Politically Incorrect Guides

I’ve talked to a handful of people recently who have been reading some of the books from the Politically Incorrect Guide series. While I haven’t looked at any of them myself, the reviews I’ve heard have been more than favourable. So I was quite glad when last night on Book TV on C-Span 2 I discovered presentations from two of the authors from that series. The first was from Elizabeth Kantor, the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature, and the second was from Carrie Lukas, the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism. Both talks were sponsored by The Eagle Forum, a conservative pro-family group I had not heard of before. And both talks were very interesting and informative, not to mention being a nice contrast from the liberal indoctrination and otherwise unintelligent babble found on TV. Ms. Kantor’s talk is free for the viewing on Book TV’s website, so I highly encourage any and all to watch it. It doesn’t appear that Ms. Lukas’s talk is up yet, but it may be added in the future, so keep your eyes open for it. Those of you who take a special interest in women’s issues will find Ms. Kantor’s talk as informative on these matters as Ms. Lukas’s, as Ms. Kantor briefly addressed the view of women in Western thought as it has been historically expressed in Western Literature.

There was also a presentation this evening by Christopher Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. I haven’t watched that one yet, but here’s the page for those interested.

St. Jerome on Apostolic Succession

While surfing the net a couple of months back I found this interesting quote on the website of New Life Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Midland, Texas. As you’ll see, it is a quote from St. Jerome on the matter of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops. It is quite revealing, as Jerome here argues against the idea that, since the founding of the church, bishops have been ordained by other bishops as set apart from presbyters or priests – in other words, that the bishopric is an entirely separate office from the presbytery, and that the presbytery is derived from the bishopric, rather than the other way around. And this from the guy who translated the Latin Vulgate. It’s a wonder he ever became a saint and a church father.

We read in Isaiah the words, "the fool will speak folly," and I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons." Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: "Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God." And to Timothy he says: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Peter also says in his first epistle: "The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ' ... taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God." In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is episkopountes, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who reclining on the Saviour's breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: "The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth; " and another thus: "The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gains whom I love in the truth." When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

St. Jerome to Evangelus, Letter 146 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

A couple of websites, in my absence

I’ve had little time for blogging as of late, so thank you to those of you who continue to visit. Hopefully I’ll be able to do some more writing before too long. For now, here’s a couple of my favourite websites, in case you want to check them out.

Issues Etc. is a radio show that airs on KFUO am in Missouri. It’s hosted by Todd Wilkins, a minister in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. (Some of you might know it’s former host better – Don Matzat, author, LCMS minister, and sometime Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals board member.) Wilkins & co. address theological issues, as well as a host of cultural and political issues from a Lutheran perspective, and they interview a wide variety of guests along the way. They air four times a week live, with the Sunday evening show being syndicated (so it might even air on one of your local Christian stations). And they archive everything they do, so if you miss it, you can go back and listen to it later. I’ve been listening to it when I’ve been eating or just bopping around the house doing various things. It’s quite enjoyable, and it’s one way for me to catch up with the latest national and international news that really is worth hearing about without turning on the idiot box and filtering through all the garbage. Among the recent topics, I think my favourite was Wilkins & co.'s visit to Joel Osteen's church (July 17).

And for something on the humorous end of things, not to mention politically incorrect, check out Engrish.com.

Martyrdom

When Christ calls a man, he bids that man to come and die.

-- World War II martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The latest issue of Christianity Today features a short article (less than a page long) on the martyrdom last April of three Christians in Malatya, Turkey. German missionary Tilmann Geske, local pastor Necati Aydin, and former Muslim Ugur Yuksel were assaulted, tortured, and murdered by a group of Muslims. The article, interspersed with several verses of Scripture about the necessity of a Christian’s suffering for his faith, was well written and inspiring.

Nonetheless, there’s one problem I have with it. It cleaned up the facts of exactly what happened in the death of these men. The article says that they were tied to chairs, “stabbed…slowly and deliberately”, and that then their throats were slit. This is all true, but the most gruesome details were left out. Here they are, for those with the stomach for them:

[Details of the torture–
* Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.]

A fair bit more than what CT presented, isn’t it? The question I’m asking is this – why leave out the details? They would offend some, certainly. And maybe the reason why CT’s writer (whose name is not with the article) would leave out the details is the same reason I would signal my reader in advance that they are about to read something that not all can handle. But why not signal the reader just as I did? It could just be that the writer was attempting to present the facts in a narrative fashion, and including such details would have seemed out of place. I suspect, however, that something else is going on here.

Let’s be frank here. Most American Evangelicals are pansies. We walk into our Christian Junk Stores and the hallucinogenic smell of perfumed satchels with Scripture verses emblazoned on them waft into our nostrils while we fill up our baskets with the latest cheesy Christian t-shirts and plastic inspirational dust catchers. Somehow, we aren’t any holier for all of it, and I can’t help but think that it does more to separate us from the heart of our faith than anything.

On the other hand, we live in an extremely violent culture. I’m more amazed each day at the lengths that TV shows will go to as they push the edges of accepted decency. This is especially true on the 24 hour a day news channels, where they seem to compete constantly over who can create the greatest sense of excitement and thereby deceive you into believing that what they are really presenting to you is “news”. Every time they say, “What we are about to show you may offend some,” they know there ratings are about to go up, which is really what it’s all about for them.

Christians watch these shows, and so violence is nothing new for them. And it’s also true with movies. I’d dare say most Evangelicals have seen Braveheart, and so, while Wallace’s torture and death scene was not very explicit, the rest of the movie was. On top of this, most people probably know something of the historic practice of drawing and quartering. And for those who haven’t seen Braveheart, most certainly have seen Mel Gibson’s more recent film, The Passion of the Christ.

This leads us back to the history of martyrdom in the church. Anyone who’s spent a significant amount of time in the Evangelical church, I would think, would know something about martyrdom. Sadly, the presentations I’ve met with having grown up in the church have often been sanitized. Hearing about those who were martyred generally involves the following: the person is captured and killed, end of story. To mention that they were tortured was an extra step that was usually left out. But, once again, those who are martyred usually suffer much, much more.

And so I see the church’s treatment of martyrdom, and of violence in general, to be somewhat contradictory. We’ll watch it on TV or in the movies, where we’re able to view it from a distance. We can remain uninvolved and unaffected. This way, we can say we’re addressing it without there being any cost to us.

But the heart of the Christian faith is entirely different than what we often treat it as being. N. T. Wright addresses this in his book What Saint Paul Really Said:

It is an obvious truism to say that the cross stands at the heart of Paul’s whole theology… We are in danger of being lulled by this constant refrain [of the importance of the cross] into insensibility to what Paul was actually saying – and, equally importantly, was heard to be saying in the world of his day. Crucifixes regularly appear as jewellery in today’s post- Christian Western world, and the wearers are often blissfully unaware that their pretty ornament depicts the ancient equivalent, all in one, of the hangman’s noose, the electric chair, the thumbscrew, and the rack. Or, to be more precise, something which combined all four but went far beyond them; crucifixion was such an utterly horrible thing that the very word was usually avoided in polite Roman society. Every time Paul spoke of it – especially when he spoke in the same breath of salvation, love, grace and freedom – he and his hearers must have been conscious of the slap in the face thereby administered to their normal expectations and sensibilities. Somehow, we need to remind ourselves of this every time Paul mentions Jesus’ death, especially the mode of that death.

Paul, as did the other writers of Scripture, recognized that there are far more important questions than whether or not our sensibilities are offended. The more I’ve read Scripture over the past couple of years, the more it has occurred to me how often the faithful men and women of Scripture went out of their way to offend people. Certainly, it was never being offensive simply to offend, or as an attempt to control and manipulate others (say, in the way the marketers of Christian merchandise attempt to do). Rather, it was to bring to light the evils of sin and to lead to salvation. Nonetheless, they were offensive, and Scripture presents this as being something worth doing at times in order to accomplish God’s will. As Paul himself tells us in 1 Corinthians, the cross itself is an offense.

In American Christianity, we have a hard time imagining that following Christ could include such commitment or result in so gruesome a death. But for those who through the centuries have sought to obey God’s word, this has often been their end. One of the most violent deaths in the history of the church that I know of is that of the Scottish Covenanter martyr, David Hackston. Hackston stood with the Covenanters and fought against the king’s dragoons during the Killing Times of the 17th century. After a time of resistance, he was captured and carried to Edinburgh, where he received his sentence:

That his body be drawn backward on a hurdle to the Cross of Edinburgh; that there be a high scaffold erected a little above the cross, where in the first place his right hand is to be struck off, and after some time his left hand; that he is to be hanged up and cut down alive, his bowels to be taken out, and his heart to be shown by the hangman to the people; then his heart and his bowels to be burned in a fire prepared for that purpose on the scaffold; that afterward his head be cut off, and his body divided into four quarter, his head to be fixed on the Netherbow, one of his quarters with both his hands to be affixed at St. Andrews, another quarter at Glasgow, a third at Leith, a fourth at Burntisland; that none presume to be in mourning for him, nor any coffin brought; that no person be suffered to be on the scaffold with him save the two ballies, the executioner and his servants; that he be allowed to pray to God almighty, but not to speak to the people; that the heads of [Richard] Cameron and [John] Fowler be affixed on the Netherbow; that Hackston’s and Cameron’s heads be affixed on higher poles than the rest.

Jock Purves, from whose book Fair Sunshine I am taking this account, goes on to describe the execution:

Already dying from his ghastly wounds, he was led away to suffer. While great crowds looked on, there was done upon him by the hangman a gross, painful barbarity not mentioned in his sentence. Then he endured with firmness and patience the cutting off of his hands, but, the hangman having taken such a long time to hack off his right hand, he asked that his left hand might be taken off at the joint, which was done. With a pulley he was then pulled to the top of the gallows, and when choked a little was let down alive. The hangman then with a sharp knife opened his breast, and putting in his hand pulled out his heart. It fell upon the scaffold and moved there. The hangman picked it up on the point of his knife, and, carrying it around the scaffold, he showed it to the people saying, ‘Here is the heart of a traitor.’ Patrick Walker says that it fluttered upon the knife. The rest of the sentence was duly carried out. The free grace of God was glorified in David Hackston, so that whoever thinks of him must think of his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, too.

The most amazing thing is why the Covenanters died. They opposed the King’s attempts to require certain worship practices and a certain form of government in the church. These died horrible deaths over Sunday worship and church government, and we have a hard time getting out of bed to go to church anywhere on Sunday morning. We are a sad lot.

But are the details in describing a martyrdom really necessary? Certainly, not every detail needs to always be shared. Even in Purves’ account, he speaks of a “barbarity” that he declines to mention more specifically. And one can also either grow numb to the violence through excessive exposure, such as is caused by violent entertainment, or simply grow to delight in it, which is a horrible thing in itself. Nonetheless, to always refuse to speak of the details is to ignore the fact that following Christ is to “participate in his sufferings”. Christ suffered because there is sin in this world, and we will suffer in some small measure in Christ’s name for the same reason. The details remind us that we are still in a sinful world, a world that is yet to reach the fullness of redemption. We can rest assured, however, that this redemption will come, as it was accomplished through the suffering of the God-Man, Jesus Christ our Lord.

George Grant on the Call to Dominion

We are not to stop with simply telling the nations that Jesus died for the sinner’s sins. We are to demonstrate Christ’s lordship in our families, in our churches, in our work, in our communities, and in our cultures. We’re to make disciples who will obey everything that He commanded, not just in the hazy zone of piety, but in the totality of life. This is the thrust of the Great Commission. It is the spiritual, emotional, and cultural mandate to win all things in the name of Jesus. And though we know that only Christ Himself can fulfill that mandate in its entirety at the close of history, our duty is but to trust and obey. We are to occupy until He comes. The tendency of modern Christians to sidestep all of the implications of the Great Commission except soul-saving has, in stark contrast, paved the way for inhuman humanism’s program to afflict the helpless and crush our liberties and despoil our culture. We tend to be very quick to point the finger, and say, “Oh, woe is Washington! Oh, woe is Hollywood!” – when, in fact, it is our unbelief, our refusal to actually believe that God expects, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven” to be answered in the affirmative. We have reduced the Gospel to snatching a few brands from the flickering flames of perdition and, as a result, virtually all Christian influence has been removed from the world. There is little or nothing to restrain the ambitions of evil men and movements. It is no wonder then that whole cultures, whole nation states, set themselves to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God’s counsel goes unheard and unheeded because we don’t really believe that Jesus is Lord.

- George Grant, from a lecture entitled “Ruling All the Earth”, given at the Highlands Study Center conference, “For the Beauty of the Earth”, April 2, 2004.

Another Catholic convert

A few months ago, I was talking to a friend about some of his studies in church history, particularly in relation to the historic relationship between Islam and the Christian Church. My friend, a Protestant, was lamenting the loss of a unified front against Islam, which was the result of the Protestant Reformation. He also expressed his concern over new, start-up denominations, and his tendency to more naturally trust those Christian groups whose claims to historicity are verifiable. The nature of his statements was such that I questioned him about his Protestant credentials, but he assured me that he still believed in the doctrines that set the Reformation apart from Rome. And so far as I know, he is still standing with the Reformation.

It was less than a week later when I found myself having answer some of the same charges. I was reading a book on the Latin rite of the Roman Church as it was in practice in the U. S. prior to Vatican II. A friend of mine, who is a more staunch Presbyterian than I am, saw that I was reading it, and began questioning me about it. To be fair to him, I think he had been concerned for me for some time, as he observed my interest in liturgy grow, and as he watched me join an Anglo-Catholic church. My reason for reading on the Mass had nothing to do with any inclination to depart from Protestantism. I had actually been leading a book study group through a story by Flannery O'Connor, and decided it would be good to familiarize myself with the form of worship she would have participated in during her life in order to get a better understanding of her writing. Thankfully, my friend is one of the more reasonable sorts of staunch Presbyterians (a rare breed indeed), and so believed me when I explained myself to him.

This anecdotal situation is probably one more and more common these days. There's a paranoia in Reformed circles about Romanism in general. I don't think this is entirely new; I get the impression from the things I've read that since the sixteenth century the Reformation has had too much of a tendency to define itself according to what Rome isn't. And yet this has been amplified in recent years. The past twenty years has seen Protestant after Protestant venturing to Rome to find whatever, that whatever seeming to vary from person to person. Add to this the converts to either Anglo-Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, and the numbers are sufficient to give anyone bearing the moniker "Reformed" a perpetually sustained nervous twitch.

I think there are things that the Reformed need to learn from this trend, though I won't try to enumerate those things now. I gladly bear the moniker "Reformed" myself, and have no intention of casting it off any time soon. But I remain Reformed with the hope that my fellow Reformed brethren will wake up to their own failures that are causing this movement.

I write these things due to another report of a departure for Rome, this time coming from a member of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. The person involved this time isn't a pastor or theologian, but philosophy professor Robert Koons. For those who want to read it in his own words, you will find his report of his conversion here. I won't use my blog to report on every person converting to this or that group, but I found this story particularly interesting. I think that my favorite statement in Koons' piece was this one:

The [Roman Catholic/Lutheran] Joint Declaration and the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church aided me in giving a closer and more charitable reading to the anathemas of the Council of Trent (which I still believe to be have been written in an unprofitably provocative way).

I'm not entirely sure how one gives a "more charitable reading" of anathemas, but apparently it's possible. At any rate, it's important to read stories like this one, if the Reformed church is ever going to be able to answer the charges against it effectively.

You said, "I love you"

You said, “I love you,” and I know it is true.
I love you too, but I responded with silence,
Because mine is a love you would never countenance.
I am a particle of your life, kept conveniently in its place,
Present when you want, and away when you wish.
As we are apart, I am alone wondering
Where you are, and whom you are with,
And in part, I know.
You are riding the wind wherever it may blow,
As a leaf flies in a storm, landing
Where it may or may not wish.
You are wandering as a nomad, from here to there,
Seeking what, you do not know,
But ever convinced that it lies
Beyond the next dune.
I would shield you from the winds, if you would let me,
And make you a home
That you need never again wander.
But though you love me,
You love your winds and wandering more.
And so I will ever respond in silence,
For yours is a love
I could never countenance.

Scriptural Speculations 2: Water from heaven

As I’ve been studying the Book of Revelation recently, the importance of gaining a right understanding of the covenant in Scripture has become more apparent to me. This was also brought to my attention this morning as I read the Old Testament text assigned for the Morning Prayer service in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The text was Deuteronomy 11:10-17, but let’s begin at verse 8:

8 “You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, 9 and that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring, a land flowing with milk and honey. 10 For the land that you are entering to take possession of it is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you sowed your seed and irrigated it, like a garden of vegetables. 11 But the land that you are going over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, which drinks water by the rain from heaven, 12 a land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

13 “And if you will indeed obey my commandments that I command you today, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. 15 And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full. 16 Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; 17 then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the Lord is giving you.

In the first section of verses, Yahweh speaking through Moses draws a contrast between Egypt, which the Israelites had left, and the Promised Land, which Yahweh was giving them. The point of contrast is interesting, being the different ways each of the two lands were watered. In Egypt, the Israelites had to work hard to irrigate the fields so that the crops might be watered. But in the Promised Land, they are told, this work would not need to be done. Water would come from heaven, directly from the hand of Yahweh Himself. God Himself is the Supreme Gardener.

This should have immediately brought two historical matters to mind for the Israelites. First, the Israelites were still at this point receiving the manna from heaven every morning as the means by which God was feeding them. Even as Israel was receiving bread directly from God’s hand, they would soon in the Promised Land receive water directly from God by which they might be sustained.

Secondly, this promise should have brought the Garden of Eden to the mind of the Israelites. Prior to the fall, we are told that “a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden” (Gen. 2:10). Even though God put Adam in the garden to tend it, one work that Adam didn’t have to do was irrigation. God Himself provided for that. He was essentially telling Israel that He was giving to them a new Garden of Eden. Certainly, the effects of the Fall remained. Man would still work “by the sweat of his brow”. But God was redeeming the world through Israel, and his first step in redeeming the world was to put them in a new Eden.

In the last section of verses, Yahweh sets out the possibility of either covenantal blessing or of covenantal cursing. If Israel walks in faithfulness, God will send rain, and Israel’s blessings will overflow. But if they turn away from God, He will shut up the heavens and Israel will perish. This is repeated later in Deuteronomy (28:23-24), and had already been spoken to Israel once when they began their journey in the wilderness (Leviticus 26:19-20). Both passages speak of the earth and the heavens, as well as iron and bronze. (It is interesting that in Leviticus 26:19, the heavens are spoken of as becoming like iron and the earth like bronze, whereas in Deuteronomy 28:23 the two are reversed, the heavens being spoken of as becoming like bronze, and the earth becoming like iron. I have no idea what the reason for the switch might be.) The contrast between these two passages and Deut. 11 is that these two passages only contain the negative sanctions and Deut. 11 contains the positive as well.

Knowing that Yahweh made this declaration is important in making sense out of later portions of Scripture as He entered into judgment upon His people. Solomon invoked this promise of Yahweh when he prayed at the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8):

35 “When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you, if they pray toward this place and acknowledge your name and turn from their sin, when you afflict them, 36 then hear in heaven and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel, when you teach them the good way in which they should walk, and grant rain upon your land, which you have given to your people as an inheritance.

Here Solomon not only remembers God’s promise of judgment for unfaithfulness, but prays for God’s forgiveness for those who repent, reminding Him of His promise to do this (Deut. 30:1-10). In 2 Chronicles 7 we are told that when God appeared to Solomon in the night after the dedication, God promised that He would indeed do as Solomon asked (vss. 13-14).

In time, however, Israel did follow after other gods, and Yahweh brought this promised curse upon Israel. Yahweh sent His prophets as covenant lawyers to pronounce to Israel that He was entering into judgment with them. The prophecy of Amos recounts a time when Yahweh did withhold rain (Amos 4:7-8). But the most well known case of this is probably the account of drought pronounced by Elijah during the days of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 17-18).

This is a point where I have found understanding the covenant to be so helpful. I have spent most of my life thinking about the various stories in Scripture in a disconnected way. Whereas I knew that God was, in the days of Elijah, for instance, disciplining Israel for its disobedience through the drought, I had never connected that with His establishing of a covenant with Israel. God, when He chose to discipline Israel this way, didn’t pick drought out at random. The choice of withholding rain was based on His special blessings given to them of a land watered by His own direct working, and was tied into the covenant in a special way. We also see in this that God is not a fickle, unpredictable God. He had warned Israel long before what He would do if they were unfaithful to Him. When He entered into covenant with them, He stated the stipulations of the covenant, and so in shutting up the heavens, He was simply keeping His word.

Jesus recounted Elijah and the drought when He appeared in the synagogue in Nazereth at the beginning of His ministry:

23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.

At first we are told that “all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth” (vs. 22). Yet Jesus, as he was wont to do, opted to pick a fight with those that weren’t looking for one, and so he stated the words above. Why would Jesus’ words have caused the men in the synagogue to be “filled with wrath”? Well, for one thing, he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. Since prophets were lawyers bringing a lawsuit against the nation, a prophet wouldn’t have been good news for people who thought that everything was going just fine. If these people had a problem, it would have been with Rome ruling over them, not with themselves – or so they thought.

But secondly, Jesus was invoking the memory of two occasions in Israel’s history in which Israel suffered for their disobedience and God chose to bless Gentiles instead of Israel. To those who clung to their parentage as if it alone would save them, these would not have been welcome words. Both of these occasions foretell of the day when Gentiles would be welcomed into the Kingdom without becoming Jews. And Jesus came to bring that day in its fullness.

The promise of God to withhold rain as a covenantal judgement continued in the Revelation, as we are told of the destruction of Jerusalem in relation to the two witnesses (Rev. 11:6). The language of drought and plagues has caused commentators to relate the two witnesses as being Moses and Elijah. Adding to this is the statement that the prophets would prophecy 1260 days, and that the holy city would be trampled for forty-two months (Rev. 11:2-3), also drawing the parallel to Elijah’s drought. That Jerusalem is in view here is no question, as the allusion to it in 11:8 is drawn clearly. God had promised certain curses for disobedience, and on the basis of that covenant He acted in the destruction of Jerusalem.

All of this brings us back to Zechariah 14. The covenantal blessings and cursings apply to us today. I do not pretend to know how this plays out practically. Certainly the covenant has been reshaped and transformed by Christ’s work. But as Zechariah testifies regarding the nations, for those who do not worship the LORD, the plague of drought remains a curse (Zech. 14:16-19). For those, however, that would serve the God of the covenant, rivers of living water are promised to them (Zech. 14:8, Rev. 22).

Jerry Falwell deceased

Jerry Falwell was found dead this morning... read about it here.

Scriptural Speculations #1: Zechariah 14

As I mentioned before, I am part of a Bible study group that is currently discussing the Book of the Revelation. Everybody in the group other than myself is premillennial, if not fully Dispensational, by default, as is most everyone in the American Evangelical church scene these days. Nonetheless the group has been welcoming to my different perspective, and our conversations have been quite enjoyable.

I came in late to the group. They had been meeting for a while before I joined, and had already made it to Revelation 16. The book the group is using as a guide is David Jeremiah’s Escape the Coming Night. The book is a standard, popular-level Dispensational treatment of Revelation. And as much as I have benefited from Dr. Jeremiah’s radio program through the years, we differ significantly on many things, of which the Book of the Revelation is one. To put it less politely, I think Dr. Jeremiah misses the point of Revelation entirely. It isn’t about the events beginning with the rapture and continuing through the end of the world. Rather, the book is about the events surrounding the dissolution of the Old Covenant world, connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

We just finished ch. 16 of the book, which corresponds with ch. 16 of Revelation. In this chapter Dr. Jeremiah, as other Dispensationalists do, runs through the Old Testament picking out passages about destruction here and there, and links them together to create his schema for the future. One section that figures prominently is the last few chapters of Zechariah. I don’t have the entire Bible figured out (who does?) but I have some thoughts on Zechariah 14 in particular that come from my own preterist perspective. I wrote these up and sent them to our fearless Bible study leader, but he has yet to respond, which I hope is not a sign of just how convoluted my ideas are. I’ve thought for awhile about starting a blog series entitled “Scriptural Speculations” though, and I figured that maybe this wouldn’t be a bad way to start that series. The following is rough, in that it is simply the email as sent with very little editing. I hope it’s possible to follow it anyway. Also, these thoughts are far from conclusive. I haven’t read any commentaries on the passages in question, so I don’t know if any scholars would agree with me. And if you the reader have any thoughts, I welcome them, so please post them in the comments or email them to me.

The questions we’ve been dealing with involve Typology in relation to prophecy. It seems to me that most Dispies like to reserve Typology to the person and work of Christ. In fact, growing up in the Plymouth Brethren, I was taught that Typology in Scripture only functions in relation to Christ. In other words, there are no types that find their antitypes in, for instance, the Church. So I was taught that Israel in the Old Testament couldn’t refer to the Church in the New Testament. But when I became Reformed, I realized that this was wrong.

As a preterist, I would tend to interpret such passages in relation to the first century, as you know. What happens in this approach is that statements that refer to Israel are interpreted as referring to the Church. Also, statements that refer to the nations refer to the enemies of the Church, which enemies would include unbelieving Israel. Of course, this is overly simplistic. Jesus is the True Israel, and the church is Israel only through Him. So Israel could refer to Christ Himself rather than the church.

The thoughts I have refer specifically to Zech. 14. Simply put, it seems to me that the parallel to Zech. 14 (or, at least, one parallel) is found in John 7, and possibly part of John 8. There are two parallels that cause me to believe this. First is the context of John 7. The context is the Feast of Booths (or Tabernacles, as it’s sometimes called). The related passage in Zechariah is Zech. 14:16-19. The second parallel is John 7:37-39:

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

It is interesting to consider what comes right after this as well:

40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.”

The parallel to this is Zech. 14:8-9:

8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.

9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

See also Ezekiel 47:1 and following, as well as Genesis 2:10-14. Also to consider here is the river that flowed into (or out of – I don’t recall) O.T. Jerusalem (I couldn’t find a text reference for this one). All of these, I would suggest, are parallel, along with Revelation 22:1, 17. The point to be made here, which is typified in each case, is that wherever God dwells, from there, water of life flows out into the whole world. And the water is connected with the Spirit of God. This is often related to the historic defense of Baptismal Regeneration. The picture here is also one of life flowing out to the rest of the world from the people of God, which in the OT meant Israel, but in the NT means the Church. So today, the fountainhead of salvation is to be found in the Church. There’s a rabbit trail I could follow further here, but I’ll resist the temptation.

If you want to carry the parallels with Zechariah 14 over into John 8, one more parallel is possible, and that’s in John 8:12, right after the controversial beginning of the chapter:

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

The parallel in Zechariah is in 14:6-7:

6 On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. 7 And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.

There is little else to consider in looking at John 7-8, because most of the text deals with Jesus defending Himself as a true prophet from God and the various discussions among the Jews about the genuineness of His profession. Nonetheless, I would consider these parallels significant, and would suggest that Jesus is here at least saying, “The fulfillment of Zechariah 14 is coming in conjunction with my ministry.” Now I think part of that came in His incarnation and establishing of the Church (the establishing of the kingdom, Zech. 14:6-11, and the coming of the nations to Jerusalem, Zech. 14:16-21), and part of it came in the destruction of Jerusalem as a covenantal judgment, which included the rescue of the Church (Zech. 14:1-5, 12-15). Part of this might also be projected into the future coming of Christ, depending on how one reads Revelation 22 (see Rev. 22:1-5; parallel Rev. 22:1 with Zech. 14:8 and parallel Rev. 22:5 with Zech.14:7). I don’t really know how all the details play out, but I haven’t spent the time that figuring all of this out would require.

Two other passages you might want to consider in connection with this is Ezra 3:1-7 and Nehemiah 8:13-18. In each case, the Feast of Booths is specified as something key that the Israelites resumed observing in the process of returning from Exile into the land. For Israel, returning from physical Exile also meant returning from spiritual Exile. Jesus, in calling to “anyone” to come to Him, was calling for a return from spiritual Exile. This was true specifically for Israel, though the call was different from Ezra and Nehemiah’s days, in that the call was also now open in a new way to the nations. Cf. again Zech. 14:16 & following.

Book Review

The Victory of Christ's Kingdom: An Introduction to Postmillennialism by John Jefferson Davis, published by Canon Press, 1996

Postmillennialism is the view of the end times that holds that Jesus Christ will return bodily to the earth after an unprecedented period of righteousness and blessing on the earth, which period of time is commonly called by theologians "the millennium", based on Revelation 20:1-6. While it is still an uncommon view in the church, it has received something of a resurgence in recent years, especially in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. After wrestling with the various positions on the end times for a few years, I came to embrace Postmillennialism as the view taught by Scripture. I recently joined a Bible study group that is studying the Book of the Revelation and, being the only non-premillennialist in the group, I thought I would read Davis's book to brush up on the topic. It was a worthwhile read.

The Victory of Christ's Kingdom is an abbreviated form of a book written by Davis and originally published by Baker Book House in 1986, which was entitled Christ's Victorious Kingdom: Postmillennialism Reconsidered. This version was put back into print last year by Solid Ground Christian Books, and may be purchased here. I have not read the original, and so am unable to comment on it or to compare the two books. At about half the length of the original, one would certainly expect The Victory of Christ's Kingdom to go into less depth than did the original publication. It is, nonetheless, a good overview of the Postmillennial position.

The book is simply divided up into five chapters: 1. Introduction; 2. The Witness of the Old Testament; 3. The Witness of the New Testament; 4. Contrary Texts in the New Testament; and 5. Summary and Conclusions. In the Introduction, Davis gives a brief summary of the doctrine. He then seeks to clear up misunderstandings about the position. I found this to be one of the most helpful parts of the book. I have often heard Fundamentalists and Evangelicals categorize and align Postmillenialism with notions of Evolutionary progress, Liberalism, the "Social Gospel", Universalism, and "Manifest Destiny". But Davis puts all of these false understandings to rest, showing that the Postmillennialism he advocates is fully orthodox. He then traces Postmillennial thinking since the Reformation. It would have been helpful if he had discussed elements of Postmillennialism that existed in the church prior to Calvin, but the period he did cover was helpful nonetheless.

In the next two chapters, Davis does exactly as the titles state. First, he shows how the Kingdom in the O.T. is represented as growing and overwhelming the whole earth. Then he shows how those O.T. texts find their culmination in and through the work of Jesus the King. While the book is too short for Davis to deal with every related text, the outline he sketches demonstrates convincingly the position that the postmillennial scheme most accurately represents the Biblical text.

If there is a fault to the book, one finds that fault in chapter 4, where Davis seeks to address texts that are commonly cited by opponents of Postmillennialism in criticism of the doctrine. Here, Davis shows his own failure to see the basic preteristic structure of the New Testament. When dealing with the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24, Mk. 13, and Lk. 21), Davis speaks as a preterist, assigning the content of these texts to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. (pp. 76-78). He does the same when dealing with some texts that suggest that few people "in the end" will be saved (pp. 79-80). And yet he is inconsistent, as he fails to make use of a preteristic reading when dealing with texts that suggest the nearness of Christ's return, as well as other texts. I would suggest that the preterist reading of the texts he deals with are the most natural reading, and that it is possible to read the texts that way without falling into the heresy known as hyper- or full-preterism.

So the book isn't perfect. Working on a five-star grading scale, I would give the book three and a half stars, with a part of me itching to push that up to four stars. I consider the absence of a preteristic understanding pretty significant, eventhough the book overall is fantastic. In fact, I would even recommend the book for those looking for an introduction to Postmillennialism. It's short, and so it's a quick read. But for those seeking a fuller understanding of how to read the Bible, following up this book with a good preterist work is imperative.

For those interested, I am happy to announce the reprinting of two classic preterist works, both by the late David Chilton. The first is entitled Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion. The second, The Days of Vengeance, is Chilton's commentary on the Book of the Revelation. Both have been available for free online at www.freebooks.com for a while now. But for those who find sitting at a computer to read or printing off lots of pages a hassle, bound copies of the books are now available. They may be purchased from www.americanvision.org.

Francis Beckwith

Francis Beckwith, who was until recently the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has with his wife departed from Protestantism to join the Roman Catholic Church. Read his explanation of it here.

Pluralism and worship

The following is an interesting quote from Peter L. Berger:

Every human society has its own corpus of officially accredited wisdom, the beliefs and values that most people take for granted as self-evidently true. Every human society has institutions and functionaries whose task it is to represent this putative truth, to transmit it to each new generation, to engage in rituals that reaffirm it, and sometimes to deal (at least in words) with those who are benighted or wicked enough to deny it. In most societies in history this has been a relatively easy matter, because there was only one set of beliefs and values, a unified and coherent worldview that everybody knew and that almost everybody took for granted. Modern societies, however, share with the Hellenistic world the complicating factor of pluralism: There are competing beliefs and values, there is more than one worldview. This pluralistic situation usually forces on people a certain degree of tolerance, but it also sharpens the cognitive dissonances and therefore introduces an element of fanaticism into the quarrel. This co-existence of tolerance and fanaticism is an important characteristic of contemporary America…. The point is that the various efforts by Christians to accommodate to the "wisdom of the world" in this situation become a difficult, frantic, and more than a little ridiculous affair: Each time that one has, after an enormous effort, managed to adjust the faith to the prevailing culture, that culture turns around and changes. W. R. Inge, the Anglican theologian, put it thus: "He who would marry the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower." Recent Christian theology is well populated with bewildered and understandably resentful widowers. (A Far Glory: The Quest for Faith in an Age of Credulity, pp.9-10)

What is more interesting is how the average Christian responds when he or she reads a quote like this. It is our tendency at this point to run this quote, like everything else, through the grid of our minds, and to filter out anything that doesn't make sense. For most of us (that is, those of us that haven't studied Cultural Anthropology), this means that the part about "engaging in rituals" gets filtered out and chucked in the garbage. After all, we don't engage in rituals – or so we think. Rituals are things done by occultists and primitive, indigenous people groups. But this thinking is the remaining result of Rationalistic Modern thinking. Every culture has rituals, whether or not it recognizes it. And every religious group has rituals as well. While we wouldn't tend to refer to them as such (there again, that's the Modern mind at work), all acts of worship involve rituals. Even those groups that try to steer clear of any sort of ordered worship (such as the Plymouth Brethren, the Quakers, and the various Pentecostal and Charismatic groups) end up creating some measure of ritual. To reference Father Alexander Schmemann again, man is a liturgical creature, and this is just another way of saying that he is a creature that tends to create and follow rituals. In this, he is simply following his Creator, Who from the beginning of the world reveals Himself as a Being Who likes rituals.

This brings up a couple of thoughts in light of Berger's quote. For one thing, what we do in worship matters. If rituals themselves (and not just the words we speak during them) communicate truth claims, then what we do in worship should be shaped by the truth – specifically, by Holy Scripture. And therefore any sort of argument that says that what we do in worship is arbitrary is entirely false.

Secondly, the issue of Antithesis is important here. Simply put, there is no such thing as "neutral ground". There are things that are true, thing that are false, and nothing in between. Similarly, there are things that are suitable for worship, things that are not, and nothing in between. This is not to say that there is no place for preference, or cultural considerations. God created a world of variety, and songs that may be fit for one cultural setting might be out of place in another. But the question here isn't whether or not the song is appropriate. The question is whether or not we're able to handle it. One day Christians born and raised in North Carolina will understand and be able to appreciate those songs that are appropriate for worship and are used for worship in Africa. But that day is a long distance ahead. The church as a whole just hasn't matured to that point yet.

And thirdly, it is inappropriate to shape worship according to the transitory fascinations of a culture not shaped by a Christian worldview. Ungodly culture is constantly changing, running back and forth from one extreme to another, a manifestation of the unbeliever's search to find peace anywhere but in Christ. Culture shaped by mature, Christ-worshipping people, is characterized by change as well, but it is typically a slow, thoughtful, and deliberate change. This is not to say that Christians should never make any sharp turns. But sharp turns are out of the ordinary, and should only take place when one is about to drive off a cliff. In other words, drastic changes influenced as such by Christians only come about in a culture when the culture has so departed from the ways of God that drastic changes are the only things that will save it. The key thing to remember here is that we who know Christ are no transitory people, but are the meek who will inherit the earth.

So what does this mean for Christian worship? The main thing to consider here, I think, is the question of worship music. More and more churches are, in the struggle to keep people in the pews, doing away with the old hymns in favor of "Contemporary Worship Music" (CWM). (Of course, they're also doing away with hymnals and pews, but that's another matter that, though related, I'll leave to the side for now.) But CWM, aside from being a great commercial ploy (I see overturned tables in my mind), is shaped on forms of music that are transitory in nature. One need only go back and listen to some Maranatha Praise albums from the 1980's to realize how temporal CWM is. As an illustration of Berger's point, this is a point where the pop culture-intoxicated church is struggling to keep up. And no matter how hard we try, we can't "keep up", because as long as pop culture sets the agenda, it will keep changing, and we'll never catch up to it.

So what is the answer? The answer is that we cease to be the world's slaves. We are Christ's representatives in the world, and He is working through us to establish His kingdom in its fullness. So as his representatives, we, the church, set the agenda. The world won't follow, you say? Some will follow. But for those who don't, that is their loss. We follow Christ. Those who will not will be left to the fate they have chosen.

On a more practical note, we need to seek out more permanent forms of music for the church's worship. The church has a vast history of hymnody to draw from if we will only seek it out. There are lots of really bad hymns, which somehow have been the popular ones over the past hundred or so years. These need to be disposed of and replaced with better hymns. And there is a place for the writing of new music as well. But the new music worth praising God with will be written in a way that shows it was informed and shaped by more historic forms of music.

Many books have been written in recent years on these subjects, and my brief thoughts couldn't possibly solve any problems. I hope, though, that you, the reader, will be inspired to think more carefully about how you approach worship, as well as what kind of church you attend. God is honored when we meet Him where we are. Let us still seek to give Him the best we can. But also, worship shapes us. Let us seek to worship God in the situation that will most make us like Christ.

Meredith Kline, requiem in pacem

Those of you who travel in Reformed and Presbyterian circles will no doubt be familiar with the work of pastor and theologian Meredith Kline. I just received word that he died last night, and so I thought I would pass the word along through this blog. Here is the email I received:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We grieve with the Kline family at the loss of Dr. Meredith Kline last night. Dr. Kline died peacefully after a long illness. Though he is famous for his Old Testament Biblical theology, he is also known by many in the church for his gracious love and gentle spirit, and his love for the gospel of Christ. There will be a service in memory of Dr. Kline on Wednesday April 18 at 11 a.m. at the church. In lieu of flowers, the family (at the request of Dr. Kline) requests that donations be made to Faith Promise care of First Presbyterian Church.

Pray for Mrs. Kline (Grace) and for the whole family at this time of sadness even as we rejoice in the grace shown us in Jesus Christ.

Yours in Christ,

Pastor David

--

David O' Leary, Pastor

First Presbyterian Church North Shore

179 County Road, Ipswich, MA 01938

978-356-7690

Involvement

One of the many things that I happily left behind when I departed from Evangelicalism was, as one writer put it, “involvement”. By “involvement”, I mean the sort of mentality that one has to always spend his extra time in the various activities or “programs” of the local church. There is a reasonable theology behind this, though, and that is the notion of the priesthood of all believers and the idea of spiritual gifts. If everyone is a priest in the New Testament church, and every believer is given at least one spiritual gift, then shouldn’t everyone be seeking to use that gift?

I won’t attempt a detailed discussion of the texts that are used to buttress this. It is important to say that the Biblical texts that deal with this are few. And in Evangelicalism, where there is lacking a strong Biblical understanding of the ordination of ministers, some texts that actually apply strictly to ordained ministers are spun into the discussion of, as it is also called, “every man ministry”. Having said that, though, it is clear Biblically that one manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that God empowers each Christian to accomplish certain tasks within the context of the body of Christ. This is made clear in, among other texts, 1 Corinthians 12.

But the problem lies in how this theology has been applied in our American social setting. In the early church context, we find an underlying structure to the practice of spiritual service, and that structure is community. Of course, community is another word that is misused incessantly as well. For instance, we speak of the “internet community”. Or we speak of the “global community”. But a true definition of community doesn’t allow for the impersonalness that exists fundamentally in uses like this. True communities are local by necessity, because true communities are personal. But we individualistic Americans love to be impersonal. We become experts at keeping others at a safe distance.

This same love for the impersonal shows up in how we do local church. We set up structures to make ourselves feel like we’re accomplishing something, like we’re doing “kingdom work”, and then insist that everyone else must join us in it. We create programs in the church, which we usually call “ministries” (a misappropriation of a good, Biblical word), and work our dangedest to keep the machine going at all costs. But all along there are huge problems. People don’t create and sustain deep, lasting friendships. Real sacrifice, like what the Scriptures talk about, doesn’t take place. Older Christians don’t take younger Christians under their wings to disciple, and younger Christians, having no pattern to follow, don’t even think of visiting the elderly in the church. Single people aren’t invited to spend time in the homes of married couples, and so section themselves off into singles’ groups in order to find some semblance of community and to stem the tide of loneliness.

This, generally speaking, describes my situation in the church I grew up in. My father died when I was eleven, and I was eighteen before any man in the church attempted to mentor me. He was a blessing when he came along, but I needed someone seven years earlier. Sure, we had a youth group. We had youth meetings every Sunday evening in which we sang, prayed, and someone taught us from the Bible. And once a month we had an outing of some sort or another. But the rest of the week, the youth leaders had nothing to do with us. And the elders of the church made little attempt to impact my life. A couple of them managed to show up on a couple of occasions when I was giving my mother an especially hard time. But, of course, that’s the easy way to do it. Anybody can show up with much bravado and breathe threatings of the fires of hell for a couple of hours. Real sacrifice means getting involved in someone’s life on a regular basis. The other is little more than the stroking of one’s own ego.

Now, I don’t doubt that the youth leaders and the elders of the church thought they were doing exactly as they should. I also don’t doubt that they had some measure of genuine love for those they were responsible for. But that doesn’t change the fact that a real failure took place. If a person is wrong, but sincere, they’re still wrong, no matter how sincere.

As I got older and became an adult, there was no shortage of things in the church for me to do. Everybody had a task for me, and I, wanting to serve God and believing that involvement was the way to go, got myself into every program I could. And I proceeded to burn myself out emotionally and spiritually, the effects of which I carry to this day. Part of the reason, I believe, for my negative experience was this lack of true community.

I’ve visited many churches in the years since leaving my home church, and I’m sad to say that I have witnessed the same things at most of those other churches. People like being busy, and they like making other people busy too. And rarely does anybody ever ask the questions, “Is any of this helpful? Is any of it necessary? How much of it is Biblical?” Relationships are neglected, and then we wonder at the amount of sexual immorality that abounds in the church.

So I guess you can call this venting. It’s just a piece written in frustration. The trick about community, of course, is that you can’t pull it off without the cooperation of others. I do think that God, in His wise providence, oftentimes prevents us from entering community with others, because He sees negative effects it will have on us that we don’t see. I’m thankful that He led me away from the church I grew up in, and if there had been a greater sense of community in that church, only He knows how much harder it would have been for me to leave. Nonetheless, the problem still stands, and I am wearied of it. While the rest of the Christian church in America today may be content with the hollow smiles and casual handshakes, I’m done with it. I’ve had my fill of shallow relationships, and I don’t want anymore.

The Eucharistic Doxological Life

"Our children live in the city, and they rest upon our shoulders;
They never want this rain to fall or the weather to get colder."
- Nanci Griffith

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…"
- Romans 1:21

Spring is upon us here in North Carolina, and my annual dreams of a huge snowfall are gradually proving to be met again with an annual failure to come true. But one can hardly complain about Spring. The dogwoods are blooming, the days are growing longer, and the temperatures during the day are hovering in that perfect seventy-to-eighty range that makes it safe for even weathermen to leave their houses during the day.

As a salesman, I am forced to participate in a lot of "small talk". I dread it ferociously. I hear more wasted words used by the general public than I would have thought possible if I didn't have this kind of job. I try to limit my speech because, well, I don't have a lot to say most of the time, and most of what people want to talk about is frivolous if not ungodly. But I try to be friendly in my own way and endure whatever silliness I might encounter.

Much small talk centers around the weather. In fact, one can predict the sorts of things he'll hear people say based on the weather. For instance, weather comments are usually the first things to come out of a customer's mouth when they walk in the door. This is logical, of course, since they just walked in "out of the weather". It seems most people feel as if it is a little bit awkward to talk about the weather if they've been in the store for a few minutes. It's almost as if it's a regression, as if they were in that "world" earlier (before they came inside), and they are now in another "world", the world where weather doesn't exist.

People's moods and speech are incredibly shaped by the weather. If it's a sunny day with mild temperatures, people will praise the weather. Most comments about the weather, however, come in the form of complaints. If it's especially windy, people complain about the wind. If it's just cloudy, people don't usually say anything, but are noticeably more grumblesome. If it's snowing, people like it for about a day, but then start complaining about it. If it's raining, people will complain about the rain, no matter how much of a drought we are experiencing or what restrictions the city has placed on their water usage. And if it's about 85 degrees or above, people will complain that it's too hot.

Of course, my clientèle are almost all of a certain variety (middle and upper class women), and this probably has something to do with it. This doesn't do much to eliminate my surprise each time the complaining begins. Besides, men complain too. Women just talk more. (If this offends you, you'll get over it. The truth usually offends someone.)

Our Lord Jesus said that it is our heavenly Father who "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. 5:45). It is mainly this passage from which Reformed theologians have historically drawn the doctrine of "common grace". While there is a type of love or grace that God shows to his elect only ("special grace" or "particular grace"), there is a type of love or grace that God gives to all men indiscriminately, which is called "common grace". Part of the point here is that everything that a person receives comes from God, whether they recognize it or not.

But how we typically interpret this passage is telling. The passage entwines two pairs of contrasting elements – the just and the unjust, and the sun and the rain. It is a tendency of the modern American mind to take one of the main characteristics of the first pair (good versus evil) and apply it to the second – sun is good, rain is evil. You might already be thinking of any number of pop song lyrics that confirm this ("raindrops keep fallin' on my head" immediately comes to mind).

If we lived in an agrarian society, however, as much of the world still does, we would read this passage differently. Without rain, crops don't grow, nobody eats, and people die. With too much sun, plants wither, nobody eats, and people die. But with too much rain, crops are flooded, and plants are washed away. Without sunshine, plants don't produce fruit, and once again, nobody eats and people die.

But most of us live in a different environment from the origins of the food we eat. Instead, we go work for somebody other than ourselves, and take the money we make to a place with fluorescent lights and air conditioning where we fill our baskets with objects (food so-called) neatly wrapped in cardboard and plastic. And one of the things we've lost in the development of this culture-wide practice is a recognition of all the hard work that goes into the production of what we eat. While this doesn't justify the complaining, it is understandable that one can easily forget the benefits of the changing weather.

Complaining is chiefly a sign of ingratitude. Most people don't even recognize that they have anyone to be grateful to. They might thank their parents for some things, or teachers, or even religious leaders. Nowadays I even hear people speak as often about trusting in themselves as they do about being thankful for benefits received from other people. But it is God who "richly provides us with everything to enjoy" (I Timothy 6:17). And everything one receives comes from God, no matter what the secondary source may be. Scripture tells us that this is one of the key failures of mankind throughout the history of the world:

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:18-21)

All sin comes from one source, Paul tells us. God has made himself known in the creation and mankind has rejected Him. This rejection has first of all manifested itself in a refusal to honor (that is, glorify) and give thanks to God. The passage goes on to describe the descent of mankind further and further into sin.

There are a couple of things worth pointing out here. Whenever sin is addressed, whether in church, family, or the broader society, so often we run to derivative sins – hatred, lying, abortion, homosexuality, whatever. But Paul tells us there is a deeper sin at root – a failure to glorify and give thanks to God. All other sins are derivative of this.

Also, taking this negative and putting it into the positive should give us some idea of what God desires of those who would serve him. He would first of all desire that we glorify him and give him thanks. This should be the chief characteristic of the life of the child of God. Father Alexander Schmemann called this the eucharistic doxological life – "eucharistos" being the Greek word for "thanksgiving", and "doxa" being the Greek word for "glory". All that we do, say, or think should be done with an attitude of giving thanks and glory to God. But, more centrally, this means that God calls us to worship him in a deliberate fashion. Man is not, as Fr. Schmemann also said, homo sapiens (man the wise), but rather homo adorans (man the worshipper). We were created for worship primarily, and every other work of man flows out from that. Scripture especially calls us to worship him in the context of the local church. We are to give thanks and to glorify God in corporate worship first. The church has historically recognized this, as the liturgical use of the words "doxology" and "eucharistic" shows. Corporate worship shapes private and family worship, as well as our general conduct in the world. And by living righteously in these areas, we demonstrate to the world "from Whom all blessings flow".

So I will try not to complain about the small talk. I'll even try to not complain about the snowfall we didn't get. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deut. 29:29), and for some reason unknown to me He's decided that I didn't need a big snowfall. He has given me everything I need and more, and for these things I will glorify Him and give Him thanks.

Lenten Observence

We have officially entered the season of the Church calendar known as Lent. Lent is the forty-day period leading up to Easter. It has historically been practiced as a period of fasting and prayer, a period of penitence and of seeking God in a fuller way than we normally seek Him the rest of the year.

I'll admit to being a bit inconsistent in my practice of Lent. I blame it on my legalistic and Fundamentalistic background (assuming "blame" is the right way to think of it here). As J. I. Packer once used the phrase in a similar context, "a burned child hates the fire," and I still have scars to show from the fire I went through. Nor do I intend to ever go through such a fire again. Fundamentalism, with its series of "handle not's, taste not's, and touch not's" (Col. 2:21), has left American Christianity in shambles. Legalism – that is, the creation and enforcing of laws not supported by God's word – stirs up a licentious and rebellious spirit, and rather than eradicating immorality, encourages it. I have tried to be aware of that tendency in my own life and to keep it under some measure of control, though I'm sure I've failed at times. Nonetheless, whenever anybody says to me, "you have to do thus and such", and they can't support it with Scripture or sound argument, my first response is to say, "Try and make me." I wouldn't purport that this is always a good way to respond. After all, we are to obey those that God has put in authority over us. When it comes, however, to areas more specifically related to the heart of the Christian life, such as one's devotional practices, a man not only shouldn't obey extra-biblical laws, he can't obey those laws, for to do so would be to call God's law insufficient. At that point, there is a clear antithesis between God's law and Man's law – one can't obey one without disobeying the other.

In the Reformed tradition historically, however, we have had a category of practices in the Christian life called "adiaphora", meaning "indifferent". In other words, there are things which the law of God doesn't directly address in such a way as to forbid or condone, and therefore they are permissible or "indifferent". I would personally regard a private observance of Lenten practices in that category, though I remain skeptical of them. The majority of the Reformed tradition, however, has disagreed with me, John Calvin not being the least of them. Calvin addresses fasting in Book 4, Chapter 12 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. And whereas he recognizes fasting as a good and important thing in its place, he still regards it as a thing indifferent, and he condemns Lent itself as an unbiblical and ungodly practice. Reading his responses to the history of Lent and the abuses that came about in relation to it, one can understand why he was so opposed to it, though I wouldn't go so far as to condemn its practices as he does.

Speaking of the errors that arose in relation to the practice of Lent in the history of the Church, Calvin says, "Worse times then followed, and to the misdirected zeal of the people was added the incompetence and lack of training of the bishops, as well as their lust for mastery and their tyrannical rigor. Wicked laws were passed which bind consciences with deadly chains. The eating of meat was forbidden, as if it would defile a man. Sacrilegious opinions were piled upon one another, until the depth of all errors was reached." (from the Battles – McNeill edition, volume 2, pg. 1247)

The most commonly known Lenten practice is that of abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays. But from what I've read, no one really knows why this is traditionally a practice in the Church or where it came from. Which brings up a problem. Why bind people with laws when we don't even know what they are for? Those who approve of the practice will say, "It helps take our focus off of ourselves and those material things we rely upon, and helps us to focus upon God Who gives us all these things." Maybe it's a sign of my own lack of sanctification, but it doesn't do that for me. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, it's hard enough to live faithfully to God's word without trying to add to it. Why would anyone want to burden themselves further than what God has asked of them? I think part of the problem lies in the fact that we think way too highly of ourselves. So often we arrogantly think we're doing a really grand job in the Christian life, and in failing to see the greatness of God and the depth of our sin, we don't realize how far short we fall. If we were to gain a deeper understanding of God's word and what He really requires of us, we would spend less time trying to come up with new rules.

And one thing I've found is that people often become incredibly obsessed with what they are and aren't supposed to do in Lent. It is naturally easy for us to talk hours on end about what we should and shouldn't do. But the early Reformers saw this as the difference between Law and Gospel. They spoke of the Law coming natural to us, whereas the Gospel is only manifested in us by a supernatural work of God. It is a sign of our sinfulness that we can talk endlessly about what we are and aren't supposed to do and can't talk nearly as much about the grace manifested to us in Jesus Christ. This is true, I've seen, in Catholic circles just as it is in Fundamentalist circles. Just try getting a conversation going about the Scriptures, the history of redemption, and the person and work of Christ. I've found that generally it's like trying to pull teeth. Jesus brought this tendency in the Pharisees to light when He told them, "You search the Scriptures, because in them you think you find life. But these are they that testify of Me." Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of all God has revealed to us. If we go to any law apart from Christ, even God's Law, we are participating in idolatry.

One statement I heard made recently by an Anglican priest shows the problem in bold relief. This priest made the statement, "The Rule of St. Benedict says that our lives ought to be a continuous Lent." He was applying it to all Christian people. I found this rather curious, and had to look it up for myself. The actual statement is from chapter 49 of the Rule, and it says, " The life of a monk ought to be a continuous Lent." This is the super-spirituality that the Reformers decried so vociferously. First we begin by setting up a false standard of holiness by denying an enjoyment of the good gifts that God has given so freely for our enjoyment. We set those who pursue this ideal most vigorously apart as a holier class than the rest of professing Christendom. Then we push it further by setting it up as a standard for all people. But Scripture nowhere supports this. In fact, God in His Word invites us over and over again to feasting before Him with joy and gladness, that is, with grateful hearts. This is not to say that there can't be times of fasting – there should be. But this shouldn't be the norm. The normal Christian life isn't one of constant self-deprivation, but of rejoicing over the blessings that God has given us and of sharing freely with others.

This brings up one more point I'd like to mention before I close, and that is the tendency towards selfishness in the Christian life. There can be so much talk about "what I'm giving up for Lent," and the subject of other people and my relationships with them never enters the picture. This is an example of how self-centered we can be in our conception of sanctification. Self-deprivation never has selfish gain as its end in the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. How many people who give meat up on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent then in turn have a neighbor or someone from church over for a hamburger on one of the other days of the week? If that actually happens (and maybe it does somewhere), I've never heard the suggestion made nor have I ever heard of it being done in those circles that practice Lent.

Having said all these things, I wouldn't seek to condemn Lent wholesale. I think it is good for the church to set aside a time of reflection, a time of mourning over our sins, a time of retracing our steps, a time of recovering what we have lost in failing to follow Christ as we ought, and a time of reflecting on Christ's work on our behalf. And that is how I intend to observe Lent. But I will remain stubborn in my insistence that God's Word is sufficient and Christ's work is complete. Every rule I need is found in the Scriptures, and everything I need to please God is found through my union with His Son. I need nothing else, and that's good, because I have nothing else.

A sonnet for Ash Wednesday

A sonnet by John Donne, for Ash Wednesday.

Thou hast made me, And shall thy worke decay?
Repaire me now, for now mine end doth haste,
I runne to death, and death meets me as fast,
And all my pleasures are like yesterday;
I dare not move my dimme eyes any way,
Despaire behind, and death before doth cast
Such terrour, and my feeble flesh doth waste
By sinne in it, which it t'wards hell doth weigh;
Onely thou art above, and when towards thee
By thy leave I can looke, I rise againe;
But our old subtle foe so tempteth me,
That not one houre my selfe I can sustaine;
Thy Grace may wing me to prevent his art,
And thou like Adamant draw mine iron heart.

Light in the Shadowlands

I have been gradually working my way through the C. S. Lewis corpus one book at a time over the past few years. Whereas some people will find an author they like and plow through all their works in a short span, I prefer to take my time and jump from author to author. While I think the other approach has its benefits, I find this way suits me. I gain a sense of balance by constantly feeding on various writers and sources that I wouldn't have by only picking one author. Also, I tend to approach some books in a research-minded way – that is, gathering information. So I'll come up with an issue I want to know more about, and then I'll gather all my books on that issue in a pile. I don't usually work through the pile, but I get at least a start on learning more about that issue. One can't always approach books this way, however, as it can have it's own defeciencies, especially in dealing with certain types of literature, and therefore can be a hinderance to the reader.

Part of the experience in reading Lewis has been trying to just enjoy a book rather than racing to the index to find that piece of information I'm looking for. Lewis's Narnia books are especially good for working against that tendency. They are fiction, and as they were written for children, they are not especially complicated. Nonetheless, they are spiritually and intellectually rich and, as I have found most every time I read one of them, convicting of soul. Because I find them so enjoyable compared to little else, I have taken my time working through the series. I think of them as an especially thick steak or a rich chocolate dessert. Whenever I find myself in a reading rut, I can always go to the next Narnia book and it will get me reading again.

I just started The Voyage of the Dawn Treader last weekend and am halfway through. At the same time I am listening to The Screwtape Letters on audio. Until recently, however, I hadn't picked up any Lewis in awhile, mainly due to studies in other authors.

About three weeks ago I started reading a book not by Lewis, but about Lewis. It is called Light in the Shadowlands: Protecting the Real C. S. Lewis, and was written by Kathryn Lindskoog. A friend had told me about it a couple of years ago, and I picked it up not long after that, though I just read it for the first time. It is an interesting read for anyone desiring to know more about Lewis's legacy. Lindskoog (who died a couple of years ago) was a Lewis scholar and had met Lewis as well as corresponded with him several times. The concern of the book has to do with what has happened to Lewis's estate since the time of his death. In a strange turn of events, the Lewis estate fell into the hands of one Walter Hooper, who, it seems, didn't know Lewis nearly as well as he has portrayed. Since Lewis's death, many writings have come out bearing his name which Lindskoog questions for their authenticity. She questions the integrity of Mr. Hooper (who, sadly, is from nearby Reidsville here in North Carolina) as well as many involved with him and otherwise in Lewis scholarship. She talks about Lewis's various romantic interests through his life and how the circumstances around them are generally portrayed (she would say, inaccurately). She discusses the strange events that took place regarding the Kilns, Lewis's house and property, which he shared with his brother Warnie, after his death. She addresses issues surrounding the production and release of the movie Shadowlands, which chronicled the portion of Lewis's life involving wife Joy Davidman. She even argues against the notion that Lewis was progressing on his way to joining the Roman Catholic Church, an event which many Roman-leaning individuals seem to think would have been inevitable had Lewis not died before it happened.

The book comes with endorsements from many well known authors and scholars, such as Sheldon Vanauken, Ursula K. Le Guin, Martin E. Marty, Tim Powers, Russell Kirk, Richard Wilbur, Gilbert Meilaender, Robery Siegel, Frederick Buechner, Philip Yancey, and Walter Wangerin. I cannot say for sure that her accusations are completely accurate. To do so, I would have to have done all the research she had done for myself. But I can say that I find her case(s) overwhelmingly compelling, and therefore I find myself fully convinced. If nothing else, the list of endorsements should make one stand up and take notice. Sadly, Lindskoog's charges have never, to my knowledge, been answered, a matter she addresses in the book as well.

There is an updated version of this book, called Sleuthing C. S. Lewis: More Light in the Shadowlands, which you can get here. Since this was the last edition published by Lindskoog, I suspect this is the one a person would want to get. I was not aware of its existence until after I read the earlier version.

It isn't an especially enjoyable read in one sense. It is tragic to think of what has been done in Lewis's name since his death. It is an easy read, however, and an indispensable one for anyone seeking to gain a complete understanding of Lewis's works. I highly recommend it.