummm…huh?” I recognize that this is part of what Ann Douglas called the feminization of American culture that began in the 19th century, so I suppose it makes sense. But it baffles me that anyone could ever think to speak of a man that way and think it’s a compliment. One of the key issues here, I think, is the notion that to be religious is to be feminine, and vice-versa. We’re still reaping the harvest of this false idea in a number of different ways, women’s ordination not being the least of these. I immediately think of how common it was for me growing up to see women bringing their children to church without their husbands, even though the husband was living with the family and faithfully working to provide for them. Now in my church most families came as a whole, husband included. But whenever you had a case of only one parent coming, it was inevitably the case that the mother and not the father brought the children. I know of only one case where the mother was not a Christian, and so the father, who was a faithful believer, brought the children. This reality is a symptom to begin with, though it eventually becomes a cause of other problems, such as women’s ordination.

Ann Douglas, who actually wrote a book about this entitled The Feminization of American Culture, talked about these things a few years back in an interview with Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn. In the interview they drew the connection of the rise of Sentimentalism and Feminism with the rise of the rejection of the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment. These things continue today in certain Evangelical circles. The connection here can also be made to the Revival hymnody and the sappy Contemporary worship music that most of us are forced to endure at some point in our lives today.

I think there is something more subtle in the above quote that should be commented on. It is implied in the analysis of Bp. Cummins’s behaviour that to be a faithful pastor is to be a nurturer, and to be a nurturer is to be feminine, and therefore to be a faithful pastor is to be feminine. I haven’t given any thought of this until just now, so I can’t really comment on it conclusively. I will speculate out loud though, and I might have to change this later, but here we go. I think the error here is coming from two different directions (at least). One is the idea that nurturing is exclusively a feminine domain, and there is no such thing as a masculine-type of nurture. So when a man tries to fill in the role of nurturer that he is required to (for whatever reason and in whatever situation he is required to), the only model he has to operate with is a feminine one, since he has been taught no other model, either in formal teaching or by example. (I can’t say myself that I fully know what a masculine type of nurture looks like, but I’m sure some of my married friends could answer that question.) Also, there is the notion that to be a nurturer is to be constantly physically present. One of the aspects pointed out in the quote is Bp. Cummins’s daily participation in the lives of his parishioners. But we have a tendency to think of men as physically absent. Men are, by the nature of the task they are assigned by God, often absent from the lives of those they are to nurture. This doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t fulfilling their role as a nurturer. It just means that their role has certain parameters, and that doesn’t include being physically present 24 hours a day. Now I think a father needs to spend time with his children as much as he can, but there are times when he just can’t. And there are also occasions when it might be wise or necessary for him to be physically absent – for instance, the father who is an elder can’t take his children along with him when he goes to a session meeting. And one of the aspects of maturity, whether it be physical or spiritual, is learning to depend on the work of God in one’s own life, putting into practice the things we know and have been taught without someone there to hold our hand (other than the Holy Spirit, of course). One should also consider the extraordinary circumstances under which Bp. Cummins was working, that being the outbreak of cholera. Such situations are unusual, and often require that extra attention be given than is normal. This can be true in the case of fathers as well as pastors.

I will say, though, that I think at this point there is a bit of cleavage in the analogy. While I think the above statements are true, pastors are nurturers that God has given to be there for us until the day we die. This is generally different from the role of fathers in our lives. As soon as a pastor leaves, whether through his own death or for some other reason, God raises up another one for us. There is certainly a sense of separation in which the older a person gets the more the faith becomes their faith, and he must work to sustain it without the constant presence of a guide. But we are never to be without a shepherd. And while a mature man shouldn’t feel the need to have his pastor around at all times, I do think there needs to be some improvement done in this area in the church by which the pastors are more present in their parishioners’ lives. I think the example of the high church traditions should be taken into account here. For one thing, I would like to see a return to daily corporate prayer in the local parish. This is something I plan to blog about in the future, so I will leave it at that for now. Also, the pastors themselves, and not just the other elders and the deacons, need to be visiting the sick and the shut-ins. One of the main reasons for this is so that the people who can’t attend worship on Sundays can partake of communion. I know that for Presbyterians this idea creates a problem in conforming to WCF 29.4, but I think there are ways of approaching this without violation of the Confession at this point and still allowing for a person to commune when they can’t show up on Sundays. I also think pastors should return to an understanding of their duty as a counselor to those in need of one. Generally speaking (notice that I said generally), believers shouldn’t need to go to a psychiatrist or psychologist. Pastors, here aided by their elders and deacons, should be able to provide for these needs. There are more aspects related to this than I can get into right now. But these things at least would begin to put the pastor back into the role of being not only the resident scholar, but also the shepherd of his flock. This would also serve as a model of masculine nurture, which is especially needed in our day of absent fathers.

Considering these things, I think Bp. Cummins’s practice shown above seemed to be the right one. Not having been around to know the man, I can’t really comment on the comparison of him to “a gentle, refined woman”, other than to say I hope it wasn’t really true. I hope the one making the comment simply didn’t understand the nature of true pastoral work.

My Cubicle

Continuing in the vein of making fun of James Blunt, I thought this was hilarious.

It's a Big Lie

The idea that socks could ever be “One Size Fits All” is a lie perpetuated by people with big feet.

The Death of the West

This article linked by Jeff Meyers is incredibly sad. I consider this to be an example of post-Christian Europe at its worst.

Mark Horne brought up an interesting comparison to Polly and Digory walking in Charn. But it made me think of P. D. James’ The Children of Men.

CT on Calvinism

The latest issue of Christianity Today has as its cover story an article entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.” I’m always glad when Reformed theology gets press, so I picked up the issue. I was tempted to put it back when I saw that the cover features a guy wearing a t-shirt that says “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy”, but I bought it anyway.

The article looks at the influence that Reformed theology has in portions of the church today, and especially its draw on the younger crowd. The author even states that the Calvinist movement may be “larger and more pervasive” than the oft talked about Emergent movement, citing conference and church membership statistics in support of the claim.

I found a couple of things in the article especially interesting. While the author clearly is attempting to represent “Reformed theology” and its influence in the church, the article almost exclusively deals with Calvinistic Baptists. There is a picture of PCA minister Ligon Duncan beside four Baptist ministers, though the article doesn’t mention him at all. R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer are both mentioned in passing late in the article, as are some long deceased paedobaptists. And there is a sidebar (I don’t know if it was written by the same author)that lists some paedobaptist ministers and ministries, but they are mixed in with a group of Baptist ministers and ministries. On the flip side, the article revolves around the author’s discussions about and conversations with John Piper, Joshua Harris, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever, all of whom are Baptists. The author also spends time discussing the distress that Calvinism is causing among the Arminian contingency in the Southern Baptist Convention. Whether or not the author realizes it (and I’m not sure he does), his real concern in the article is with Baptist culture, not with the whole church. That’s fine, of course, but the article might have been more aptly titled.

Another thing I found interesting was the statement by one Southern Baptist seminarian that he “had never even read Calvin”, eventhough he claims to be a Calvinist. The article goes on to state, “(i)ndeed, the renowned reformer [that is, John Calvin] appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous.” The author cites George Whitfield as having said he had never read Calvin either.

Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read much Calvin myself. I’ve read some of his Institutes, as well as some from his commentaries on the Scriptures. But it baffles me for someone to claim to be a Calvinist and to not have read him at all. I imagine part of the problem here stems back to C. H. Spurgeon. When Spurgeon talked about the Doctrines of Grace, he spoke of them as being nicknamed “Calvinism”. I can’t say that that means of naming began with him, but inasmuch as he is sort of the patron saint of “Calvinistic Baptists”, I suspect him to be the popularizer of this. I like Spurgeon myself, and have benefited from him immensely, so I don’t intend to just trash him. But he was a Baptist. And besides the issue of baptism, he and Calvin would have disagreed on a number of key doctrines.

When I was first wrestling with the Doctrines of Grace, I had a friend who was raised Dutch Reformed, in a place where “Calvinism” was understood to include more than just the “Five Points”. I, being raised in a Baptistic setting where “Calvinism” only referred to “TULIP”, would use the term in that way, and he would have to adjust his thinking to understand what I was saying. Becoming aware of this, it was the first time I began to think of the term “Calvinism” in a broader way.

A couple of years later, in a conversation with an acquaintance of Michael Scott Horton, I discovered Horton’s distaste for this use of the term. Horton had told this acquaintance that he preferred to refer to so-called Calvinistic Baptists as “Classical Baptists”, referring to the original Baptists who wrote the Baptist Confessions of 1646 and 1689. These Baptists held to predestination as do those who call themselves Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists today.

I have also found it interesting at times to hear some Baptists say they hold to the Canons of Dordt. I can only assume that those who say this haven’t actually read them, or else they would have noticed this in the First Head of Doctrine, Article 17:

We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.

I still use the term “Calvinism” to refer to the Doctrines of Grace for the most part, because that’s the way it’s generally used in my still mostly-Baptist Southern culture. And I appreciate the strong stance that these “Reformed” Baptists take on the Doctrines of Grace, and consider them close allies in the fight against the autonomy of man. But I think I would side with Michael Horton in wishing that they be referred to by a different name. And while they’re deciding what they should call themselves, maybe they can read some Calvin and begin to see the more Biblical approach found in what he actually believed and taught. For that matter, I need to read more of him myself.

Having offered these critiques, I still appreciate the article. Even if these men are all Baptists, I can only regard an increase in the acceptance of the Sovereignty of God to be a good thing.

No More Nickel Creek?

I just learned that Nickel Creek has announced that it will be taking an indefinite hiatus beginning at the end of 2007. For the official announcement, visit their website. For more information, follow this link to their interview with Billboard.

Ricky Skaggs

Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder will be in concert here in Greensboro at 8 p.m. on Saturday, September 23. If you want to hear traditional bluegrass done well, Skaggs & company are the group to hear.

Alas, I don’t think I know anyone who is willing to pay the $30 ticket price and is a big enough bluegrass fan to go. Sadly, bluegrass is something I enjoy mostly alone (you may weep tears at this point, if you feel compelled). I haven’t decided if I’m willing to go by myself. So if you want to go to the concert, and don’t have anyone to go with, and aren’t a young woman recovering from a recently-ended longstanding relationship, give me a call.

Oh yeah, the concert is also the day before my 33rd birthday. What’s better than a little birthday bluegrass? Nothing, I say.

Pentecost in I Corinthians 16

The Reformed tradition has been inconsistent when it comes to adhering to the traditional church calendar. The early Reformers sought to remove those things that were incompatible with the teaching of Scriptures, but they generally continued to hold to some form of church calendar. However, by the time that the Puritans came along, there was a strong movement to remove the calendar all together. The Evangelicals, who are for the most part heirs to the Puritan movement, have instinctively recognized the natural tendency of man to mark time. But rather than returning to some form of the historic church calendar, they have allowed the State to define their lives and order time for them.

There are many Reformed types, as well as some Evangelicals, who would argue that worship is to be taken from the New Testament alone, and that we are not told to practice the church calendar. There is first of all a misunderstanding in what the church calendar does in such an approach, a misunderstanding that those who hold to the church calendar may be in part to blame for. The church calendar isn’t just something we do in worship on Sundays. Rather, the church calendar should serve to structure our entire lives.

I won’t try to give an elaborate defense of the church calendar right now. However, I would like to bring up a section of Scripture that I have never heard considered with this in mind. The passage I am thinking of comes from I Corinthians 16. I will cite a few verses to give the context (from the ESV):

5 I will visit you after passing through Macedonia, for I intend to pass through Macedonia, 6 and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7 For I do not want to see you now just in passing. I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. 8 But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, 9 for a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.

Here Paul is planning his journey to see the Corinthians and the Ephesians. That is plain in the passage. What is often overlooked, however, is how he orders time. He specifically mentions winter. But the thing that should strike us as unexpected is his reference to Pentecost. Pentecost was a feast in the Jewish calendar ordained by God. It was also the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit and the first establishing of the New Testament church. It is interesting to note that when God saw fit to give his Spirit and to bring the first converts into the church, he chose the Jewish feast day of Pentecost. Some might think that he had to do it on this day in order to fulfill the typology that he had intended in Pentecost. But there is nothing about typology that would require that. One main aspect of typology is that the type and anti-type don’t match in every detail. If they did, then the type would be the anti-type rather than a type. In other words, their would be no distinction; type and anti-type would be one. Some measure of contrast must exist. Besides this, God can do whatever He wants to. If he wanted to, he could have caused the fulfillment of Pentecost to take place on an entirely different day.

In our passage in I Cor. 16, Paul not only mentions Pentecost, but he orders time in relation to it. His plan, he says, is to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. Why doesn’t he order time according to the Julian calendar, which was in place at the time? Certainly Paul, being a Roman citizen, would have thought along these lines first. But no, he is a Christian, and therefore he orders time according to the birth of the church.

We should also point out that the church Paul is writing to isn’t just made up of Jews. The Corinthian church was a mixed church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. The point being that Paul wasn’t just using a point of reference with a group of Jews that would be convenient and familiar to them. No doubt this would have been confusing for those Gentile believers who had only become familiar with the practice of Pentecost second hand. It seems clear to me that this was a recognized day that was used to order time by the early Christians.

Some may object that this doesn’t justify the elaborate celebrations that take place on church feast days. They may also object that this passage doesn’t defend the entire church calendar that has come to be observed. But those things must be derived (and I think they can) from other passages of Scripture. No doctrine I know of is drawn out of one passage alone. I don’t have time to get into those other matters now. But whatever a person might think of those other issues, it seems to me abundantly clear that the day of Pentecost was itself recognized in some fashion and used to mark time by the early church. This should cause those who reject the traditional church calendar to reconsider their position.

The Many Uses of Ranch Dressing

Ranch dressing covers a multitude of sins.

- my cousin Kathy

Triad Highland Games

For those of you in the Greensboro, NC area, the Triad Highland Games are today and tomorrow at Bryan Park. I've never been, and unfortunately I can't go this year either. But I'm sure it's loads of good Scottish fun. Click here to visit the website for schedule and ticket prices.

The Waffle House

You know, the thing about the Waffle House is that after eating there you smell like the Waffle House the rest of the day.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether or not this is a good thing.

Ministers and Music in the Reformed Tradition

I was recently discussing with some friends the subject of music in the church. These particular friends came into Reformed circles through one of the few Reformed churches that is more liturgical in practice than Reformed churches have historically been. Unfortunately, through the circumstances that came about, they have found themselves in a more traditional American Reformed setting – little liturgy, little music. Providential circumstances, no doubt - but difficult nontheless. We were lamenting how little occasion the typical Reformed believer is given to sing in church. Here are a couple of my own thoughts as to why that might be.

First of all, the Calvinist tradition in the context of the 16th century Reformation is clearly the more Rationalistic tradition. The Church of England maintained a closer link to the traditional liturgy as it had been handed down. This was of necessity due to the fact that England and its leaders, both church and state, never found an overwhelming consensus in favor of the Reformation. This maintenance of a high level of liturgy, I would maintain, served as a preventative against the more Rationalistic lean of the Continental Reformed tradition. This Rationalism carried over into the British Isles through the Puritan and Scottish Calvinistic traditions and this is why it is found in Presbyterianism today. In the Lutheran tradition, reformation of music was a far more important matter. Luther himself was a musician and wrote many hymns, encouraging the restoration of congregational singing. Now it needs to be pointed out that Calvin encouraged the restoration of congregational singing as well. But the music of Geneva was limited to metrical Psalmody and the singing of Scripture passages set in meter. While I like metrical Psalms, they are too simple and predictable, and they grow boring rather quickly. This approach, I would suggest, limits the creativity that musicians can have and suppresses the writing of new music. Calvin certainly did a better job than did Zwingli, who didn’t believe any singing should take place in worship. But although Calvin wasn’t as infected with Rationalism as Zwingli was, he was infected nonetheless. This has been worsened in the Reformation tradition since.

Another reason that there is so little singing in Reformed churches, I believe, is because most Reformed ministers are so musically inept. Due to the Reformed tradition's rationalism, music as a worthy pastime is engaged in and promoted little. Almost no time is given to music in seminary education. And in my experience – however limited it might be – most ministers couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket. One can understand why they don’t care for much singing in worship.

The third reason has to do with participation in worship. In traditional Reformed churches, the minister tends to do just about everything. In some churches, there is the recitation of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer by the congregation. Sometimes there is a confession of sin by the congregation – though in Calvin’s liturgy the congregational confession was simply a prayer prayed by the pastor alone, and this is practiced by some Reformed churches today. Then there are two or three hymns or Psalms, and that is about all the vocal participation the congregation has. The pastor, on the other hand, has the Call to Worship and the Benediction. He alone reads the Scripture text(s). He prays a fifteen minute prayer. There are a number of other ways that he might be vocal in the liturgy. And even when there is a highly structured liturgy, the pastor manages to have something “spiritual” to say in between every element of the service – a series of sermonettes apart from the main sermon, if you will. He has a whole separate sermonette in addition to the main sermon on the Sundays that Communion is observed. Then, of course, there is the sermon proper, which is usually between 45 minutes and an hour in length. The point here is that the pastor gets this huge chunk of time every worship service to praise God vocally. He’s satisfied. Why wouldn’t the congregation be? He can’t understand that there is a dissatisfaction among the congregation because they don’t get enough of an opportunity to praise God corporately and vocally, and the reason he doesn’t understand is because he has all the time to praise God aloud in worship that a man could want. Besides, in the Reformed tradition it’s really all about preaching anyway. All the other stuff is just superfluous. That’s why Reformed ministers spend all their time talking about preaching. Heck, they even preach sermon series about preaching. When was the last time you heard a Reformed minister preach a sermon series about music?

I think there is a right desire in faithful Christians to praise God vocally and corporately in worship. And I think the Reformed tradition stifles that. No wonder the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are moving rapidly toward contemporary worship forms. Even if the music is immature in its form and content, at least there is more of an opportunity for the people to talk to God themselves.

I also think that when a minister encourages vocal and physical passivity in corporate worship, he also encourages passivity in the rest of the believer’s life. We shouldn’t be surprised when the members of a congregation find themselves giving up quickly in the face of temptation if the pastor discourages a proper zeal in worship. It’s just a theory, but I think it’s true.

Maybe it’s just my experience. But it’s been rather suspicious to me that for most of the Reformed ministers I’ve known, they can only carry on one way conversations, with themselves doing all the talking. I think there’s a connection here.

I like what a Lutheran minister said to me one time – “sometimes I just get tired of hearing myself talking up there.” I wish more Reformed ministers would have such a viewpoint.


Those interested in considering further the subject of music in the Reformation traditions might consult the following resources:

Reforming Our Worship Music by Leonard R. Payton

Luther on Music: Paradigms of Praise by Carl F. Schalk

“Music and Singing in the Liturgy” by J. Gelineau SJ and “Hymnody in Christian Worship” by Alan Dunstan, both found in The Study of Liturgy, edited by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold SJ, and Paul Bradshaw

Commercialism rocks!

I just learned that one of our local shopping malls is planning on opening its doors at 1 a.m. the morning after Thanksgiving Day. It’s crazy enough that it’s only August and they are already announcing this to the stores they lease space to. But the worst part about it is that this means that the stores will have to be open at that hour or else be penalized. And so they are in essence forcing the stores to require employees to come in to work that early.

Welcome to the triumph of materialism.

Catherine, O'Connor, and Purgatory

As regular readers of my blog know, I recently quoted from Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory in my series of quotes for our Book Study group. Flannery O’Connor, whose story "The Displaced Person" we have been studying, was a Roman Catholic and therefore believed in Purgatory. She also incorporated the idea in a couple of her stories, "The Displaced Person" being one of them. O’Connor mentioned Catherine’s Treatise specifically, so I read it for the purpose of gaining some insight into O’Connor and her writing.

I personally do not believe in Purgatory, inasmuch as I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it in Scripture. The verses cited in favor of it by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) are misinterpretations, and clearly so, in my opinion.

As if the teaching of Scripture isn’t enough, the historical question is an important one here as well. The doctrine of Purgatory is strictly a Western doctrine, having never been accepted up to the present day by the Eastern churches. Also, the doctrine of Purgatory was not officially declared by a pope prior to the Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus by Benedict XII in 1336 or by a synod until the Council (or Pseudo-council, as the Eastern churches would have it) of Florence in 1439. These are rather late dates for a doctrine as important as it is. Also, the doctrine has generally only been accepted by the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic Christians, being rejected by Protestantism almost wholesale. All things said, I think the odds are pretty well stacked against the doctrine of Purgatory.

This was my first venture into reading about Purgatory, so I found a couple of things about Catherine’s Treatise to be especially interesting.

First of all, I had always been taught by Protestants to view Purgatory as a sort of sadistic act of God, a punishment for the faithful, if you will. Yet Catherine presented it as an act of grace. God cannot accept sin into His presence, and so He must purify us. Also, it is an act of love for God to purify us of our sin. I think the literal notion that “God cannot accept sin into His presence” to be a Biblically and theologically problematic one. As a Protestant who believes in the necessity of sanctification, however, I can agree with some idea that purification is necessary for our salvation.

On the negative side, though, I found a couple of other things curious. For one thing, Catherine presented the relationship between the soul and God in especially romantic terms – terms which Scripture doesn’t apply to the individual Christian. God is not my romantic lover. Christ’s Bride is the Church Collective – not me as an individual. Though Catherine lived in the late 15th – early 16th centuries, her writing seems to be of the same spirit of the Medieval mystics, who tended to define the relationship between the individual and God as Catherine did.

But another thing that struck me was how individualistic Purgatory itself is conceived as being. Catherine spoke strictly in terms of the individual being purified by the fires of Purgatory, and of the soul longing to be joined to God. And so it is all about me and God. And yet I would argue that Scripture places as much if not more emphasis on the corporate. In this notion of Purgatory, there is no idea of me being purified through my interactions with other sinful people. I don’t doubt that those who believe in Purgatory would say that that happens in this world, whereas Purgatory is a different situation. And yet, the Biblical doctrine of sanctification is my being purified in the daily struggle of having to deal in a Godly fashion with other sinners like myself. That’s rather different than what Catherine taught.

So I think O’Connor was wrong in her belief in Purgatory. But as she herself said, she was a writer. While she believed in Purgatory, and incorporated it into her stories, she was no doctor of the church, and had every intention of leaving theology to the theologians. It’s too bad that the ones she left it up to got this doctrine wrong.

Money, Money, MONEY!

Overheard in a restaurant the other day:

“If you can’t impact a person’s money, nobody wants to hear you.”

How true.

Emerging and Church Discipline

Steve Camp raises the question:

Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement (including conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball) publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?

You mean the Bible teaches church discipline? {Gasp.}

Hilarious...

The following is lifted from Little Miss Reformed:

Every year, English teachers from across the country can submit their collections of actual analogies and metaphors found in high school essays. These excerpts are published each year to the amusement of teachers across the country. Here are last year's winners.....

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 machine.

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, Granddad 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. 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.

23. The ballerina rose gracefully en Pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

24. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

25. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

They won't be dancing, either

As I was coming home from work this evening, I saw the following on a sign in front of a Baptist church:

HAPPY HOUR SUN AM 930 – 1030

Anyone want to guess what they won’t be serving at “Happy Hour”?

More on Emerging

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 6 and 7


The above came to mind as I was contemplating some of the things I've heard coming from Emerging folks, particularly on the subject of certainty in knowing and understanding God's word. While I recognize the above statement to be a brief summary of the subject and not comprehensive, I would still regard it as substantially true.

I've found a couple of resources for those interested in considering the subject of the Emerging church. Here is an audio clip from John MacArthur that I found interesting. I disagree with MacArthur on many things, but nonetheless I thought his comments here were good. It's only about six minutes long.

And here is a page at Monergism.com that is dedicated to the subject of the Emerging church. So far I've only listened to John Piper's comments and the interview with Justin Taylor. Piper's comments were only a couple of minutes; the interview with Taylor was significantly longer. I would highly recommend both.

As you scroll down the Monergism page, you'll see this:

Men Are from Mars Hill by Mark Driscoll praises Jesus, blasts mega-churches, and extols Reformed theology. Interview by Jason Bailey -- "The two hot theologies today are Reformed and emerging. Reformed theology offers certainty, with a masculine God who names our sin, crushes Jesus on the Cross for it, and sends us to hell if we fail to repent. Emerging theology offers obscurity, with a neutered God who would not say an unkind word to us, did not crush Jesus for our sins, and would not send anyone to hell."

Ouch. I'll have to read that one.

The Monergism site is a fantastic site in general for those looking to study any theological topic. The links on the site are mainly from a Reformed perspective, broadly speaking.

The “Get Over It" Tour

I’ve heard that James Blunt (famous for the song “You’re Beautiful”) and Daniel Powter (famous for the song “Bad Day”) are going on tour together. Rumor has it that the tour will be sponsored by Kleenex. Can anyone confirm these rumors?

The Emerging Church and Evangelical History

The Emerging Church movement is the latest trendy movement in the Evangelical church. Aside from the conversations about it that appear in the blogosphere, this is noticeable in the number of books published by leaders of the Emerging movement that appear in the religion section of the mega-bookstores.

I have spent some time reading blogs and articles by those who consider themselves part of the movement. And I own a couple of books by Emerging writers, but have yet to read them. So I’m not in a place to offer a full critique. I do have a couple of thoughts, though, and would welcome any feedback.

One thing that I found out recently that is interesting had to do with the church background of the most well known Emerging leader, Brian McLaren. He was raised Plymouth Brethren. This, of course, stood out to me because that is my own background as well. But I also find this interesting because I think that considering this fact will give some insight into the theological presuppositions that are laced throughout McLaren’s work.

The Plymouth Brethren began as an evangelical and ecumenical movement of sorts, and to some degree continues that way until today. It also should be recognized as a Biblicistic movement. While it rightly emphasized Scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, it held the history of the church mostly in contempt, and paid little respect for the teaching that had come before them. The individuals who met at Trinity College in Dublin in the 1820’s and who served as the founding members of the Plymouth Brethren movement saw themselves as meeting “in the simplicity of the New Testament pattern”, breaking bread together with little or no consideration of doctrinal differences. This was to them in contradistinction to the “denominational system” that had grown throughout the history of the church due to the sinfulness of man and which had no foundation in the New Testament. This denominational system kept Christians of various churches from communing (in terms of the Lord’s Supper) with one another, and it was this that the Brethren opposed. In these practices, the Brethren saw themselves as restoring what had been lost since the days of the Apostles.

I view the Plymouth Brethren as simply a continuation of an Evangelical movement that began during the war in the 17th century between Oliver Cromwell with his supporters and Charles I. Cromwell’s army was comprised of people from varied denominational backgrounds, all standing against the king’s violation of the rights of the people in the civil realms (taking the common land from the people and giving it to the aristocrats) and in the church (reintroducing what many believed to be Roman elements into the worship of the church). It is said by historians that Cromwell’s army discovered a unity of faith and purpose that ran deeper than their divisions (which, at this time, were chiefly divisions over liturgy and church government), and which unity contributed to their eventual victory over Charles I. Coincidental with this was the Assembly of the Divines of the Church at Westminster, which was itself comprised of men of a diversity of theological persuasions. Though it isn’t usually regarded this way nowadays, the documents drawn up by the Westminster Divines were documents of compromise. Parliament, who commanded the gathering of the Divines, wanted a set of documents that would unify the churches of Great Britain, and so the Divines set out to accomplish just that.

Through many years of success as well as persecution, this attempt at unity continued into the 18th century in the Evangelical and Revival movements in the United States as well as Britain with figures such as John Newton, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and John and Charles Wesley. This Evangelical tendency is especially noticeable in Newton, whose Evangelical conventicles including a diversity of Christians, even at times including Quakers.

It was in this atmosphere that the Plymouth Brethren movement emerged, an atmosphere that had developed over two centuries. The early Brethren came from the already existing church bodies. It is generally known that John Nelson Darby came from the Church of Ireland in which he had been a clergyman. But while Darby is considered by many to be the key theologian in the early Brethren movement, he wasn’t the key figure when it comes to the development of Open Brethren principles. By the mid 19th century, the Brethren had already had their first major split. This split was primarily over the extent to which communion is open. Darby took a more closed view to communion, and is to be seen as the founder of the Closed and Exclusive branches of the Plymouth Brethren movement. The majority of the Brethren since have followed the path of George Muller and Henry Craik, ministers at Bristol who, while holding certain tenets as essential to right teaching and practice, broadened their approach when it came to communing with others at the Lord’s Table.

George Muller was raised in Prussia, and while it is said that he lived an ungodly life as a youth (coming to Christ as a young adult), he had studied for the ministry prior to his conversion, no doubt for what we would today call the Lutheran Church. Muller came to England and joined Craik in the ministry of a Congregational church, and here we find our first major connection among the Open Brethren with the churches of the Westminster Divines. Muller and Craik over time converted the Bethesda to Brethren principles.

Craik himself was a Scot who had attended St. Andrew’s University and studied under the Scottish Presbyterian minister Thomas Chalmers. He associated with a group known as “the St. Andrew’s Seven”, a group which included Thomas Chalmers and six students, who established a missionary society at St. Andrew’s of which Craik was a part. This group played a key part in what came to be known as the modern evangelical and missionary movement.

There are further connections with the Brethren in the life of another of the founders of the Brethren movement, Anthony Norris Groves. Both Craik and Robert Nesbit, who was a member of the Seven, tutored Groves’ children. Groves himself eventually went to India as a missionary.

These connections between the Plymouth Brethren and broader Protestantism continued in the other movements such as Keswick, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and a host of other parachurch movements. And we now find it has at least one connection in the Emerging church.

Whereas the Emerging leaders seem to think they are doing this great new thing, I find very little that is actually new. Here are a couple of things that Emerging people emphasize that I find precedence for in the history of Evangelicalism, and not least among the Plymouth Brethren:

-Experience of God exalted over systems of doctrine and government

-An openness to the questioning of historic practices and doctrine, and placing the Bible over the historic teachings of the church

-Differences over doctrine not being allowed to divide Christians in any way

-Inclusivity rather than exclusivity

-Egalitarianism and a hatred of hierarchy

-A sense of a new movement of the Spirit of God – the idea that God is doing a “new thing” – which is, again, defined by experience



Another way I tend to view the Emerging movement is as a neo-hippie movement. The hippie movement found its most prominent Christian form in the Jesus People movement, and exemplified many of the same characteristics that I listed above. There was cross-pollination of the Jesus People with other movements in the late sixties and since, out of which emerged the Contemporary worship movement. The Emerging Church, I would say, is an inheritor of all these things.

Let me mentioned a couple of other things in closing. I recognize that the Emerging Church does not ignore Church history as a whole. Part of their reception of it is simply by the nature of things – they couldn’t be Christian in any sense if they entirely rejected the historic church. In other ways, some of them have sought to incorporate certain historic practices of the church, particularly in the area of aesthetics. As good as this is, there are certain things in the teaching of the church that can’t be rejected, and all the smells and bells in the world won’t take their place.

Let me also add that I could also be accused of being a Biblicist. There are reasons why I am neither a Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and that is because of the view of Church authority and Tradition that is held in these communions. Scripture is the supreme authority as God’s Word, and the individuals in authority over us have as their duty to interpret and apply Scripture in the lives of those under their care. Having said that, they don’t have the right to approach the Bible as if they were the first persons to read it, and neither do those who are laypersons. I think one of the most foolish things we can think about ourselves is that we can somehow come to truth as individuals interacting with God alone. The flipside to this is that we don’t get error by ourselves either, but we develop it as a result of the influence of others. Both of these things are true, no matter how creative or new our errors or truths appear to be. We can talk about “interpreting the Bible in community” all we want, but if we don’t interact with the communion of the saints throughout the ages, then our own practices contradict our principles. This is a major point in which I would separate myself from the Emerging Church.

There is probably more that could be said here, but inasmuch as I am writing a blog entry and not a book, I will leave it at that.

Leon Morris (3/15/1914 - 7/24/2006)

New Testament scholar Leon Morris died this past Monday in Melbourne, Australia. He was 92 years old. He was a prolific author, Scriptural exegete, and participant in the production of the New International Version and the English Standard Version translations of the Scriptures. May our Lord raise up many to fill the place he has left.

The Great Debate

Twenty years ago today, at the University of California at Irvine, the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen debated Dr. Gordon Stein on the existence of God. The debate was amazing, with Dr. Bahnsen winning the debate hands down. In honor of Dr. Bahnsen, let me encourage the reader to get ahold of the debate and listen to it.

Unfortunately, the debate is no longer free online. But if you want to get it, you can purchase it here or here.

Psalm 136 and CWM

Contemporary worship music (CWM) is often accused of being excessively repetitive. This is often carried out further in the actual worship setting by the Worship Leader who, being led by the “Spirit” (or, whatever mood he is in), repeats sections of the songs several times over. When criticized for this, I’ve heard CWM advocates point to Psalm 136 as a justification for their practices and songs. Psalm 136, you might remember, has the phrase “for his steadfast love endures forever” (ESV) repeating as every second line in the Psalm. But when one examines the psalm, a couple of things emerge.

For one, this isn’t a case of a worship leader repeating over and over again until he gets that “worshipful feeling”. This is a pre-composed and pre-written psalm, with no room for improvisation.

For another, if the CWM advocates would pay attention to the alternating lines, they will notice something else missing from their music. The alternating lines are a recitation of Covenant history. The Psalmist (and those singing the psalm) is recounting the works of God in Creation and in Redemption, specifically Israel’s redemption from Egypt and reception of the land God promised them. The psalm is covenantal and therefore corporate-focused. The concern is our salvation, not just my salvation. In the majority of CWM, the focus is on my individual experience of God, not my place in God’s act of saving a people. It is individualistic, and conspicuously Gnostic, focused on inward piety rather than a holistic salvation of a family of people both body and soul.

I have found that even when CWM attempts to address the work of Christ, it tends to be rather shallow in its assessment, not to mention not particularly poetic. I think it would be good for CWM songwriters to spend a little more time in looking at classical Christian poetry and hymnody (particularly pre-nineteenth century hymnody), and contrasting it with the modern aesthetic that shapes their songwriting. If they do that, and honestly begin to question their own practices, they might begin to produce works that will be beneficial to the church.

It might also be wise for CWM advocates to actually let the text of Scripture shape their thinking on these things, rather than running to the Scriptures to find a proof text to justify their practices.

Sarcasm, Part 1

“My family and I don’t really like sarcasm,” a friend said to me over lunch today. “I guess we think there is enough bad in the world as it is.” That is a paraphrase, but you get the point of his statement. It stood out in our conversation like a sore thumb, and I’m still musing on what he meant by it.

My friend is from a certain section of the Reformed tradition that is sometimes called “pietistic”. Such people often talk about themselves believing in “Experimental” (meaning “experiential”) Calvinism. Experimental Calvinism tends to focus on the more relational and experiential side of the Christian life.

I think there is much to draw from this tradition. I’m Reformed, and agree with a lot that is taught by these folks. In fact, I was basically drawn into Reformed theology by these sorts of people. Unfortunately, this tradition also has an element of sentimentalism about it that sometimes keeps it from dealing honestly with the harsher aspects of this world we live in. This sentimentalism proves a barrier to a mature Christianity, preferring to live in the nursery of sectarianism rather than being challenged to grow up and engage honestly with other Christians. I am, of course, speaking in generalities. The same people who are immature in one aspect of their faith may be very mature otherwise. And this is true of my friend. I think his pietism isn’t good, but he is in many ways far more mature than I am.

At the risk of turning this into one of those blogs where the author tells you more than you want to know about him, I will admit that I’ve thought about sarcasm a fair bit myself. I’ve wavered back and forth on the issue to some degree, though sarcasm has characterized my speech in part for years. I don’t have all the answers on the subject. But I will say that to eliminate all sarcasm is to take a position that Scripture simply stands against.

There are many passages we could look at, but let’s just take one – 1 Kings 18, Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Most people are familiar with the story. The prophets of Baal and all of Israel gather to Elijah on Mount Carmel at Elijah’s command. The purpose is to demonstrate which is the true God. The prophets of Baal build an altar and begin to call on Baal to send down fire upon the altar. The verse in the passage that most concerns us is verse 27. The King James Version translates the verse this way:

And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

Now here we have a serious case of sarcasm, and that by a prophet of God. What is even more interesting is the phrase here translated “or he is pursuing”. (I don’t know Hebrew, so I have to draw off the scholars here.) The New King James translates it as “or he is busy”. But both translations obscure the real meaning. The clearer translation is in the English Standard Version, which translates the phrase as “or he is relieving himself”. In other words, Elijah is saying “maybe your God is using the bathroom” or “sitting on the toilet”, if you will.

One thing we learn in reading Scripture, and particularly narrative, is that we aren’t told everything that is said or done. God is selective in the things he reveals to us in His word, and the gaps are often apparent. At this point we have to remind ourselves that this isn’t just the human author making a choice of what to tell us, but it is also God Who inspired the writing. God could have left the whole “mocking” aspect of this event out. He could have left out the words that Elijah used, and just told us that Elijah mocked them. He even could have just left out the statement about Baal “relieving himself”.

But he doesn’t. Why? The modern American Christian, now feeling a bit queasy, has had his nice effeminate image of God set in a tailspin. I don’t know why God chose to tell us this part of the event. There might be some great theological reason behind it, but if there is, I don’t have a clue what it is. One way or the other, here is a prophet of God who, being justified in his defense of God by God’s responding to his prayer a couple of verses later, is laying out some pretty heavy sarcasm against God’s enemies.

I could have picked out other passages. One that immediately comes to mind is God laughing mockingly at the kings of the earth in Psalm 2. But when it comes down to it, to call all sarcasm sin is contrary to the clear example of Scripture.

“Well, sure, it’s okay to mock our enemies,” some might say, “but sarcastic people often even use it on their friends. You can’t find that in Scripture.”

Yes, you can find it in Scripture. But I’ll have to address that at another time.

Happy Birthday, John Calvin

Today is (or, considering the hour, was) John Calvin's 497th birthday. Which means that three years from now will be the 500th. Anybody want to take a trip to Geneva in three years?

Book Study Quote #6

Our sixth book study quote is a prayer to St. Raphael. St. Raphael was the guardian angel of Tobias in the Apocryphal book Tobit. To learn more about Raphael, go here.

Prayer to St. Raphael, Angel of Happy Meetings

O Raphael, lead us towards those we are waiting for, those who are waiting for us! Raphael, Angel of Happy Meetings, lead us by the hand towards those we are looking for! May all our movements, all their movements, be guided by your Light and transfigured by your joy.

Angel guide of Tobias, lay the request we now address to you at the feet of Him on whose unveiled Face you are privileged to gaze. Lonely and tired, crushed by the separations and sorrows of earth, we feel the need of calling to you and of pleading for the protection of your wings, so that we may not be as strangers in the Province of Joy, all ignorant of the concerns of our country.

Remember the weak, you who are strong--you whose home lies beyond the region of thunder, in a land that is always peaceful, always serene, and bright with the resplendent glory of God. Amen.

Book Study Quote #5

For our next study quote we take a different direction, this time towards the subject of Purgatory. O’Connor specifically referred to Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory in her letters, so that is where our next quote is from. St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) was a Roman Catholic mystic. For the complete text of the Treatise, as well as a brief biography of her, go here.

The souls who are in Purgatory cannot, as I understand, choose but be there, and this is by God's ordinance who therein has done justly. They cannot turn their thoughts back to themselves, nor can they say, "Such sins I have committed for which I deserve to be here ", nor, "I would that I had not committed them for then I would go now to Paradise", nor, "That one will leave sooner than I", nor, "I will leave sooner than he". They can have neither of themselves nor of others any memory, whether of good or evil, whence they would have greater pain than they suffer ordinarily. So happy are they to be within God's ordinance, and that He should do all which pleases Him, as it pleases Him that in their greatest pain they cannot think of themselves. They see only the working of the divine goodness, which leads man to itself mercifully, so that he no longer sees aught of the pain or good which may befall him. Nor would these souls be in pure charity if they could see that pain or good. They cannot see that they are in pain because of their sins; that sight they cannot hold in their minds because in it there would be an active imperfection, which cannot be where no actual sin can be.

Only once, as they pass from this life, do they see the cause of the Purgatory they endure; never again do they see it for in another sight of it there would be self. Being then in charity from which they cannot now depart by any actual fault, they can no longer will nor desire save with the pure will of pure charity. Being in that fire of Purgatory, they are within the divine ordinance, which is pure charity, and in nothing can they depart thence for they are deprived of the power to sin as of the power to merit.

I believe no happiness can be found worthy to be compared with that of a soul in Purgatory except that of the saints in Paradise; and day by day this happiness grows as God flows into these souls, more and more as the hindrance to His entrance is consumed. Sin's rust is the hindrance, and the fire burns the rust away so that more and more the soul opens itself up to the divine inflowing…

No tongue can tell nor explain, no mind understand, the grievousness of Purgatory. But I, though I see that there is in Purgatory as much pain as in Hell, yet see the soul which has the least stain of imperfection accepting Purgatory, as I have said, as though it were a mercy, and holding its pains of no account as compared with the least stain which hinders a soul in its love. I seem to see that the pain which souls in Purgatory endure because of whatever in them displeases God, that is what they have willfully done against His so great goodness, is greater than any other pain they feel in Purgatory. And this is because, being in grace, they see the truth and the grievousness of the hindrance which stays them from drawing near to God.

The Windows

Here is a poem by George Herbert entitled The Windows which I ran across a couple of months ago. I’m not putting it here for any particular reason other than that I like it.

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.

Occasional Riddle #4

The credit for the following “riddle” goes to my friend Jim Vogl:

If someone is a fan of the Cowboy Junkies, would that make him a Cowboy Junkies junky?