Unity without Verity

Paradox

2008-03-22T20:54:00.003-04:00

The good news is about the death of the only truly innocent man who ever lived.

The greatest crime ever committed is the only atonement for sin.

Death was overcome by the death of Jesus.

The good news is about the death of the Creator at the hand of His creations.

The King of Glory died a shameful death.

God the Son who had lived a life in perfect harmony with the will of the Father was forsaken by the Father.

The good news is about the perfect, holy, and righteous Judge of all justifying the guilty.

Thoughts on Worship for Easter

2008-03-21T22:35:00.003-04:00

I was reading chapter 2 of John Owen's Communion with the Triune God this evening, and came across the following quote (p. 97):

Faith, love, trust, joy, etc., are the natural or moral worship of God, whereby those in whom they are have communion with him.

I remember sitting in a Sunday morning service as a young believer (less than 2 years after the Father had drawn me to His Son) listening to a sermon where worship was mentioned. Not having grown up in church, it was a word I knew, but not a word with which I had wrestled. I made a note to myself: "What is worship?"

I'm not so young a believer anymore, that sermon being over 20 years in the past. But sometimes I still wonder how well I understand what worship is. It does, I believe, occur when we gather together and sing praises to God and offer up our prayers to Him and listen to the proclamation of His word.

But Owen has written what I have long struggled to formulate in my own mind. Worship of God is in large part a display of His image within us. That image being things like faith, love, trust, joy, hope, peace, etc. It is in this worship that we have the deepest communion with God.

Here the sun has set on Good Friday. In the time we are honoring and remembering, Jesus is in the tomb, and the disciples are scattered and hiding. But hope was not gone, just hidden, wrapped in a veil of death. So also hope may seem to be gone from some of our lives.

May we in those darkest nights worship God by believing, by loving, by trusting, by rejoicing and by hoping even though all reason for hope seems gone. Gazing not only at the cross but also at the empty tomb and knowing that our greatest enemies have been defeated by Jesus, who has promised to never leave us or forsake us.

Happy Easter. The Lord has risen!

How Many Apply Here?

2008-03-09T20:33:00.002-04:00

I don't read a lot of Internet Monk's stuff, but his post on 10 Reasons I Don't Read Your Blog seems pretty spot on to me (HT: Vitamin Z).

Speaking of Hermenuetics

2008-03-04T19:32:00.002-05:00

There's a great post on Sola Scriptura over at the Pilgrim People blog by Michael Brown (HT: R. Scott Clark). One of the struggles I've had is how to approach the Scriptures recognizing both that the Holy Spirit is my greatest teacher, but that there is a rich history of His having taught others. I think to divorce ourselves from 2000 years of Church history is a categorical mistake.

If we make this mistake, we will pay a steep price. Brown notes:

Oddly enough, this kind of dismissal of historic theology actually does violence to Christ’s promise to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn 16.13) and bring to their remembrance all things (Jn 14.26) in order that Scripture would be preserved for the instruction of the church until the end of the age (Mt 24.35; 28.20). The early-American biblicists seemed to give no credit at all to the Holy Spirit’s work in history of gifting Christ’s church with pastors and teachers; rather, the early-American biblicists see the Spirit’s true work in ministry being that of immediate revelation and privatized religion. Ironically, the biblicists’ seeking of direct revelation and a “tabula rasa” illumination compromises their claim of “no creed but the Bible,” as one's personal experience is inevitably elevated to the place of Scripture.

Tragically, however, things have not changed for the better. As Hatch chillingly points out, “Americans continue to maintain their right to shape their own faith and to submit to leaders they have chosen.” The result of eighteenth and nineteenth century biblicism has been a church that increasingly looks less like New Testament Christianity and more like the egalitarian culture in which she lives. Populist hermeneutics and privatized, experiential religion has continuously had wide appeal to the American individualistic ethos. The “chronological arrogance,” to borrow C.S. Lewis’ maxim, of disparaging tradition and centuries of theologizing persists with cavalier vigor.

Hebrews 11 reminds us that we stand in a long line of those who have walked with God. That line does not stop with the closing of the canon but continues on even today. The Bible makes it clear that none of these are without fault, and therefore are not the primary resource. But they are faithful men who have passed truth on to other faithful men, eventually down to us. So while the Bible is always the final authority, my interpretation is not. I must always check my own biases by testing my interpretation against those who have come before and are contemporary with me.

What say you?

How Conservative Is Your Hermenuetic?

2008-02-29T20:33:00.004-05:00

This link was sent to me earlier in the week. It's a 20 question quiz to determine how you approach Scripture. For those curious, I scored a 44, but I'm not sure the numbers mean much. As much as the terminology pains me, I would want to have a conversation about why a particular choice was made before even attempting to label the choice.

Now, I love the little quizzes like this. Anyone taken the "What kind of sports car are you quiz?" (HT: Craver) But that is more of a fun thing. How we interpret Scripture is important, and I'm not sure a number based on 20 questions can determine if we are conservative, moderate, or progressive. Some of the questions, I think at least, are not conservative versus liberal, like the question of prophecy (number 7). It is a very interesting question in thinking about how we interpret Scripture, but I'm not convinced how we answer it says anything about whether that interpretation is conservative or progressive.

So thinking about our hermeneutic and discussing how we reach conclusions when reading Scripture is a great idea. I'm just not sure the ranking is helpful. But with that said, just what was your score? :)

Civility

2008-02-26T22:21:00.002-05:00

I've always benefited from reading Os Guinness. The Call is one of the best books I've read and I've given out several copies. According to the Discerning Reader review of A Case for Civility it is a must read for me as well. In this election year, it might just be a good read for all of us. A brief blurb from the review:

Much of the answer to whether or not we’ll learn to live with our deepest differences depends on rejecting two erroneous responses to the culture wars. First, we must say no to a “sacred public square”—a situation where one religion has a position of privilege or prominence that is denied to others. As he refutes the sacred public square, Guinness laments the state of the Religious Right and the damage it has done to faith in America. We must also say no to a “naked public square”—the situation where public life is left devoid of any religion. This is what is advocated by the new atheists. Both of these responses to the culture war are in contradiction to the Constitution.

The alternative to both is a “civil public square.” “The vision of a civil public square is one in which everyone—peoples of all faiths, whether religious or naturalistic—are equally free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faiths, as a matter of ‘free exercise’ and as dictated by their own reason and conscience; but always within the double framework, first of the Constitution, and second, of a freely and mutually agreed covenant, or common vision for the common good, of what each person understands to be just and free for everyone else, and therefore of the duties involved in living with the deep differences of others.” If we are to have a civil society, we must first have a civil public square.

Owen and Paul on the Trinity and Salvation

2008-02-23T22:44:00.003-05:00

In January a small group started meeting monthly to read and discuss Communion with the Triune God, John Owen's classic work edited by Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor. In January we reviewed the historical context and biography of John Owen and we had our second meeting this morning and discussed Chapter 1. Owen specifically aims in the book to discuss how we have communion with each member of the Trinity distinctly. In fact, his original title for the work was Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly, in Love, Grace, and Consolation: or The Saints Fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Unfolded.

This evening, Pastor Williams preached on Ephesians 2:11-22. I've always thought of Ephesians as a very Trinitarian epistle. Primarily this was based on Paul's discourse in the 1:3-14 about the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation. But look at Ephesians 2:18-22:

for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (NASB)

Twice in these five verses Paul elaborates on how some aspect of our salvation is through each Person of the Trinity acting on our behalf. We have access through Jesus and His flesh. The access is to the Father but it is in one Spirit. It is the Spirit who applies the work of Christ so that we might enter into the presence of the Father.

We are also becoming a temple. This building occurs as we are united to Jesus and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Paul sees not just Jesus but also the Father and Son working in our lives and restoring us to fellowship (communion) with God. Owen recognized this emphasis in the Bible and sought to convey this great truth to his readers.

Do we know this? Do we spend time dwelling on how God is for us as believers? That the Father has set forth the plan of redemption? That the Son humbled Himself to the point of death on the cross for our redemption? That the Spirit has applied the work of the Son and indwells us to secure our redemption? May God shine the light of this truth into your heart and mine.

Prayer Request

2008-01-13T22:08:00.001-05:00

For anyone who happens to read this, my sister is going in for by-pass surgery tomorrow (Monday, January 14th) in the afternoon. Actual start time will depend on how long the surgeries scheduled ahead of her take. She had a stint put in just under two years ago, but this blockage is in a location where they did not think a stint would work. It is a single by-pass.

Thanks.

Wise Counsel on Politics and Christianity

2008-01-05T00:55:00.000-05:00

From Dr. Mohler's blog:

The rhetoric of the race -- and the rhetoric of many evangelicals -- is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord -- and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
This presidential race offers evangelical Christians an opportunity to mature and rethink our model of political engagement. We are likely to confront developments and choices that will require significant intellectual effort among American Christians.
Americans should give thanks today, mindful of the fact that our democratic process is evidence of national stability and constitutional order. The U.S. Constitution is the world's longest-surviving political charter. For a contrast, just think of the political turmoil and tragedy seen in Pakistan and Kenya in just the last week. Our political process may be only rarely graceful or predictable -- but it is still one of the wonders of the world. Stay tuned.

10 Resolutions for Mental Health

2007-12-31T18:25:00.000-05:00

John Piper has posted 10 resolutions for mental health from a message by Clyde Kilby. I'm not much for New Year's resolutions, but these look helpful to me. Maybe they will to you too.

1. At least once every day I shall look steadily up at the sky and remember that I, a consciousness with a conscience, am on a planet traveling in space with wonderfully mysterious things above and about me.
2. Instead of the accustomed idea of a mindless and endless evolutionary change to which we can neither add nor subtract, I shall suppose the universe guided by an Intelligence which, as Aristotle said of Greek drama, requires a beginning, a middle, and an end. I think this will save me from the cynicism expressed by Bertrand Russell before his death when he said: "There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing."
3. I shall not fall into the falsehood that this day, or any day, is merely another ambiguous and plodding twenty-four hours, but rather a unique event, filled, if I so wish, with worthy potentialities. I shall not be fool enough to suppose that trouble and pain are wholly evil parentheses in my existence, but just as likely ladders to be
climbed toward moral and spiritual manhood.
4. I shall not turn my life into a thin, straight line which prefers abstractions to reality. I shall know what I am doing when I abstract, which of course I shall often have to do.
5. I shall not demean my own uniqueness by envy of others. I shall stop boring into
myself to discover what psychological or social categories I might belong to. Mostly I shall simply forget about myself and do my work.
6. I shall open my eyes and ears. Once every day I shall simply stare at a tree, a flower, a cloud, or a person. I shall not then be concerned at all to ask what they are but simply be glad that they are. I shall joyfully allow them the mystery of what
Lewis calls their "divine, magical, terrifying and ecstatic" existence.
7. I shall sometimes look back at the freshness of vision I had in childhood and try,
at least for a little while, to be, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the "child of the pure unclouded brow, and dreaming eyes of wonder."
8. I shall follow Darwin's advice and turn frequently to imaginative things such as good literature and good music, preferably, as Lewis suggests, an old book and
timeless music.
9. I shall not allow the devilish onrush of this century to usurp all my energies but will instead, as Charles Williams suggested, "fulfill the moment as the moment." I shall try to live well just now because the only time that exists is now.
10. Even if I turn out to be wrong, I shall bet my life on the assumption that this world is not idiotic, neither run by an absentee landlord, but that today, this very day, some stroke is being added to the cosmic canvas that in due course I shall understand with joy as a stroke made by the architect who calls himself Alpha and Omega.

The Test Must Be Broken

2007-12-08T11:19:00.000-05:00

HT: Dluxe

Uber Cool. Yeah right.

Loving God with Our Mind

2007-12-02T10:57:00.000-05:00

In the previous post, I started addressing some issues raised (in my mind at least) by the post Letter about Those Pesky Calvinists on Jesus Creed. One of the things I hear from some of the commentors to this post is the old idea of simply following Jesus and not debating. One of the more recent comments states something along the lines of "let's just follow Jesus' two important commands."

In one sense, I have to acknowledge agreement with this type of sentiment. I once heard Dr. S. Lewis Johnson state that just because you win an argument doesn't make you right. Also, I know from my own heart that arguments sometimes don't influence me except to make me more strident in my own views. But what is interesting about Jesus' two important commands is that one piece of the great commandment is to love God with our minds.

So we have a responsibility to be intellectually engaged in our faith. This does not necessarily mean debate or argument, but it does imply that we have reasoned discussions about the truth. It may also mean that at times we are strident. Paul indicates in Galatians that he wishes bodily harm to those who are teaching falsehood. Even worse, he pronounces divine judgment on those who teach a different gospel.

There are points that could be made about this from larger sections of Scripture, like Paul beginning most of his letters with extended doctrinal reflection (in the case of Romans chapters 1-11). But I'm going to provide some verses for reflection (I would encourage reflecting on them in context).

Acts 20:26-27
Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
ESV

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
ESV

Hebrews 5:11-13
About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
ESV

1 Peter 3:14-16
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
ESV

In all this, Peter's point about gentleness and respect should not be lost. But the Bible is clear that we are expected to grow in knowledge and understanding. In this regard Paul tells the Ephesian elders he shared "the whole counsel" of God, not just two basic commands. The author of Hebrews is clearly disappointed that his readers had not progressed to a place where he felt confident they would understand Jesus' relationship to Melchizedek.

Living Out Our Doctrine

2007-11-27T19:28:00.000-05:00

On Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog he has a post about a letter he received from a church planter. The planter is apparently dealing with some vocal Calvinists. There's a lot that might be said about the post and letter, the Calvinists, and those who have commented on the blog. For those of us who adhere to a Calvinistic/Reformed/Sovereign Grace theology, perhaps the best response has already been made by Abraham Piper.

In regard to the post and many of the responses, it is interesting to note that for all the talk about how divisive Calvinists are, no one noted that Dr. McKnight chose to title his post "Letter about Those Pesky Calvinists" [emphasis mine]. To put this in perspective, how would many of the commentors to this post react to a post titled "Those Pesky Arminians" or "Those Pesky Emergents?" I may deal with this tangentially in a later post, but I'll leave it for now.

For the moment I want to focus on one point made in one comment,

"There are obnoxious Christians of every variety. But there is something inherent in Calvinism that causes people always to be drawing lines. I know some gracious Calvinists. But, honestly, they live above their theology."

No. Of all Christians, Calvinists who understand the implications of their theology will be the most gracious of people. I know this may seem contradictory to some who have only interacted with TR's (the truly reformed), but Calvinism should make us humble and gracious. One problem is that no one ever fully understands the implications of their theology.

For the Calvinist, we sometimes understand less because we tend to focus on a few select implications of our theology. In an attempt to be God-centered, sometimes we don't think about the human implications of holding to Reformed doctrine. So let me illustrate with a few brief points.

The Calvinist is first and foremost a Christian. As such we are called to live as Jesus lived, which means that like Him it should be said of each of us that "a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench" (Matthew 12:20).

Our theology says that all men are totally depraved. This means that every aspect of our being, including our reason, has been affected by the fall. What we know we know because the Holy Spirit has been our teacher. If He has chosen to teach us some things, and others different things, we have no reason to boast. Once I was an Arminian. My theology does not allow me to take credit for becoming a Calvinist. I'm not a Calvinist because I'm better or smarter than my friends who remain Arminians.

As an aside, this is not to say that reason and civil discourse have no place in the Christian life. God uses means to accomplish his ends. But if in a discussion I plant the seed that the Spirit brings to life, the seed was given to me by the Spirit and brought to life by the Spirit. Likewise, if in a discussion with a fellow believer I say something that leads them to a reformed theology, neither I nor that person can take credit for it occurring.

Third, the Calvinist should understand that all that he has is because of grace. There is nothing that makes me superior to my brother. As John Newton wrote grace is amazing because it saves a "wretch like me." God loves me not because of anything in me. I have not earned nor do I deserve His love.

Calvinism rightly understood puts an axe to the tree of pride. The problem exists that pride is a stubborn tree, and we turn from understanding all that our reformed doctrine would teach us. May we (I as much as anyone) repent of this error and labor with the axe to put an end my pride.

It Is Worth It

2007-09-08T23:34:00.000-04:00

I've started re-reading Bob Benson's See You at the House. Then tonight Pastor Williams started a series on Abraham beginning with God calling him to leave everything he knew to go somewhere. God didn't say where, or how long it would take, just that Abraham would be blessed and be a blessing.

That reminded me of how the first section of See You at the House - "Looking for the Threads" - starts:

The quest -

Wherever it takes you - go;

Whichever the task - do it;

Whatever the burden - accept it;

Whenever it calls - answer it;

Whichever the lesson - learn it;

However dark the path - follow him;

Because wherever he takes you,

It is worth it.

--Bob Benson--

I Said Race . . .

2007-09-05T18:51:00.000-04:00

Not play tag. But tagged I have been by Craver. The tag questions are:

Are you happy/ satisfied with your blog, with its content and look? Yes, I am. But then I'm not one easily dissatisfied with a background or a color. As long as things are legible and not ostentatious, I'm okay with it.
Does your family know about your blog? My brothers and sisters and at least one nephew knows about the blog. I don't think any of them read it.
Do you feel embarrassed to let your friends know about your blog or you just consider it as a private thing? Embarrassed probably isn't the right word. I sometimes think it is slightly arrogant to think I have something to say worth putting into public forum. But I do post, so it is a false humility that I seem to be trying to maintain.
Did blogs cause positive changes in your thoughts? Writing, probably not so much. Clarifying and ordering my thoughts would be more accurate. Reading blogs? Definitely. I could almost copy Craver's answer here. Until I started reading a lot of blogs, and in particularly the comments in blogs, I didn't realize how hurtful (maybe not the best word, but the best I have at the moment), arrogant, and condescending some statements could sound, even if they were not intended that way. The written word is a difficult tool to wield gracefully, and the blog (and blog comment even more so) are such small pieces on which to work. To do so well is a rare gift.
Do you only open the blogs of those who comment on your blog or you love to go and discover more by yourself? Most of the blogs I read (or scan, more often, using Google Reader) have never commented on my blog (this one or the other one). I'm not a stat junkie (I deal with that all day; I don't want to deal with it when I get home) so I've never even checked who, if anyone, visits. I'm quite irregular in my posting, so I doubt many are in the habit of reading this blog.
What does visitors counter mean to you? Do you care about putting it in your blog? I touched on this in question five, but no, I don't care. I remember a story (Alistair Begg, I think) told of being in Scotland taking headstone rubbings in an old church graveyard. The minister came out and said that he had a youth study to lead in a little while. Would Alistair take a break so as not to be a distraction? He did, but came back a little early to listen to the message. The minister was teaching, but there was no one there to hear. While the story seems humorous, the point was that the word must go out, whether there is anyone to listen or not.
Did you try to imagine your fellow bloggers and give them real pictures? I don't have a vivid imagination and have learned not to trust my images. For example, I had listened to White Horse Inn for a long time before I saw a picture of Kim Riddlebarger. I had a mental image of a darker haired version of Michael Horton. Wrong. Not to fault Kim. He has more hair than I do. But I have a hard time putting the voice with the face now. As far as using a picture of myself, let me quote another Hoosier (John Mellencamp), "I never wanted to have my picture taken; Now tell me, who'd want to look into these eyes?" If anyone's curious, we (my brother's and I) described me to my new sister-in-law who is legally blind (adult illness) as Uncle Fester with a (now mostly grey) gotee.
Do you think there is a real benefit for blogging? Yes, but there are real dangers as well. The Bible is serious when it warns us that those who teach will suffer stricter condemnation. Blogging has a tendency to encourage everyone to "teach" whether that is what we call it or not.
Do you think that bloggers’ society is isolated from real world or interacts with events? It all depends on the blog and blogger. Some blogs are dedicated to interaction and maybe go to far in that direction. Others are totally cut off from the real world. I think most are somewhere in between, but balance is hard to find and maintain. Too much interaction and you can easily become a "guardian of the public good" (at least in your own mind). Speaking to what's on people's minds without becoming a demigog is difficult.
Does criticism annoy you or do you feel it’s a normal thing? Pobody's nerfect, but it is natural to be defensive when criticized. I just try to understand the other view and not get too wrapped up in a war of words. I've been there, done that, and nobody's opinion changed. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson once (at least) said, "You can win the argument and still be wrong." I know I'm wrong about many things. I just don't know which things.
Do you fear some political blogs and avoid them? I have been part of the great mass that believed in politics. When I was in high school and college I was a serious Libertarian. After I became I Christian, I became a serious conservative (not the same as a serious Republican - I'm not sure such an animal exists - but frequently confused). Today, I just don't think politics or science hold the answers that we as Americans have assumed for so long that they would.
Did you get shocked by the arrest of some bloggers? Since I didn't know about it, apparently not. Is this the case (speaking of the Libertarian Party)? Given the description of what's going on there, I'm not surprised by this. I would be surprised if the case stands.
Did you think about what will happen to your blog after you die? No. I don't see any great change over where my blog is now.
What do you like to hear? What’s the song you might like to put a link to, in your blog? I have a list on the right. I must admit that I generally turn off songs that play at other people's blogs. I might even like it, but most of the time the quality of the sound isn't that great. However, if I did put a song on my blog, it would probably be something like this (warning - youtube link; video quality is not great, but he audio is good). I already linked to this, and some Steve Taylor songs.

Let's Race

2007-08-13T22:00:00.000-04:00

A race is one of the metaphors the Apostle Paul uses to describe the Christian life. This metaphor is picked up by Steve Taylor in his song "The Finish Line" from Squint. If you have never heard of Steve Taylor, it probably means you were not listening to Christian music in the late 1980's. Steve is probably best known for "I Want to Be a Clone" (though my personal favorites are "Drive, He Said" and "Cash Cow") and having a sarcastic sense of humor that did not always endear him with more fundementalist Christians. I, however, have a great affection for his music.

"The Finish Line" is something of a modern day Pilgrim's Progress, admittedly in much shortened form. It follows a prototypical Christian from conversion to death. If you listen closely, you may find something of your own journey in the song. The confident to arrogant beginning. The stumbling that causes you to eventually buy "the party line." The questions as to how so many good things become idols. Then, hopefully, that return to relying on Jesus, as we emerge "bloody but wise." The title of the album is taken from this song, "You squint with the light of the truth in your eyes."

Enjoy.

Prophetic from the Center

2007-08-09T20:45:00.000-04:00

Some time back I wrote a post about a message given by Dr. D. A. Carson at the 2007 Gospel Coalition conference. In that post was a lengthy quote from Dr. Carson, including the following statement: "It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center." I have been thinking about this statement and what it means to be "prophetic from the center."

If you read the entire quote, I think it is obvious what is meant by "from the center" versus "from the margins." The margins are those peripheral issues, on both the left and the right, that engross so many people. These are issues like environmentalism, social justice, gay marriage, prayer in schools, music styles in worship, etc. The center are those issues that are essential to Christian faith, including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, i.e. what "takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

The question, I think, is what does it mean to be "prophetic?" What it does not mean is that Christians should join the Jeane Dixon fan club. Biblical prophets sometimes made predictions about the future, like:

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
ESV

Micah here prophesies that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. Clearly this is "predictive" and is one of the things prophets did in the Bible. But prophets did at least two other things in the Bible, both of which were more common than prediction.

One was that the prophets pointed out the sinful condition of the people. For example:

Micah 7:2-3
The godly has perished from the earth,
and there is no one upright among mankind;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and each hunts the other with a net.
Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;
the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
ESV

When we are prophetic in this sense from the margins, it is easy because it most often takes the form of condemnation. It is a means to lift ourselves above those on whom we pronounce judgment. This is the Pharisees - clean on the outside but full of death on the inside. Our condemnation falls on any who have not cleaned the outside, regardless of the state of their heart.

We carry picket signs that say, "God hates fags" without acknowledging that God also hates the self-righteous. We maintain our ritual, but have forgotten love, forgiveness, and mercy. Jesus in contrast does not put out the smoking flax or break the bruised reed. How do we behave around those of weak faith who are struggling? If we are prophetic from the margins, most often we will shun them.

To be prophetic from the center is much harder in no small part because it requires humility. John the Baptist called the Pharisess a brood of vipers, but also said he was not fit to tie the sandal of the Messiah. He proclaimed that Jesus must increase while he (John) decreased.

To be prophetic from the center means we have to first acknowledge that we need the gospel as much as anyone else even now. It means that we have to acknowledge that we do not live up to God's standard even now. Like Paul we need to be truthful that we have not attained, but that we are pressing on. To be prophetic from the center requires a balance of boldness and humility.
But prophets in the Bible also proclaimed God's mercy and lovingkindness, like:

Micah 7:18-19
Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
He will again have compassion on us;
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
You will cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea.
ESV

To be prophetic in this sense from the margins is the prosperity gospel. God wants you to have your best life now. God wants you to be healthy and have a two car garage. God does not want you to suffer, for you are more than conquerors in Christ. You need to claim your healing, money, possessions and have faith that God will deliver.

Less extreme is to say that while things may not always go your way, you will always sense the presence of God. If you are faithful to follow God's plan for your life, you will always have a smile on your face. Both of these are easy because people will respond.

But being prophetic from the center is to say your best life is not yet here. The kingdom breaks into this age, but is not fully realized yet. We still have struggles and difficulties. Like Jesus we continue on for the joy set before us. Per Paul we recognize that death as the last enemy has not yet been destroyed, but will be. Love we are told bears, believes, hopes and endures. All of these indicate an element of tension, struggle, and difficulty.

This message is not as immediately attractive. Telling people to hold onto a Savior who will deliver some day is not as appealling as telling them God is like Santa Claus bestowing gifts on those who are nice. But it is real and many people who have been through difficulty will find in the gospel the truth. Yes, this life is hard, but even so God is good.

This is why Paul says we are to be pitied if the resurrection is not true, because our hope, our joy, our anchor is on what is to come, not on the now. We live now and we show the kingdom now and we try to make things better now. Believers before Jesus stood with their arm stretched out pointing to the future.

We now stand with both arms outstretched pointed to the past (the cross) and the future (the resurrection). We do so also to die figuratively and literally for the cause of Christ. Some being prophetic from the margins will condemn us as compromising with the world, calling us gluttons and winos. Some being prophetic from the margins will say we are from some hick town and not sophisticated or educated. Some being prophetic from the margins will say that we could deliver ourselves from suffering if we had more faith.

We are to love them all, and pray for them to be forgiven even as they stone us. Who knows who will be holding their coats as we die.

Fundementalists, Antithesis and Common Grace

2007-08-06T19:42:00.000-04:00

Updated Below

While I have been blogging on Harry Potter, there has been a rather interesting discussion going on over at Reformation 21. This has been between Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman on fundementalism and it's merits and dangers. I'm not planning on commenting a lot, I just want to provide some quotes that maybe will encourage you to read the entire discussion. As I think about it I may have more to say later.

It starts with Rev. Phillips' move to Greenville and his decision of which school to enroll his children. The final decision was Bob Jones elementary, an arm of Bob Jones university. Rev. Phillips writes:
But the fourth reason is the one I really want to talk about. The fundamentalists get the idea of antithesis. . . . I find in general that the fundamentalists get the idea that the Bible really is the Word of God and that our only salvation is in the blood of Christ. There is no talk about postmodern hermeneutics among the fundamentalists. They believe the Bible is the Word of God because it says so, and so do I. They believe that men, women, and children are sinners who must believe in the cross in order to be saved. There is no talk of alternative theories of the atonement with them. They understand that the church must stand out against the world, that holiness is our calling, and that Christians are to witness to the lost. Amen, amen, and amen. They get the Christian antithesis, that light has shined in the darkness and that we are to walk in the light and shine the light into the darkness.

Frankly, because of the big idea of antithesis, I am more comfortable with the fundamentalists than I am with the broad evangelicals. More and more, broad evangelicals do not get the idea of antithesis, and for this reason even when they have a pretty good formal doctrinal statement, they seldom really stand up for it.

Rev. Phillips goes on in other posts to discuss price as a factor in the decision and the reformed leanings of Bob Jones. But the discussion is taken up in earnest by Dr. Trueman. Dr. Trueman makes four points about antithesis, all of which are interesting, but the last two are the most significant. From the third:
3. An overwhelming emphasis on antithesis creates a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction. That's cultic and it's Gnosticism, and the Reformed world currently contains a couple of scary examples of exactly this kind of thinking and church life. . . . It can in fact be used in such a way as to justify a form of Gnostic empiricism and in effect to say 'everyone else has tradition, we just have the truth' is a problem. It could be better translated as `We have a tradition like everyone else, but we're not going to write it down so that it cannot be critiqued by you or anybody else.'

And from the fourth:
4. Charity of spirit (not compromise of doctrine) is a Christian virtue. This involves the ability to relate to those who are different, to treat with respect as made in the image of God those from whom we differ. An overwhelming emphasis on the intellectual/cultural antithesis does not, in my experience, foster the kind of appreciation for others, the self-deprecating humour, and the ability to see the absurdities of one's own positions, which enable this. . . . My point is simply that the antithesis can be abused in the name of Christ to subvert these very Christian imperatives, not that it always does so.

Rev. Phillips responded to Dr. Trueman and makes points worth considering. I want to move on though to comments from Sean Michael Lucas who joined in with two posts (part 1 and part 2) on his blog. In part 1, Dr. Lucas notes:
[M]y primary identity is a believer of Jesus and I'm called to love other believers in Jesus regardless of their spiritual maturity or theological perspective (even, shudder, Arminians). I live out this identity as a Presbyterian, committed to the wholeness of the Reformed faith as the best explanation of the Bible and eager for others to embrace the same perspective that I hold. I affirm catholicity while holding personally to the Reformed faith.

In part 2 Dr. Lucas discusses the concepts of antithesis and common grace and how these have created two streams in the reformed tradition. He refers to this split as the "Kuyperian legacy" in honor of Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. He discusses both the positive and negative tendencies of both. Dr. Lucas says there is no way to meld the two together and admits to having fundementalist/antithesis leanings. I think there is a lot of value in reading and thinking about this. Regardless of where you stand, I think we should all heed Dr. Lucas' conclusion:
Finally, above all, we need to exercise the judgment of charity toward each other. By recognizing the dangers in our position, we are freed to recognize the value of the other--I can affirm my brothers and sisters who in common grace run coffee houses and line their churches with their art in order to engage in conversations with others. They bring something to the body of Christ that I don't bring; they are "jazz" to my "three-chords and a chorus" (1 Cor 12:12-27). I need those who emphasis common grace; and they, frankly, need me.

Update: Rev. Phillips has posted some additional thoughts based on Dr. Lucas' thoughts

Harry Potter Posts and Links

2007-08-05T15:09:00.000-04:00

Here are links to my posts on Harry Potter:

On Choices (and Harry Potter): Reflections on a discussion between Dumbledore and Harry near the end of the Half-Blood Prince

On Harry Potter (and Choices) I: A discussion of common Christian objections to the Harry Potter series

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - II: A discussion of why I think the books are more than just acceptable for a Christian audience

Community in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of community/relationships

The Afterlife in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of the afterlife

Power in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of power

Death in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of death

Love in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of love

Harry Potter - Concluding Thoughts: A response to Lev Grossman's article "Who Dies in Harry Potter? God"

Other links of note regarding Harry Potter:

Alan Jacobs' "Harry Potter's Magic" (hosted by the Harry Potter Lexicon)

Jerram Barrs' "J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter" (hosted by Be Thinking): The audio is long but worth the listen

A transcript of J. K. Rowling's Bloomsbury chat (hosted by Accio Quote!)

Chris' recommendation of the series

Harry Potter - Concluding Thoughts

2007-08-05T15:00:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up to the series looking at the themes in Harry Potter, I wanted to make just a few additional comments, in part as a result of the post by Joshua Harris' "Harry Lives, God Dies" this past week at Between Two Worlds. Justin's post was a reflection on an article written by Lev Grossman.

In that article, Mr. Grossman claims that the world created by J. K. Rowling is signficantly different than the worlds created by J. R. R. Tolkein and C. S. Lewis. I want to look at two statements from that article and show why I think Mr. Grossman has grossly missed the point.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Quote 1: Harry Potter and religion
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind. He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.

Mr. Grossman is correct that we do not see Harry going to church or praying. However, the Christian calendar is followed, including Christmas break. One could argue that many of these holidays are now cultural and not religious in signficance. But what cannot be escaped (and, to Mr. Grossman's defense this was in book 7, released after his article) is that both Dumbledore's family and Harry's family had Bible verses on their tombstones. That Harry does not recognize them as such I see more as commentary on the general lack of Biblical knowledge in our society than a denial of Christianity. Hermione, even if she does not know where it comes from, at least understands that "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" on the marker for Harry's parents is not a death eater idea, but an affirmation of life after death.

In terms of the spells Harry uses, none is more powerful than the patronus charm. This spell is used most frequently against dementors, the presence of which causes despair. In her list of influences, I have not seen Rowling mention John Bunyan, but the wizard prison Azkaban, which is under the oversight of the dementors, would be something akin to Giant Despair's Doubting Castle Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

To use the patronus charm, one thinks of a happy memory and utters, "expecto patronum." The "happy memory" can be interpreted as having faith in the midst of despair. The charm itself, in translated latin, is a call for a protector or guardian. In similar manner, a "patron" saint is one who protects those under his charge - e.g. St. Christopher is the patron saint of travelers.

In classical latin "pater" (from which "patronus" is derived) means father. "Expecto patronum" is a call for aid, therefore, to a guardian or father, or a prayer. One receives the aid when one has faith and does not despair. Some are surpised that Harry can create a patronus because of his youth. This calls to mind those who would keep the children from Jesus or Paul telling Timothy not to let others despise his youth.

How much of this is intentional with Rowling I cannot say. But I certainly think we cannot, as Mr. Grossman does, easily dismiss the possibility that there are signficant religious elements in the Harry Potter series.

Quote 2: Harry Potter and love
What does Harry have instead of God? Rowling's answer, at once glib and profound, is that Harry's power comes from love. This charming notion represents a cultural sea change. In the new millennium, magic comes not from God or nature or anything grander or more mystical than a mere human emotion.

In my post on Love and Harry Potter, I deal with the theme of love more fully. Here, I just want to place a reminder that the love that is powerful magic in Harry Potter is much more than "mere human emotion." It is self-sacrificial love. The love required to be powerful magic is anything but a "charming notion." It is a love that dies that another may live. While some may point to Harry's sacrifice in book seven - a good reference - this has been clear since book one when Lily dies to save Harry. Painting the love in Harry Potter as a "charming notion" and "a mere human emotion" does injustice to one of the main themes in the novels.

Are the Harry Potter Novels Christian?

I think that is a mistaken question, not just with Harry Potter but nearly all fiction. How would one define whether a novel is Christian or not? The question is whether or not a novel is consistent with a Christian worldview. Some might say that Harry Potter is not because there is no mention of God. As others have noted there is also no mention of God in the book of Esther, yet it is in the Bible. Like Esther, I could argue for God's providence being a signficant presence in the Harry Potter books. Just one example is Hermione's having the "Time-Turner" in The Prisoner of Azkaban.

As I hope I've shown over the last several posts, major themes in the series are consistent with a Christian worldview. Views of community, the afterlife, power, death, and love in the novels are in alignment with Biblical views of the same. These are novels, and they are not as explicit on many of the topics as the Bible is, but what is there has substantial agreement.

And while thinking about and looking at these themes is profitable, let us not lose Alan Jacobs' final note on the series in his essay "Harry Potter's Magic." The books are "a great deal of fun."

Love and Harry Potter

2007-08-03T18:08:00.000-04:00

It was a Brit that said, "All you need is love." A smug American would later respond, "The Beatles said, 'love is all you need' and then they broke up." Which calls into question whether love is really all you need or if the Beatles didn't have it. Part of what it highlights is the ambiguity with which we throw around the word love.

To say, "I love chocolate" usually means, "please excuse my excess intake of sweets." "I love Harry Potter" means I find delight in reading the Harry Potter novels. "I love rock and roll" means you should put another dime in the jukebox, baby. "If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one your with" conveys one of the more common usages of the word love in contemporary society. Ellis Paul is correct when he notes that, "Love is too familar a word."

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Love in the Harry Potter series is more specific than the general American usage. When Dumbledore says love is the most powerful magic there is, he is not talking about a warm affection for someone else (though I don't think this element is excluded). The love that is powerful magic is a love that sacrifices. From the start of the series there is proof of this statement - Harry Potter is "the boy who lived." The question is why did he live?

Voldemort pursued the Potters with the intent of killing their son. No one was more feared in the wizarding world than Voldemort. Yet he was unable to kill an infant. The killing curse deflected back on him rendering him helpless and near death. The infant received nothing but a scar on his forehead.

When Voldemort came to kill Harry, he quickly dispatched of an unprepared James Potter, and then offered Lily the chance to flee. Given the opportunity to save herself, Lily instead gave her life in an attempt to defend the child she loved. This sacrifice placed a protective charm on Harry even greater than Voldemort's dark art. Throughout the series Dumbledore reminds Harry that it was his mother's sacrificial love for him that saved him.

This theme of sacrificial love occurs repeatedly in the series as character after character suffers or dies for another, most often for Harry. Until, near the end of book seven, Voldemort gives Harry a choice - come and die, or stay and watch others die for you. Harry knew that to complete the task of destroying the horcruxes he would have to die, so he walks deliberately to his death. Both Lily and Harry's sacrifices call to mind the words of Jesus, "Greater love has no man than this, to lay down his life for his friends."

Harry's love is also shown in a less dramatic way. For so long he had loved and trusted Dumbledore. Now he knows the secrets of Dumbledore's past. He also knows that Dumbledore knew all along that Harry would have to sacrifice himself for Voldemort to be defeated. But while he cannot fully reconcile himself in the short time he has to who Dumbledore was and the plan Dumbledore placed in motion, his love for Dumbledore "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Love in Harry Potter like Biblical love is costly. Snape lives his life constantly being suspected as a traitor by most, especially Harry. All out of grief that he betrayed his one true love, Lily, to Voldemort. While many of his actions are not excusable, how terrible a reminder must Harry have been. The boy who looked and acted like his father, but with his mothers eyes. The boy whose scar was a reminder of Snape's own betrayal of Lily.

But he does what is required of him to protect Harry and the others from Voldemort. Like Harry, he follows Dumbledore's plan even when it does not make sense. His actions are a testimony to the fact that his love was genuine, and his regret real.

So in greater and lesser ways, love displayed in the series requires setting aside personal desires, even personal needs. Lack of love and the inability to understand love I think defines Voldemort even more than his fear of death. So, in Harry Potter as in the Bible, love is not all we need, but without it we are nothing.

Death in Harry Potter

2007-08-02T20:56:00.000-04:00

Shortly after starting the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling's mother died. Rowling admits that it had a significant impact on the seriers and told Meredith Vieira in an interview for Dateline that how the characters in the Harry Potter's novels viewed death defined them. Aside from the theme of love, death is the most significant theme in the book. Some might even argue it is the most signficant theme. As such, I'm only skimming the surface of what Rowling says about death in Harry Potter.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Death is present from the start of the series, and controls events that transpire in the stories past. The death of Harry's parents, James and Lily Potter, starts the series off. But the cause of that death, Voldemort, kills them in an attempt to get to Harry. Why?

Voldemort fears death. This fear leads him, in the backstory of the books and not revealed until book 6, to create horcruxes. Horcruxes are places where pieces of a soul can be stored so that a person need not fear death. The horcrux can be used to revive the person who has died. Voldemort has his horcruxes in place to protect against his demise. Interestingly, to create a horcrux, Voldemort has to kill - an exchange, if you will. To protect his own life, Voldemort must sacrifice another.

Also in the backstory, there is a prophecy, revealed in book 5, that a boy will battle Voldemort to the death. Voldemort attempts to kill Harry as an infant to prevent the prophecy. This is an act reminiscent of Herod's killing of all the children under two after the wise men do not return from visiting Jesus. Herod wants to kill Jesus, the Messiah, who Herod expects to be an earthly king and would therefore end his dynasty. But, while he is surrounded by death, Harry is "the boy who lived" (the reason why will be discussed in the following post, if the Lord should will).

Death is so significant because it is final. While, as I discussed in the post on the afterlife, something of the person continues on after death, you cannot really come back from death. Harry's parents, despite his hopes after seeing their forms at the end of Goblet of Fire, will never return to him. He has to live with the deaths of those that he loves.

And death visits Harry repeatedly throughout the series, but especially starting in book 4 with Cedric. Then Sirius dies, Dumbledore dies, Moody dies, Dobby dies, Snape dies, Fred dies, Lupin dies, Tonks dies, . . . All the deaths are to a greater or a lesser degree sacrifices to save Harry. Until Harry must decide whether he will follow their examples.

Harry has committed himself, after much wrestling, to Dumbledore's path of destroying the horcruxes. What happens, then, when you discover that Nagini is not the last horcrux, but that you yourself are a horcrux. Harry walks to his death, willing to sacrifice himself for others. For Voldemort to be defeated, the piece of Voldemort's soul that is within Harry must die. The horcrux must be destroyed.

So Harry responds to Voldemort's call, and walks out alone, under the invisibility cloak, to meet him. Harry does not attempt to defend himself when Voldemort again uses the killing curse on Harry. The first time Harry survived because of his mother's intervention. Now, there is no one to intercede.

After his sacrifice, Harry awakes in King's Cross. He is whole, not even needing his glasses. But he is not alone:

[Harry] had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath.

In King's Cross we see the contrast between what Voldemort's fear of death and Harry's acceptance of death has made of them. Voldemort is beyond help, while Harry is healthy.

It would be easy to mistake the Harry Potter series as embracing death. Is Snape's killing of Dumbleore and assisted suicide?

First, Harry did not run from death, but neither did he embrace it. The walk to Voldemort was difficult, particularly as he reflected on what would be lost. He required the support of those who had sacrificed themselves for him.

Second, Snape does kill Dumbledore knowing that Dumbledore is dying anyway. But the act is not to relieve Dumbledore's suffering, but to protect Draco. Had Draco been forced to kill Dumbledore, irreversible damage would have been done to Draco. I'm not saying that I agree with Snape's actions; I don't think they are justifiable. But the scene is not, I don't think, an argument for mercy killing.

Third, and most telling, is the graveyard scene on Christmas Eve. Harry and Hermione are searching for Harry's parent's grave. When they find the grave, on the marker are these words: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." The words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 26) where he is defending the resurrection. It contains (v. 3-4) Paul's wonderful summary of the gospel: "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Whatever else Rowling may mean by using this quote, death is defined as an enemy, and one day it will end. I hope and pray that it also means that Rowling has the hope of the resurrection. That this quote is more than something in a book, but is a rock on which she can stand. I hope this is true for you as well.

Power in Harry Potter

2007-08-01T18:00:00.000-04:00

By now you know: WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Horcruxes or the Deathly Hallows? The choice was anything but simple for Harry. It was a choice analogous to the choice to use or to destroy the ring of power. What Dumbledore had wanted was more or less clear, so trusting him would send Harry after horcruxes. But Harry knew now that Dumbledore had a past which he had been unwilling to share (trust to) Harry.

How do you handle power? Is it to be sought and used for your own benefit, or is it to be taken only with the outmost care and diligence?

For Voldemort and the Death Eaters that is a silly question. Power is meant to be wielded, otherwise it is wasted. Power means having the ability to get what you want when you want it. For Voldemort, it was a way to overcome death and to get "respect" that he had not gotten any other way. This is community committed to the principle of survival of the fittest. You either rule the pack by force, or you walk around with your tail between your legs.

One of the big surprises in book seven is the past of Albus Dumbledore. We learn in the book that his history included a desire for power and a scheming about how this might be done. While this might have been "for the greater good," it was a vain (both in the sense of proud and in the sense of worthless) pursuit. His scheming led, however indirectly, to the death of his sister and marked him for life.

Dumbledore becomes one then who shuns power. Many wondered why he never tried to become the Minister of Magic. Some, like Dolores Umbridge, assumed he was trying to take the position. But the reality was that Dumbledore feared what he might do in that position of power. When Harry tells Dumbledore in King's Cross that he would have been a great minister, Dumbledore responds (DH p. 718):
Would I? . . . I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it.

Dumbledore's wisdom in this matter is evident by two incidents signficant to Harry. The first was when Dumbledore realized that James Potter, Harry's father, had not just any invisibility cloak, but THE invisibility cloak. One third of the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore had to examine it, and it was in his possession on the night Voldemort killed Harry's parents. Likely having the cloak would have made no difference, but the question remains, particularly for Dumbledore knowing his own motives for wanting the cloak.

Second, Dumbledore kills himself, effectively, by putting on the ring that contained the resurrection stone. Voldemort had cursed the ring (similar to the poison protecting the locket) and while he continued to live with Snape's aid, Dumbledore's days were numbered. The black hand was a reminder that death was upon him and that soon he would die. This is the reason drinking the poison was an easy choice for Dumbledore. He was dying already. Power is frequently the weakness of the great. (I'm tempted to get on a soapbox about term limits for elected officials, but I'll let you work it out.)

So, Harry's choice in book seven (and at other times as well) is the choice to pursue power, or trust his friends. When Dobby dies while saving Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, and others, Harry realizes what he has to do. Even though he knows Voldemort has discovered the location of the elder wand. Even though Voldemort will get that wand which could make him nearly invincible, Harry chooses to pursue the horcruxes and not the Deathly Hallows. To take the path that Frodo takes, not the path to power but the path of sacrifice. The path that will require him to depend on Ron, Hermione, and, eventually, Neville instead of the path where he could be the next great wizard.

As believers, we are called to humility. Jesus is much more than an example and much more than a teacher, but He is both. His example is that we do not grasp for power and authority in this life. The least shall be greatest. The meek will inherit. We are sheep in the midst of wolves. And as Harry finally trusts Dumbledore, we must trust our great Teacher who calls us to die.

The Afterlife in Harry Potter

2007-07-31T19:33:00.000-04:00

What would a school of witchcraft and wizardry be without a few ghosts?

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead! (Seriously big time spoilers)

Hogwarts is indeed haunted. Nearless Headless Nick, Moaning Myrtle, and other ghosts haunt the school's halls and, well, bathrooms. As in much modern popular fiction, though, not everyone becomes a ghost when they die, most just go on. Ghosts are those who linger and do not move on to whatever waits, as in The Sixth Sense or Medium. In interviews, Rowling has said this the result of the person fearing death.

The moving portraits are not really ghosts, or even living. Harry's visit by the departed in the Goblet of Fire is not a return from the dead either. The closest one comes to this is when Harry uses the resurrection stone near the end of the Deathly Hallows. But even the stone does not truly "resurrect" the loved one(s). It merely brings them to a point where the living can converse with them. Xenophilius Lovegood, in his description of the stone's effects when used by its original owner, says:

[T]he figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him. Yet she was said and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.

When Harry uses the stone, we are told that those who return to comfort him are "neither ghost nor truly flesh . . . Less substantial than living bodies, but much more than ghosts." In returning it is noted that Sirius is younger than when Harry knew him, apparently returned to the prime of his life.

The closest we get to the the actual afterlife in Harry Potter's universe is in the chapter "Kings Cross." There Harry has a final (presumably) conversation with Dumbledore. This is some kind of limbo, where Harry is given the choice to go on or to go back. In the book one could take this as all occurring in Harry's own mind, but interviews with Rowling indicate something "real" is happening. The figure on the floor is what remains of Voldemort and she calls it "a kind of limbo."

But Rowling does not touch on what the afterlife is like. Apparently the soul continues (otherwise, Harry could not call them back even partially) but little else is known. This is fairly typical in fiction. There are ghosts in Tolkien's works, and little is said about what happens when someone dies. Writers of fiction, with a few notable exceptions like Dante, have tended to avoid attempts at describing the afterlife. It is the great mystery that they cannot reveal. It is beyond a veil they dare not cross.

This stands out in the Harry Potter series in part because death and dealing with death is such a major theme. But as in real life, death is a wall that cannot be breached. Even in Bunyan's great Pilgrim's Progress, little is said about what life is like across the river.

But there is an affirmation of the afterlife. This occurs at Godric Hollow when Hermione tells Harry, regarding the inscription on his parents' grave ("The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" - 1 Corinthians 15:26), "It means . . . you know . . . living beyond death. Living after death." Harry's parents, and those who knew them, have a hope beyond this life.

Whether it is like the hope of the Christian we are not told. For believers, there is not only life beyond this, but life where every tear is dried and joy ever blossoms. Those who have gone on before Harry seem to this settled peace. But even the Bible tells us that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard what God has for us in heaven. Maybe, therefore, it is for the best that writers of fiction do not try to peer through the veil.

Community in Harry Potter

2007-07-29T21:51:00.000-04:00

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Community seemed to me the best word to describe the idea of relationship as explored in the Harry Potter series. At the basic level of community, the novels are about an "invisible" society (community) consisting of those who have magical talent. Their secret is kept by a "law" that they cannot reveal themselves those outside this society. There are some necessary exceptions, as when there is a witch or a wizard that is a member of a family that would otherwise not be part of the "magical" society, e.g. Harry and the Dursleys. Other exceptions include the Prime Minister. But largely this is a community hidden within normal (the "muggle") society.

More interesting, though, are the communities within this society. Especially prominent is the contrast between the community that surrounds Harry and the Death Eaters, Voldemort's "community." Dumbledore's assertion is that part of the flaw in the character of Tom Riddle that makes him Lord Voldemort is that he really has no friends. The Death Eaters may reverence him, like Bellatrix, or they may fear him, the majority of the Death Eaters, but they are not his friends.

In contrast, Harry is defined by his community. In the first book, the sorting hat, which is supposed to choose to which "house" (school community) the first years will belong, leaves the choice up to Harry. Harry's choice of Gryffindor places him in the company of Ron and Hermione, the two friends who will, with the occassional fall out, be his friends throughout the series. While each retains their individuality and personality, they are shaped by their relationship.

The contrast in this regard between Harry and Tom Riddle/Voldemort is striking because of their similarities in other areas. Both Harry and Voldemort lose their parents shortly after birth. Both are brought up in situations where they are unloved, Voldemort in an orphanage, even though his father lives, and Harry by the Dursley's, his aunt and uncle. Both are to some extent feared by those around them. This is obvious in Voldemort's case, where the orphanage is glad to see him go. In Harry's case, the Dursley's are shown to have worried that he would inherit his parent's talents.

Both boys find their first real home at Hogwarts and both fall under the watchful eye of Albus Dumbledore. But Hogwarts is home for Harry because Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Neville, Luna, Ginny, and others there who are his friends. For Voldemort it was home because he was able to hone his power. There he begins to get the "respect" he believes he deserves. His plans are being put in place before he ever graduates from Hogwarts, evidenced by his research into horcruxes.

Voldemort's "community" then is only a group to serve his ends and desires. But Harry befriends the wizarding world's outcasts - Hagrid, a half-giant, Hermione, a mud-blood, and Lupin, a were-wolf. He also befriends the ridiculed - Neville and Luna - and the overlooked - Dobby and other house-elves (this is one of those areas where Hermione influences Harry and Ron over the course of the series).

A Christian worldview of community is defined by our belief in the Trinity. God has existed forever as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To the extent that we continue to bear the image of God, we are therefore beings who find meaning and purpose in relationships because we reflect that eternal relationship.

The Bible tells us that forgiveness and understanding (which is to say love - but we will discuss that particular virtue in a later post, if the Lord wills) are therefore essential to a healthy community. But these virtues are obviously lacking from Lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters. They are a community, but that community is far from healthy because the virtues necessary for a healthy community are lacking. They represent the worst societies man has produced (many have noted similarities between the Death Eaters and Nazi Germany).

While Harry's community is not reflective of the perfect communion of the saints in heaven, it does repesent a community where the values of the kingdom are esteemed. Harry's relationships, like those of believers in this present age, are not perfect. Dumbledore does not share with Harry all that Harry would desire, hiding his past failings. Ron leaves Harry and Hermione for a time in the Deathly Hallows out of frustration. As with our fallen world, the relationships and community in the novels require work. But they work because kingdom values, a reflection of the character of the Triune God, are part of the lives of stories heroes. There are good lessons about friendship, forgiveness, trust, and love in the Harry Potter series.

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - II

2007-07-29T11:04:00.000-04:00

This post contains no spoilers.

In the previous post I acknowledged that one could chose not to read the Harry Potter series based on the fact it is not gospel focused or the fact that it focused on witches and wizards. However, if you do the former to be consistent you would reject the majority of all forms of fiction. For the latter, consistency demands you reject all fiction that depicts magic in a positive light, including Tolkein. The arguments for why I think neither of these is required is more complex than I can explore fully in a single blog post, and I'm not sure I have the passion for a series.

But if you chose to read fiction, and you're willing to accept Tolkein, Lewis, etc. then I think you have to accept Rowling as well. Given my professed and obvious love for Stephen King novels (my avatar is Roland from the Dark Tower series, King's magnum opus), I obviously don't see an issue with reading this kind of fiction.

One key question in reading fiction is the presented worldview. While I don't think we have to agree with the worldview of the novel/short story/movie, we do need to be aware of it. In the case of the Harry Potter series, it is certain worldview elements that I think make the series not just acceptable for Christians, but, rightly viewed, makes reading the series beneficial.

There are five key themes that help define the worldview of the Harry Potter series. These five are:

Community
Afterlife
Power
Death
Love

Items (1) and (5) are closely related, as are items (2) and (4), but there is enough distinction I want to deal with them separately. Over the next several posts I will discuss each theme of the series, and why it is in accord with a Christian worldview.

Please note that I'm not arguing that Rowling, intentionally or otherwise, set out to create a world that had a Christian worldview. She knows her intentions and I've not heard that she has made them public. Whether the work as a whole has a Christian worldview will likely be debated for decades. But on these key elements, I think there is much in harmony with the Christian worldview.

Compared, for example, to the Dark Tower series, Harry Potter is much more in accord with the Christian worldview on death. Death, as Rowling makes clear early in the Harry Potter series, is final and people do not come back they "go on." In the Dark Tower series, death is not final as Jake Chambers and Father Callahan know too well (except on keystone earth, but that's another discussion). Which is not to say there may not be elements in the Dark Tower series that are closer to the Christian worldview than similar elements in the Harry Potter series.

All that to say that these five themes, while critical to the Harry Potter series, do not de facto give the Harry Potter universe a Christian worldview.

On final word, in the posts that follow there will be spoilers. I'm not sure how I discuss these themes without reference to how they play out in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. You have been warned.

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - I

2007-07-28T11:31:00.000-04:00

Not quite a week after getting "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" I have finished the book. While I will avoid any major spoilers for those who are or plan on reading the book, there will be discussion of themes and ideas in what follows that may reveal plot elements. You have been warned.

I am not about to argue that the series in general or any book in the series in particular presents the gospel. From that sense, if we are gospel focused, one might argue that investing time in reading the series is not profitable. While I think that is an extreme position (I heartily recommend the answer from D. A. Carson and Tim Keller on what causes fragmentation in the church today - bottom of the list as of this writing) that would lead one to nearly all fiction, whether written or otherwise, I see it as a defensible, though not correct, position.

Others would argue that it is not that the books are fiction, but that they deal with magic in a positive light. In the series, there is normal magic that is acceptable and then there are the dark arts. Many Christians would argue that the Bible knows nothing of "white magic" and that all magic is "dark" magic. In his book A Visit to Vanity Fair Alan Jacobs includes an essay titled "Harry Potter's Magic" in which he lays out a case for why the series is acceptable reading for Christians even though witches and wizards are the focus of the series. The normal magic in the Harry Potter books is not typically divination, but is a cousin to technology. Instead of a dishwasher, one uses a wand to clean dishes. But there is also a recognition (one significant scene in the last book stands out in this regard) that some tasks call for doing the hard work instead of taking the easy (magical) alternative.

To consistently reject the Harry Potter series because of magic requires that one also reject Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. There is no legitimate argument that there is a substantial difference between the magic in The Lord of the Rings and the magic in Harry Potter, between, say Gandalf and Dumbledore. Lest we forget, in Tolkein's work Aragorn brings an army of the dead to fight against Sauron's forces.

So one could reject Harry Potter due to series focus on magic. One might be concerned that the series would make readers want to investigate wicca or other occult practices. However, doing so would also require that all books containing a positive view of witches, wizards and magic likewise be rejected.

I understand the basis of the argument, but do not agree. These novels (both Rowling's and Tolkein's) are clearly fictional works, as evidenced by the names of most of the characters in the Harry Potter series. Also, as Jacob's noted in his essay, in Harry Potter's world you either are born with the ability to do magic or you are not. One does not acquire the talent to do magic through investigation or practice. The seeming majority of the world simply cannot do magic.

I have dealt here with some objections as to why Christians should not read the Harry Potter series. I will continue with a discussion of why I think there is benefit in reading the series. But one final word: if your conscience tells you not to read the books, do not read them. Any benefit is not worth an offense to your conscience. If you have a friend who does not think they should read them, do not push them on your friend and thus become a participant in offending your friend's conscience. Finally, I encourage those who do not think Christians should read the books, do not look down on those that do read. You may, gently and in love, present why you think we should not, but do not let it become a wedge.

On Choices (and Harry Potter)

2007-07-20T05:14:00.000-04:00

Reading the following quote the other day, it struck me as a great description of the difference between a Biblical understanding of predestination and a functionally pagan understanding that turns predestination into fatalism:

It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high.

The context of the discussion is between a professor and a student. This particular student has been singled out to have a significant future, which he feels has trapped him. The professor is trying to show the student that what seems inevitable is still the result of choices of all those involved.

Sometimes, in reaction to a preceived rejection of God's sovereignty by those not in the Reformed camp, we go to far and effectively deny the reality of human choice (free will is such a loaded term I'll avoid it for now). But the Bible is clear that we make our own choices. So whatever the future holds for us is not a fatalistic future.

What this means is we can either actively engage the world around us, which is what the Bible calls us to do, or we can passively let life happen to us. A Biblical view of sovereignty does not encourage the latter (whatever will be, will be) but instead encourages us in the former that God is able to take even our failures and ultimately bring about good.

Continuing the quote:

Some people, perhaps, would say that there is little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew - and so do I, thought Harry with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents - that there was all the difference in the world.
- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince p. 512

I was not expecting theological statements from a Harry Potter book, but this fits well a Biblical approach to predestination. What the second part of the quote makes clear is that it matters immensely whether we are fatalistic in our understanding of predestination or whether we believe we are participants in what God is doing.

Yes, I understand that their is a huge gap between Biblical predestination and the fictional prophecy in the Harry Potter books. But Harry has been struggling with a fixed future, the way many of us, or at least I know I did, struggle with what it means that God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass. Some today have reacted so negatively to this idea of predestination that they have become open theists, denying that God knows the future.

But the Bible says both that God knows (and ordained) whatever will happen and that our choices are signficant. What I hear in Harry Potter's thoughts is an echo of the Biblical statements that God works in us to will and to do; that human actions can be meant for evil, but God means them for good; that we are to make our calling and election sure; that both God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart, etc. Predestination does not deny that we make choices. It means that God has woven those choices into His plan in a way too mysterious for us to understand.

PS: Yes, I'm somewhat anxiously awaiting the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. On why I don't think this is inappropriate for a Christian, I'll blog about later.

Gospel Passion

2007-07-15T22:25:00.000-04:00

Recently a group of pastors and theologians met as part of The Gospel Coalition. From my vantage point (not being at the conference) it appears that the driving person behind this group is Dr. Donald (D. A.) Carson. Dr. Carson opened the conference with the message "What Is the Gospel?" from 1 Corinthians 15 (audio or video is available at the website). Dr. Carson states at the start of his message that the Bible

understands the gospel to be the embracing category that holds much of the whole Bible together and takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

Shortly after that Dr. Carson says:

Perhaps more common yet today is the tendency to assume the gospel, whatever that is, while devoting creative energy and passion to other issues - marriage, happiness, prosperity, evangelism, the poor, wrestling with Islam, bioethics, pressures of secularization, dangers on the left, dangers on the right - the list is endless. But this overlooks the fact that our hearers inevitably are drawn toward that about which we are most passionate. Every teacher knows that. My students are unlikely to learn all that I teach them. I've resigned myself to that for a long time. They are most likely to learn what I am excited about. If the gospel is merely assumed, while relatively peripherial issues ignite our passion, we will train a new generation to downplay the gospel and focus on the periphery. It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center. What is to be feared, in the famous words of T.S. Eliot, is that the center does not hold. Moreover if in fact we do focus on the gospel and understand it aright we shall soon see how this gospel, rightly understood, directs us how to think about and what to do about a vast array of other kinds of issues.

What then, about this blog? What do I focus on and what am I passionate about? I struggle at times to be passionate about the gospel (per Dr. Carson's definition above) and not just jumping into the latest intramural battles that seem so popular in the conservative church today.

What I want, using Dr. Carson's words, is to not get caught up in the periphery, but to speak from the center of our faith. If successful, then there will be nothing new here on this blog. This will be a relay station for a message that has been transmitted for millennia. I'm not the best relay station and I may not have the best range, but I want the signal to be clear. I want to encourage believers, bear witness to the lost, and defend the gospel when necessary.

I acknowledge that I have not always done so in the past, getting caught up in debates over matters about which we should not be expending much effort (matters of conscience). That is to say that I have been passionate about the periphery.

If your faith like my faith is in Jesus who died, was buried, and was raised on the third day, in Jesus who told His disciples that Scriptures speak of Him, then I encourage you by God's grace to reflect on those Scriptures and in doing so to make as much of Jesus as can. Then let us bear witness to Him with as an irenic spirit as possible in a ministry of reconciliaton.

Let Another Speak

2007-07-09T21:10:00.000-04:00

Think about it, the best religion would be the one which places the most value in its god, and the one who derives the value of everything else based on the worth of its god, it would base all its morals and standards on that. It isn’t just about which supposed god is the most powerful, but which is the most pure, the most perfect. Not just in claim but in demonstration.

Read the rest on Voice of Vision.

Plague Flight

2007-07-05T23:02:00.000-04:00

(HT: Baptist Blogger)

The following is a short excerpt from Martin Luther's "Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague." Think of this in terms of the AIDS epidemic, which is less contagious than the plague in Luther's day.

This I know, that if it were Christ or his mother who were laid low by illness, everybody would be so solicitous and would gladly become a servant or helper. Everyone would want to be bold and fearless; nobody would flee but everyone would come running. And yet they don’t hear what Christ himself says, ‘As you did to one of the least, you did it to me….’ If you wish to serve Christ and to wait on him, very well, you have your sick neighbor close at hand. Go to him and serve him, and you will surely find Christ in him, not outwardly but in his word. If you do not wish or care to serve your neighbor you can be sure that if Christ lay there instead you would not do so either and would let him lie there. Those are nothing but illusions on your part which puff you up with vain pride, namely, that you would really serve Christ if he were there in person. Those are nothing but lies; whoever wants to serve Christ in person would surely serve his neighbor as well.

Independence Day

2007-07-04T09:54:00.000-04:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - The Declaration of Independence

When I was in high school, I read Robert J Ringer's Restoring the American Dream. I was not yet old enough to vote, but I was interested in the political process (a child of Watergate, I guess - "Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth."). Ringer's ideas gripped me, and I became a Libertarian (not a libertine - which is a moral, not political, category). While I still have some sympathy for the party, I have some issues with it as well. Perhaps more significantly, I have less "faith" that the most significant problems of human existence can be solved by political means.

Libertarians view themselves, I think correctly, as true Jeffersonians. They reflect most clearly the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's greatest work. As a teenager, this is what made me a member of the party. Surely connecting back to the founding document of this country was a good thing, right? I was proudly American and saw the Revolution as one of the great events of history.

I don't think, even now, that we can dismiss the American Revolution as not being one of the most significant events in history. Besides founding this country it inspired other revolutions. But this "holy day" seems odd to me these days. I can no longer embrace Jefferson's basic premise in the Declaration. Primarily because I cannot reconcile it with these words:

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. - Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

Realize that Paul writes this to believers in Rome, under the subject of the Roman Emperor. The same government that would put him to death a few years later.

I really don't want to spoil your holiday and if you can reconcile Paul and Jefferson, then consider me one of the confused. Whatever the case, I do hope you have a good time with friends and family today. I just want us to be Christians first and Americans somewhere else down the list.

PS - My view of God's sovereignty and providence are such that I have no doubt God ordained the American Revolution. I also have no doubt He is using it for His glory. I am also thankful for the freedom we enjoy, particularly our right to worship openly. I pray for the safety and success of our troops. But none of this means, in and of itself, that the American Revolution was a just war. As Joseph told his brothers, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." Great is the mystery of how these two work together, but know that they do.

Calvinism and Arminianism

2007-07-02T22:00:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned in the previous post, we do not wade in the shallows when we think about election (or the Trinity or how Jesus can be fully man and fully divine). So if we go out into deep waters, how should that affect our relationships with those that disagree with us. For example, how should a "Calvinist" relate to an "Arminian"?

First, let's acknowledge that there is a danger in being in deep water. One risk is that we become overly rigid and exclusionary. This, it seems to me, is especially true about those who have just discovered these truths. The danger of becoming too exclusionary is present in part because some of these truths are exclusionary. Christians are the only theists who believe in the Trinity. It has been a dividing line between us and Jews and Muslims for centuries. Therefore it is not always easy to know what truths are worth dividing over. The other risk, which seems common in our day, is that the depth of the water makes us despair of being able to know anything.

But I believe that deeper studies, especially if done prayerfully and always with a dependence on the Scriptures, are corrective to each of these risks. Why? Because we will come, with Paul, to understand that we cannot fully grasp who God is or what He has done. We are left with only doxology about how great God is. I am finite and fallen, so I can never comprehend the infinite, holy God fully. But through these studies we will also see that God has revealed Himself, so there are truths about God that we can know and understand.

Second, let us realize we are not called to a war to eradicate Arminianism. Do I think election is important? Definitely. Do I think the Reformed understanding of election as outlined by Luther, Calvin, and the men who follow in their footsteps is the correct understanding? Definitely. Do I think Arminians are lesser Christians? Definitely not. Charles Spurgeon, a far more capable proponent of election than I, noted that two men he held in highest esteem were George Whitefield, a Calvinist, and John Wesley, an Arminian.

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. C. H. Spurgeon "A Defense of Calvinism" (middle of 3rd paragraph from the bottom)

For a similar perspective on this topic, I would commend to you a post by Mark Dever on the Together for the Gospel blog. In part he writes (emphasis his):

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals. It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Third, this doesn't mean we don't discuss, debate, and contend for our beliefs. But it is the kind of contention that allowed George Whitefield to rebuke John Wesley for Wesley's Arminianism, but then say that he did not expect to see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to the throne of God than Whitefield that Whitefield would not be able to see him.

Election is neither an essential doctrine, like justification by faith alone, nor is it a personal conviction issue, like whether Christians are allowed to partake of alcohol in moderation. Election and other doctrines which fall into this middle ground are doctrines which should be discussed. Therefore, the (admittedly difficult) task is to contend for our understanding of truth with a humble, irenic spirit.

Beyond Wading

2007-07-01T21:00:00.000-04:00

I'm not really an "art appreciation" kind of guy. Which is not to say I don't like paintings, and I even wish I could paint. I've watched the guy on PBS who can create a nature scene in 30 minutes and he makes it look easy. I still don't think I could do that.

Several years ago a group from the church I was attending in Dallas decided to spend a Saturday afternoon at the Dallas Museum of Art (the DMA). In the late '80s (referenced because I have not idea how the museums have changed in the last 20 years) I generally preferred the museum's in Fort Worth. They frequently had a more western theme. The DMA focused more on "modern" art and, I'm not looking for a lecture on art appreciation, I don't get it. For me, whether it is art, music, or literature, accessibility does not imply that the piece is less worthy, but that's a discussion for another time and place, perhaps.

Why I bring up the trip to the DMA is one painting had a significant impact on me. It was a large painting of a what I assumed to be the throne room for a great king. The room was in disarray, with the king slumped on his throne. At his feet on the stairs leading up to the throne was a woman with her head on his lap. Emotion radiated from the painting, and questions were raised.

What tragedy had befallen the king? Was it personal, or had the whole of the kingdom been affected? Was the woman the queen? I sympathized for the king and wanted to know more about what had occurred. Art, be it paintings, sculptures, stories, music, or otherwise, is at its best for me when it invokes a sense of wonder and stimulates a desire to know more.

At the end of Romans 9-11, after considering election, calling (both God calling us through the preached word and us responding by calling out to God for salvation by confession), and the relationship between Israel and Gentiles, Paul gets lost in doxology, expressing his sense of wonder at who God is. That doxology begins with:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

By saying God's judgments are unsearchable and that God's ways are inscrutable, I do not think Paul is telling us to not try to understand God. Yes, he is saying we will fail if our goal is to understand God fully. There are depths in those oceans that we will never plumb fully, even in eternity.

But that doesn't mean we should stay out of the water. In fact, I think Paul is encouraging us to get in the water and see just how magnificent our God is. Why spend more time talking about election? Because the Bible to me paints a wonder filled picture of who God is when the topic is discussed, and I want to know more. Election and the Trinity are both topics on which I dwell frequently because they are subjects that draw me into deeper waters and stir my soul to join Paul in doxology.

Doxology is fueled by theology and theology is made more potent by diving into the depths of revealed truth. In fact, I think to be all that we were made to be, we must grow in that revealed truth. A few passages I would encourage you to dwell on in this regard are Deuteronomy 29:29; Hosea 4:6; and Hebrews 5:11-6:2.

Breshears and Romans 9 - v.19-21

2007-06-30T23:30:00.000-04:00

In wrapping up this series on Dr. Breshears interpretation of Romans, I need to deal with his last two points, which focus first on the objection raised by Paul's anticipated antogonist, and the example of the potter and the clay.

Point Four

Point 4 in Dr. Breshears' paper is:

Verse 19: Who resists God's will? Idiots like Pharaoh! Learn from him that No one is so powerful that they can get away with resisting God's will.

Romans 9:19 reads:

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

I have two problems with this point, either of which would make Dr. Breshears' point four incorrect. First, why would the hypothetical questioner raise this objection if, as Dr. Breshears is claiming, Paul's point is that "God is persistent to bless His sinful people." In the audio Dr. Breshears seems to say that Paul's supposed antogonist is misinterpreting the Apostle in the same way Calvinists have misinterpreted him since the Reformation.

But look at the other hypothetical objections in Romans. In any of them, has the questioner been so wrong about what Paul had been saying? No, in these other hypothetical objections, the questioner has understood Paul's argument, but then misapplied what Paul had been saying (for example, grace is greater than sin is correct; that we should then sin more is a misapplication). This would not be the case in Romand 9 if Dr. Breshears is correct. Instead, the questioner would have a basic misunderstanding of what Paul is saying.

The second problem is best seen by moving on to point five, because the problem lies in the fact that Paul's answer does not resemble Dr. Breshears, but is a answer defending God's right as creator.

Point Five:

Point 5 in Dr. Breshears' paper is:

Verses 20-21: One lesson from the potter (Isa 45:9-11; Dan. 4:35, etc.) No one can charge God with injustice when He punishes the evildoer. The other lesson of the potter (Jer. 18:1-10): God persists in making ruined things beautiful again. Human response has significant impact on God's cursing/blessing. He responds to resistance and repentance.

Romans 9:20-21 reads:

20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

In order to say that Paul is not defending God's right to sovereignty over all aspects of His creation, Dr. Breshears says we can learn two things from the example of the potter. First, that God cannot be blamed for punishing evildoers (a great point) and that God makes ruined things beautiful again (another great point). But neither of these are the point of the potter story and even if they were, how do they serve to refute the hypothetical question of v.19 if, as Dr. Breshears claims, Paul's answer is that "idiots like Pharaoh resists God's will"? The potter example is much more relevant to the question of "If God sovereignly has mercy on some and hardens others, how then can He justly judge anyone?"

For example, Dr. Breshears lists Isaiah 45:9-11 as part of the Biblical picture of God as a potter. This passage is a prophecy of the Persian ruler Cyrus, who will be God's instrument in returning the Jews to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. Notice what Isaiah says about God's use of Cyrus:

"I have stirred him up in righteousness,and I will make all his ways level;he shall build my cityand set my exiles free,not for price or reward,”says the Lord of hosts.

This is not God reaching out to a rebellious leader, but God choosing Cyrus for a purpose long before Cyrus is even born. In other words, this is the potter making whatever he wants from the clay. Paul using the potter as an example of God's activity is not saying that "Idiots like Pharoah" resist God's will, but that God has control over the hearts of even men like Pharoah and Cyrus.

Conclusion:

Again, I think Dr. Breshears is correct that we need to come to the Scriptures admitting our biases. I like how he uses other Scriptures to interpret the passage he is studying. But I think he reaches an erroneous conclusion about Romans 9.

If one thing is missing from his approach, it is a comparison the what the church has believed about what a passage means. Rejecting all major interpretations, which Dr. Breshears seems to acknowledge he has done in the audio, requires a huge amount of evidence. Not only do I not see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of Dr. Breshears' interpretation, it seems to be reaching.

So what is the answer to the question of why we can trust Paul's statements in Romans 8 given the rejection of Israel? Because God's promises never were for all ethnic Israel, but only for a remnant called and preserved by God's gracious choice, the true Israel. This division can be seen in Isaac being chosen over Ishmael, in Jacob over Esau, and even in Pharaoh, who was chosen as an instrument to reveal God's glory not through repentance and faith, but through rebellion and hardness. God's choice stands, and those He has chosen in Christ are therfore secure.

Links to the previous posts: Introduction; The Big Picture; Points 1 and 2; Point 3

Cyberspace and Blogs

2007-06-29T16:23:00.001-04:00

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is one of the better (the best?) cultural critiques I've read (don't take my word for it - check out the review on Discerning Reader). This video is worth listening to the whole thing (it's an interview, the video portion isn't really needed), even if you don't agree with everything he says. I like the concluding question he says we need to ask, "Am I using this technology or is it using me?"

If 10 minutes is longer than you want to spend, then let the video load and watch from about 6:00 minutes remaining to 3:40 minutes remaining (however, by doing this you'll miss some thought provoking ideas).

I also like a related comment made by Os Guinness in a recent interview conducted on the White Horse Inn.

But it comes down in the rain or it comes from your mother's milk in this country. . . You take something as irrational currently as the blogs. Now the blogs are partly a useful counter check on the public media. But if you ever want an explosion, an orgy of irrationality and emotionality, look at the blogs. This is our world. A world of television, image, makeovers, blogs, impression management, and so on. We are living in a world that undermines truth at almost - every time you turn around.

If you do not know who Os Guinness is, or have never read any of his books, I highly recommend The Call. Others are equally good, like Prophetic Untimeliness or A Time for Truth.

Both of these come back to my love/hate relationship with technology. It provided the opportunity to hear the interviews with these two men, but it also demands so much time and attention. In Neil Postman's words, it is a Faustian bargain.

Breshears and Romans 9 - v.17-18

2007-06-24T12:57:00.000-04:00

The first three posts in this series were an introduction, a look at Dr. Breshears big picture, and then a look at his first two points which covered Romans 9:13-16. As a reminder, Dr. Breshears big picture statement is that Paul's point in Romans 9 is that "God is persistent to bless His sinful people" in answer to the hypothetical objection that could be raised by Paul's readers in response to Romans 8. The hypothetical objection is about how Paul could claim we cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus when Israel, God's chosen people, have been rejected.

I agree that it is this objection with which Paul is dealing in Romans 9-11. I also agree that the Bible is clear that God is persistent to bless his sinful people. I do not, however, believe this is the substance of Paul's argument in Romans 9. Instead, I'm defending the historic understanding of the passage which states that Paul's argument is that God's choice is not based on any human distinction, including ancestry, but only on His will.

Point Three:

Point 3 in Dr. Breshears paper is:

Verses 17-18: God hardened Pharaoh's heart, not by a secret working but by facing him with grace, the call to repentance reinforced by miracles so strong that the magicians repented. Even Pharaoh repented temporarily, proving he could do it (Ex. 8:8-15)!

Romans 9:17-18 reads:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

I could here get into a long discussion about the fact that the vast majority of "Calvinists" understand God's sovereignty as not denying but affirming God's use of secondary causes. But let me get at what is the main issue for me in this point. Pharaoh repented? I don't see this in Exodus. Pharaoh, in an attempt to stop the plague of the frogs, tells Moses he will let the people go worship. But is that repentance?

Let's assume John Doe is having an affair with Suzie Smith. They are in a restaurant's and John thinks he sees his wife Jane walk by outside. John is shocked and excuses himself from the table. In the bathroom, he tells God that if Jane has not see him with Suzie, he will break off the affair. He calls Jane on his cell phone and she is home. After calming down, John realizes in a quick glance he had mistaken someone else for Jane. He returns to the table and Suzie. Did he repent? I don't think so. Not in the Biblical sense, anyway.

True repentance looks like this in the Bible (Daniel 4:34-37):

34At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”

36At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. 37Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

Notice that Nebuchadnezzar, even after the judgment had been lifted, continues to praise God. That is Biblical repentance. Pharaoh makes no attempt to humble himself, apart from asking Moses to intercede, and ascribes nothing to God in the manner of Nebuchadnezzar. Then, as soon as the frogs are gone, he's back to his old stance.

Also compare Pharaoh to the king of Nineveh and look at the difference between the "repentance" of the two (and I'm not sure the king of Nineveh's repentance goes as far as saving faith). I don't think Moses or Paul viewed Pharaoh's momentary frustration as true repentance.

Instead, Paul uses Pharaoh as the opposite of Jacob. Paul had said God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Now Paul is telling us that God will harden whom He will harden. God's word has not failed in respect to Israel because like Pharaoh it was always God's plan that a large number of them would be hardened. It is only the remnant that are saved. That is difficult for us to reconcile with the modern evangelical picture of God, but look at what God tells Isaiah his mission is (Isaiah 6:9-10):

9And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

“ ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

This passage is quoted by Jesus in response to the question of why He spoke in parables. Jesus says that the Israelites of His time are the fulfillment of this passage.

Therefore, Jacob and Pharaoh are not to be seen as isolated, special cases. They are normative to our understanding of how God works in the lives of people. All of us deserve eternal punishment. On some He has compassion, and on some He hardens us in our sin. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?"

This post is long enough. If the Lord should will, we shall address that question in a post in the near future.

Breshears and Romans 9 - v.13-16

2007-06-23T09:07:00.000-04:00

The first two posts in this series were a general introduction and then a discussion of Dr. Breshear's "Big Picture" by looking at Romans 9:1-12. In his paper "Why Do So Many People Want to Be Calminian?" (see link at the end of this post) Dr. Breshears has five points under his big picture statement. As a reminder, this statement is: "God is persistent to bless His sinful people". Since I think I've failed to do so to this point, let me emphatically state that I agree that God is persistent to bless His sinful people. I just don't think this is the message of Paul in Romans 9.

Point One:

Point 1 in Dr. Breshears paper is:

Verse 13 is quoted from Malachi 1:2-3, not Genesis 24. God will continue to lovingly protect his chosen people (Jacob) no matter who their enemies (Esau/Edom) are.

Romans 9:13 reads:

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The point Dr. Breshears is making seems to be that in Romans 9:13 the focus is not the individuals, but the nations. The way Dr. Breshears puts this in the audio is:

"God loves Israel . . . hardened, blatant sinners off into exile and death, and protects them from their enemies, even when they, the enemies, are brothers. When you look at this from Malachi, that's talking about God protecting His people from enemies."

Therefore, in answering the question of why we can trust God to be faithful to his promises given that He has seemingly rejected Israel, Paul is saying that God continued to defend Israel (Jacob) even though they had been so bad that He had to exile them and even though their adversaries were their own relatives. The rejection then, I assume Dr. Breshears would say, came only after a long period of Israel turning away from God. This would seem to fit well with what Paul will say later in warning the Gentiles that they too could be cast off for lack of faith.

First, is what Dr. Breshears says a valid representation of Malachi? Close, but realize that the people have already returned from exile and are back in the land. God's love is shown to them not in protection, but in the fact that they are being allowed to rebuild, while Edom (the descendants of Esau) will not be allowed to rebuild. I will grant that this does not significantly change Dr. Breshears point.

Second, what we see here is that God's choice of Jacob over Esau has lasting consequences. But that choice was not based anything in either of them (Dr. Breshears agrees with this in the audio). So the point in Malachi, it seems to me, is that God's calling of Jacob stands. Yes, God does pursue His people even when they are rebellious, but He is not pursuing Esau because they are not His chosen people.

Point Two:

Point 2 in Dr. Breshears paper is:

Verses 14-16: No one can (or needs to) earn God's mercy. It's His character to give it. (Ex. 33:19; 34:6-7)

Romans 9:14-16 reads:

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Dr. Breshears sees this as an extended statement on God's unrelenting mercy. While that is present in these verses, it does not seem to be the point of these verses. The hinge is verse 14 and the theoretical accusation that Paul is answering about whether or not God is unjust. To understand this passage in manner that Dr. Breshears lays it out, I would have to assume that the accusation is something like: "But Paul, how can God be merciful to rebellious people. Justice demands that He punish them."

While that is a potential objection to Paul, I see two reasons that it is not the objection being raised. First, Paul has already dealt with this objection in Romans 3:21-26 where he tells us God can be both just and justifier because of the work of Jesus. Second, I do not see this as being the objection Paul answers in v.15-16. The objection that Paul answers is: "But Paul, how can it be just that God would chose Jacob (and his descendants) over Esau (and his descendants) with no reference to what they had done?"

Paul's answer is that it is not unjust because God has the right to make those choices. This point becomes clear with the verses that follow that will be discussed in the next post. But note here that Paul's reference is back to Moses asking God to show him His glory. As you are probably aware, God does allow Moses to see His back, but not His face. But the immediate response in words is that God is gracious, but it is His prerogative on whom that graciousness is bestowed. So God's grace is never bestowed on the basis of human works, and God is not unjust in choosing Jacob over Esau before either had done good works.

Before I close, let me state again that while I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate Dr. Breshears approach to understanding the Scriptures. He reads the context and looks back at the context of the Old Testament quotations. We need to be more disciplined about our approach to studying the Bible. May God motivate us to be so.

Additional Note:

The link to Dr. Breshears paper is (cut and paste this into your browsers address bar):

www.westernseminary.edu/papers/Faculty/ETS%2006%20Breshears%20Cal.doc

Hyperlinking does not seem to work for this address because blogger recognizes the %20 as a space and substitutes them, which messes up the link. If anyone knows a solution, I'd love to know.

Breshears and Romans 9 - The Big Picture

2007-06-22T20:30:00.000-04:00

As I noted in the previous post, Dr. Breshears premise is that we have been misreading Paul's argument in Romans 9. Instead of a traditional Reformed understanding that Romans 9 focuses on God's sovereignty, he states that Romans 9 is about God being "persistent to bless His sinful people." Does this fit in the flow of Paul's teaching in Romans.

Romans chapter 8 contains some of the most comforting and security building words in all of Scripture especially in the grand conclusion of v.31-39. It is generally assumed that when Paul begins Romans 9 with a discussion of Israel, he is anticipating an objection to what he has been saying. The objection would go something like this: "Paul, you claim that we cannot be separated from the love of Christ, but what about Israel? They were God's covenant people, but have they not been cast off in favor of the Gentiles? How then can you affirm that God's love does not fail?"

I believe that Paul is dealing with the spirit of this objection not only in Romans 9, but all the way through to Romans 11. In other words, Romans 8 closed out Paul's primary discussion about how the gospel is the power of God for salvation. But before he can turn to how we live now that we have and are experiencing the gospel's power, he needs to deal with the subject of how the rejection of Israel and the grafting in of the Gentiles does not violate his affirmation of God's unfailing love.

Dr. Breshears says that the way Paul answers the objection is to say that God's love has not failed, and the he repeated and continually reaches out to sinful people who continue to reject Him. Therefore, God is not at fault and cannot be blamed. We are at fault for rejecting God and are to be blamed. But does this fit with what Paul says in Romans 9?

In the first five verses, Paul expresses his deep sorrow over Israel's continued rejection of Jesus, and then (v.4-5) explains all the benefits they were given. So far, this would seem to accord well with what Dr. Breshears has proposed as Paul's argument. Let's look more closely at Paul's words in Romans 9:6-13:

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Again, Paul is defending his premise that those who belong to Christ cannot be separated from His love. So in v.6 he tells us that God's word has not failed in respect to Israel. Why can he say this? Because "not all who are descened from Israel belong to Israel." In other words, just because a person was a member of the ethnic people of Israel did not make them a child of God. Paul will begin to bring the argument to a close (Romans 11:4) by referring to God telling Elijah that “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In other words, it has never been all of Israel to which the promise had come, but the remnant.

Paul reinforces this point in Romans 9 by noting it was only to Isaac, the son of promise, that true sonship is conferred. Ishmael and his descendants were not chosen. But Paul is clear that this is not about one line of physical descendants versus another line of physical descendants. It is about what the two lines represent. One child is to represent all those who are born of the flesh. The other child (Isaac) represents the children of the promise (Paul develops this analogy more fully in Galatians 4:21-31), that is those who are born by the work of God not by the effort of man. What v.6-9 are saying is that word of God has not failed because it was only intended for the children of the promise, not the children of the flesh.

In v.10-13 Paul shows that this continues to be true in the next generation. A distinction is made between Esau and Jacob. Why? Not because of anything in them. As Dr. Breshears notes, neither is the kind of boy you would want your daughter to bring home. Esau's god is his appetite and Jacob is a schemer. Does this then say that Paul is using the two of them to show that God continues to stretch out His hand to sinful people who reject Him?

That's not what Paul says the reason is. Paul says this was done "in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call." Well, you might think, this just means that God did this so that his purpose of electing and calling Abraham might continue. Perhaps, but the point is that Jacob is chosen, not on the basis of works, to be the one through whom the promise would continue.

Dr. Breshears would likely argue that Jacob's calling was effectual, but that such events are unique (see point C1 in the linked paper in the previous post). Whether this choice of Jacob should be seen as normative or exceptional we shall discuss in a later post. My point here is in respect to Dr. Breshears big picture. Paul does not say that God reached out to two sinful men and ultimately chose one to preserve His purpose of calling Abraham. Paul is saying that as with Isaac and Ishmael, God made a clear distinction about to whom the promises applied and through whom His purposes will be fulfilled.

So, why does God's present rejection of Israel not negate what Paul says in Romans 8? Because, the promise was never to all of the physical descendants of Abraham, but only to the children of promise. These are the remnant. The ones chosen, called, and kept by God (see Romans 8:29-30). Therefore God's word has not failed.

Next: Points one and two in Dr. Breshears paper covering Romans 9:13-16.

Breshears and Romans 9 - Intro

2007-06-21T22:01:00.000-04:00

If you subscribe to the Resurgence podcast, then you may have listened to a message by Gerry Breshears from the 2004 Reformission Conference on Romans Chapter 9. If you have not, it may be worth listening to before you read this, though hopefully not absolutely required. The blurb for the message on the Resurgence site says this:

The following audio is from a breakout session with Dr. Gerry Breshears, professor at Western Seminary, at the Reformission Conference in Seattle, WA 2004. Dr. Breshears demonstrates that Romans 9 shows the persistence of God to bless his people (Israel) despite their hardness of heart. What we see is that no one is messed up too much where God can not redeem them and God can do what he wants. What is uncovered in Romans 9 is that everyone resists God's will and the Lord is the persistent one that extends mercy to his people. In this mp3 Dr. Breshears really uses this seminar to encourage folks to read their Bibles more as they get to difficult passage instead of just resorting to commentaries. Helpful advice from a seasoned theologian and practitioner.

I have to admit it is an interesting listen. I have to admit that I do see in Scripture that God is persistent in blessing people and people are resisting God's call. Dr. Breshears is also correct in a concluding warning that if we come to Scripture with a preconceived framework that we have not acknowledged, we will work to fit the passage into that framework. Instead we should acknowledge our preconceptions and allow the passage to modify the framework if the passage does not fit the framework.

In his analysis of Romans 9, Dr. Breshears argues, per the blurb above, that the historic Reformed understanding of Romans 9 is incorrect. Instead, he proposed an alternative understanding. A more recent statement of that understanding is available in a paper on the Western Seminary website (if this hyperlink does not work, see link at the end of this post). In it, he puts the difference this way:

The Big Picture of Romans 9: "God is persistent to bless His sinful people," rather than "God sovereignly shapes anyone He wants any way He wants any time He wants."

While I appreciate much of what Dr. Breshears has to say about our need to read Scripture so as to let Scripture inform our theology instead of imposing our theology on Scripture, I think his interpretation of this passage is incorrect. To demonstrate this I will spend a few posts looking at the "big picture" statement and the five statements about Romans 9 from the paper above. These are summary statements, and to get a better understanding of them you might want to listen to the audio from the Resurgence.

Let me emphasize that I think Dr. Breshears is a Christian brother. I am not calling him unfaithful, a heretic, or anything else along those lines. I think he is mistaken in his interpretation of Romans 9, and I think it will be good for me to work through the details. But I have no doubt about who (and its not me) is making a bigger impact for the kingdom of God.

So if you care to join me, put on some waders because the water (and hopefully only the water) might get deep.

Addendum: apparently the hyperlink to Dr. Breshears paper is not working because blogger recognizes the %20 as a space and substitutes them for spaces, which messes up the link. If anyone knows a solution, I'd love to know. In the meantime, the actual link is:

www.westernseminary.edu/papers/Faculty/ETS%2006%20Breshears%20Cal.doc

(cut and paste this into your browsers address bar)

. . . And Now for Something Completely Different

2007-06-20T21:09:00.001-04:00

(HT: Tim Challies)

There is a site that let's you make your own version of those fancy motivational posters you see in office superstores (and, I assume therefore, in some offices). So I took it for a spin:

Yes, that's a comic book character (and a rather obscure one at that).

The font I picked for this one is almost unreadable at small size. It says "Brighten the World with Your Glowing Personality." For those who know me, that is not a self-portrait.

. . .

It's my grandfather.

Every serious Star Trek fan is now laughing. Everyone else (and most of the serious Star Trek fans) are now thinking I'm an uber-geek. Star Trek and comic books in one post - Yikes! But, I'm sure Mr. Spock would say this whole post has been "Fascinating" (or maybe not). If you want to try your own hand, click on the title to this post.

Oh, and Uncle Fester and I are not really related, we are just twin sons of different mothers.

Paradoxical Teachers

2007-06-19T22:29:00.000-04:00

Why, if as I proposed in the last post, if all real spiritual knowledge only comes from being taught by God, did I even bother posting the last post? In fact, doesn't the Bible tell us that there are those gifted by the Holy Spirit to be teachers, which would mean my previous post falls flat on its face?

I don't think so. I have to acknowledge that if pushed to an extreme, my last post would essentially lead one into a hyper-Calvinistic stance. Contrary to some popular opinion, a hyper-Calvinist is not simply someone who believes in predestination (that's ordinary Calvinism, and does not require that one deny the necessity of evangelism). A hyper-Calvinist believes so strongly that only God can "teach" us in a way that brings us to salvation, that man should not preach the gospel in a manner that calls the lost to be saved.

I want to affirm here the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which states (3.1):

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)

God's sovereignty over all things is exercised in such a way that the necessity of the actions of others is required. [Let me restate that with connections to the WCF: God's sovereignty over all things (whatsoever comes to pass) is exercised in such a way that the necessity (contingency) of the actions of others (second causes) is required (established).]

In relationship to the topic at hand of teachers, they are frequently the agents of God's act of revealing Himself to us. The primary tool that God uses to reveal Himself is the Scriptures, and we can learn from God by studying the Scriptures on our own. But God has gifted some to be teachers of the Scriptures so that through them we might learn more about Him.

God Draws

2007-06-17T21:15:00.000-04:00

In a recent posts over at Craver's blog (see link on the right) he has been discussing T.U.L.I.P. and election. [TULIP is an acrostic for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Otherwise commonly known as the five points of Calvinism.] In comments over there I made mention of John 6:44-45. I want to take a little time here to have a deeper look at John 6 and how it relates to a Reformed understanding of salvation.

As background, when I talk about salvation, while I think we are saved from many things by Jesus, I am primarily referring to being saved from the wrath of God. Some don't like to see salvation in terms of the wrath of God, but Paul says it is God's wrath that is coming on the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6) and it is God's wrath from which he says Jesus delivers us (1 Thessalonians 1:10 - see also 2:16). I believe, therefore, that the Bible is clear that we all deserve the wrath of God. We do not deserve and we cannot earn salvation. God is obligated to save no one and would be perfectly just to condemn everyone to Hell. That He does save anyone is completely undeserved mercy. So if God chooses to save none, one, ten, a hundred, a great multitude, or all, He could do so and still be righteous.

Context

John 6 begins with John's account of the feeding of the 5000. The result of this is that the crowd wants to force Jesus to become king, so He slips away. The disciples enter a boat and begin to cross the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus walks across the water to meet them. The crowd therefor has to search to find Him the next day, and when they do Jesus rebukes them for seeking Him only for the food he provided (there's a message in this for many evangelical Christians, including me).

As part of this rebuke, Jesus tells the crowd that He is the bread from Heaven (the true manna). Then in v. 37 He makes the following pronouncement:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Briefly, three of the five points in T.U.L.I.P. can be seen in this verse, if not completely established - (1) the Father gives is an expression of election; (2) that these will come is an expression of effectual calling (irresistible grace); and (3) that Jesus will never cast out is an expression of eternal security (perseverance of the saints). The last point receives additional support from the verses that follow.

Central Passage

The crowd is stirred up by what Jesus has said about being the bread of life. In response to the crowd's unrest, Jesus utters the following (John 6:43-45):

43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

After commanding the crowd not to grumble at what He had said, Jesus then adds four things:

(1) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
(2) And I will raise him up on the last day.
(3) It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’
(4) Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

Let's consider each statement.

(1) Jesus tells the crowd that not only is it true that those that the Father gives come to Him (v. 37), but that no one comes apart from the drawing of the Father. This is the other boundary to v.37. All that the Father gives come, and none come that the Father does not give.

Some would disagree with that and interpret drawing here as the Father "wooing" us. They would claim that this is reference to a general call that goes out to everyone. In other words, the Father draws everyone, but not everyone comes. But the word draw here that John uses is the picture of water being drawn from a well. If you have never had the pleasure of drinking water drawn fresh from a well, fresh, cold water from a deep well is a great pleasure; but the water has no participation in being drawn and cannot refuse to be drawn. It is the work of the drawer which makes the water come.

Leon Morris in his commentary on John writes of the word "draw":

“There is not one example in the New Testament of the use of this verb where the resistance is successful. Always the drawing power is triumphant, as here.”

Those uses include John 18:10; 21:6-11; and Acts 16:19.

(2) Also, Jesus is clear that one who is drawn is saved. The evidence is in the assurance that they will be resurrected. So being drawn is not a momentary attraction to Jesus; it does not refer to those who may follow Him for a time and then leave - as many in this crowd and throughout the centuries have done (1 John 2:19) - but to those who are truly saved. None can come according to (1) apart from the Father's drawing, but those who do come are raised. Jesus is restating v. 37 to say that not only is it certain that all those given will come, but it is only the ones given who come.

(3) Jesus now turns to the Scriptures and quotes Isaiah. In the context of Isaiah this is a promise to the the Suffering Servant (Jesus) that every one of His children will be taught by God. Jesus is saying that Isaiah's prophecy is being fulfilled in Him, and therefore the Father teaches those who are truly disciples.

(4) And as all the children are taught by the Father according to (3), so, Jesus says, everyone who hears and learns comes to Him. James Boice says this about this verse in his commentary on John:

Why is it that you and I can present the gospel to some people and never seem to get anywhere, even when the circumstances seem entirely favorable? And why is it that others with maximum problems and limited understanding believe? The only answer is that God has taught the one person and has not taught the other. Moreover, all whom God has taught do come to Jesus.

Think about it this way. There are two boys who grow up together and have largely the same experiences. Both of them hear the gospel proclaimed and one responds and becomes a Christian while the other one rejects the gospel. Why? Why does one receive the good news when the other one rejects the good news?

You have two basic options. Either Jesus is saying here that only one is taught by God and therefore only one comes to faith, or He is saying that both are taught by God and only one hears and learns though God attempted to teach both. But if the latter is true, then there is something in the one that receives the gospel that allows him to be able to hear and makes him a better learner. So either salvation is all of God, or the one boy received the gospel because of something in himself - he contributed to his salvation.

Pulling It Together

Notice that in v. 37 and 44 the singular activity of people is coming to Jesus. All other activities are done (or not done) by Jesus or the Father. The Father gives, the Son does not cast out. The Father draws and the Son raises. The emphasis is on what God does. God is the primary actor in salvation.

But are there not some that are drawn but do not come? Does not the Bible say that many are called, but few chosen? Sure, some hear the gospel call and do not respond. But Jesus is not talking about the call that is given in evangelism. That call is an activity of man. Jesus is speaking about the work of the Father.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Not some that the Father gives, but all that the Father gives come. And none can come apart from the Father drawing them to Jesus. How is this drawing done? The parallel in v.45 says that those who come are those who learn from the Father. What do we learn? Much, but especially that we are sinners under His wrath who only find safety by hiding in Jesus and His righteousness.

A Word of Application for Young (and Some Old) Calvinists

It is frequently charged that Reformed Christians are arrogant and prideful. Too often this has been true. I have seen it in myself and others. Once my eyes were open to see election in the Scriptures, I could not understand why others did not see it. I was sure with the enough time and preparation, I could teach them.

But if we grasp what Jesus says here (that salvation is all of God and election is marked by learning from God), then I have no grounds for any boasting. Let us assume for a moment that regardless of how well I have defended the doctrine of election, that it is the truth. Then what I know I know not because I'm smarter, more spiritual, or better in any way than any one else. I know whatever I truly know about Jesus and my salvation because the Father has chosen to teach me about Jesus and my salvation. In spiritual matters, we are all terrible students. But God is a great teacher, and can overcome even my learning disability.

This does not mean we are not to study and think (I have other posts around here that deal with that, I think). But it means our study should be saturated in prayer and it means our knowledge should be wrapped in humility. For apart from God revealing Himself to us, we could know nothing.

Praise be to Him who has shown the light of the gospel into our darkened hearts.

Filler Videos

2007-06-16T13:24:00.000-04:00

I'm working on a post that isn't cooperating (which is perhaps the only way blogs are nicer than preaching and teaching - if it hasn't come together it can cook a while longer). In the meantime, take a look at these:

This is from the same message as the previous Piper video I shared.

I've been thinking about Scripture since the PCRT conference this year. The following from Alistair Begg speaks to this issue.

This is RC Sproul discussing the significance of the Bible to the Reformation. This is something of an ad for the Reformation Study Bible (ESV), but there is enough content here to make it worth viewing.

PCA SBC

2007-06-13T22:43:00.001-04:00

I was going to post some more extended thoughts on election spurred by Craver's post (see link in previous post), but I want to pause for a moment and reflect on the significance of this day. Two major conservative denominations (yes, I know the SBC does not consider itself a denomination - phhhhht) had major days today. The Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention are both in the middle of annual meetings.

The SBC today rejected to even consider Tom Ascol's motion on Integrity in Church Membership. If you are interested in the details you can check Tom's post, but I think it sad that the SBC is not even willing to discuss the issue. The reports that are coming out of the annual convention this year are not encouraging that the divisions from last year's convention are healing.

The big news out of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly today was the adoption of the report on the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision (NPP/FV). Justin Taylor provides some links to information on the report. What this will mean for the PCA remains to be seen, but it is unlikely the end of the controversy over these issues.

We should pray for both denominations. Doctrinal error must be confronted, but as "evangelicals" we already have a bad reputation in our culture. How we handle these internal disputes can easily reinforce current perceptions. We would do well to heed the admonition of Tom Wells on how to deal with controversy. In the linked article, he quotes J. C. Ryle:

Controversy in religion is a hateful thing.
It is hard enough to fight the devil,
the world, and the flesh,
without private differences in our own camp—
But there is one thing
which is even worse than controversy,
and that is false doctrine tolerated,
allowed, and permitted without
protest or molestation ...
Three things there are which men
never ought to trifle with:
a little poison,
a little false doctrine,
and a little sin.

May God bring peace and unity to His people around the truth of His word.

Nuthin'

2007-06-12T22:37:00.000-04:00

That's what I got right now. Nuthin'

I would commend to you Gerry Breshears on the Emerging Church. Yes, it is long, but I found it very helpful.

If you're looking for a primer on Reformed Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), check this out from Craver. Even though I like Particular Redemption over Limited Atonement. And Effectual Calling over Irresistible Grace. And I'm split over Perseverance versus Preservation of the Saints. But T.U.L.I.P. is so much easier to remember.

And if you spend most of your time in a pew as opposed to behind a pulpit, Even So has a good reminder for you (and me, too).

Down Time

2007-06-08T21:07:00.000-04:00

Okay, after the class I mentioned in the last text post, I have had some down time this past week. I took vacation days last Thursday and Friday, and have not done much since turning in my final assignment a week ago Thursday night. Down time included playing Gears of War with my nephew one night (later probably than a geezer like me should be up). If you don't know what Gears of War is, this might give you an idea (this is the area of the game we are at) WARNING: The following video is violent, gory, and contains bad language; it's also a bit long:

We played through on casual difficulty shortly after the game came out, and are now (slowly) making our way through on insane difficulty. I don't know if we'll be able to beat Raam (the final "boss") or not as I'm a significant liability for my nephew.

During the down time I did, however, finish this book (which was borrowed from the aforementioned nephew):

Book page at Amazon

An interesting read. As the editor (Robert Webber) notes in the conclusion, only Driscoll writes in language that is easily decipherable as theology to most reformed or evangelical Christians. I'm not sure that I would encourage everyone to pick this up. It is a little different than a lot of the 4 or 5 views books I've read. There really doesn't seem to be as much interaction in the responses. It's somewhat encouraging that the discussion seems to be civil, but it is almost too civil. Just about everyone (with the exception of Driscoll) does not engage enough to know where they stand.

Which brings me to a message from the Resurgence Podcast titled The Studious Saint from the Reformission 2004 conference that I listened to this week. The speaker is Chris Seay, about whom I have heard mixed things. But I was encouraged by this message. There is a call to stand on our convictions. Worth a listen, I think, even if you don't agree with everything that is said.

We need to learn to discuss our differences without people getting upset. I did a poor job of that this week. One "discussion" turned into an argument and my only goal was to win. The answer is not what I think most of the contributors to Listening would say, which is that we should all just get along. Instead I think we must learn to discuss our differences, particularly who hold to the essentials of the faith, fairly narrowly defined, without going "Gears" on one another.

Hard Words, True Words

2007-06-07T21:26:00.000-04:00

Sometimes it is better simply to be silent and let another speak. Like now.

Sovereign Gospel

2007-05-29T20:43:00.000-04:00

I've been taking this class along with three other people from Grace and Peace. In the final week's reading was this quote:

"'The gospel has a sovereignty of its own and is never an instrument in the hands of the evangelist.' The good news is not ours to feel superior about or to use as a tool or a weapon. It is not our story; it is God's story." (Bryant Myers in Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development quoting Lesslie Newbigin on p. 216)

There is a sense in which the gospel is our story. Luther said that the pronouns make all the difference in the gospel - e.g. Jesus died for me. Luther was getting at the fact that we must see and experience the gospel personally, as, in a sense, our story.

But the quote is concerned not with how we experience the gospel, but who has ownership of the gospel. I see two implications/applications from this idea that the gospel has its own sovereignty. First, in regard to the Gospel not being a tool in the hands of the evangelist, the sovereignty of the gospel has been increasingly lost in America since at least the Second Great Awakening. The preacher/evangelist became the focus of the activity and the power of the gospel was downplayed.

Charles Finney's focus on methodology has had a serious negative impact on our preaching and teaching. This is seen in those who do not preach the whole counsel of God out of concern that the message will not be received. Instead of the message the emphasis is put on methods. The sovereignty of the gospel is not recognized either in the fact that we do not have the right to change it nor does it need to be changed to have an transform lives.

This is not to say that preaching today must be of one particular style, a monotone without emotion. If God used men to write Scripture such that the writings are stamped with personalities and passions of the human authors, then we should expect that the personalities and passions of preachers will come through the preached word as well. But the content of the message must not change in favor of what is perceived as more palatable (attractive) content.

Second, whether we would verbalize it or not, we tend to think and act like we are the caretakers of the gospel. We are like John wanting Jesus to act because someone who is not part of our circle is casting out demons. We are the enlightened and the gospel becomes a tool in our hands to exalt ourselves above the "heathen" (and we get to define who the "heathen" are). This attitude is not only misguided, but dangerous. It is the attitude of the Pharisees.

So long as people are not deny core truths (e.g. the Galatian heresy adding Law to gospel, or denials of the resurrection as addressed in 1 Corinthians 15), we cannot sit in judgment over them. We can, and should, dialog on matters of disagreement and try to come to the unity of the faith. But the gospel is sovereign enough not only over itself, but also over the human heart, so that it can work despite my lack of understanding and my false ideas. Therefore, I have to believe it can do the same for others.

If we want to fully participate in what Jesus is doing in these last days, then like John we are going to have to learn that He will use those not like us. Sometimes he will even use those that we may think should be stopped. Paul was even willing to rejoice in the proclamation of the gospel by those who were motivated out of a desire to see him afflicted.

Because the gospel is sovereign, and we are to be subject.

In Memory

2007-05-27T23:24:00.000-04:00

James Beal
April 4, 1926 - January 28, 2000

Sarah Beal
July 10, 1925 - March 2, 2001

Jason Beal
January 16, 1975 - January 15, 2000

Dad served during both World War II (in Europe) and in Korea.
Jason, my nephew, died while on duty as an Indiana State Trooper (Jason is third from the bottom on this link).
Mom served by waiting while her husband, one of her sons (Gene, Jason's dad, in Viet Nam), and Jason put themselves in harm's way for others.

Christmas 1999

I found the following from a thank you card I had made after Dad's death for those who had displayed Jesus' compassion to our family.

These have been dark days of sorrow for us, and we would have been overwhelmed, had the Lord not been gracious to us. We are thankful for people whom God has used as His hands and His voice in these days.

May all who know Jesus be His body to those who are lost and hurting, particularly on this day of rememberance.

What Is Worship?

2007-05-26T22:27:00.000-04:00

My temptation is not to tell you who is in this video (though some, I presume would know) because for some who says it might ruin what is said. From what I know of Brian McLaren's theology, I disagree with some with him on what I would consider core doctrines. With that said:

As a new believer, I remember listening to a sermon about worship and righting a question in the notes I was taking, "What is worship?" I did not come up with a great answer then, and now over 20 years later I'm still not sure I can give a great answer. I'm also convinced I'm not alone. Part of the reason, I think, is what McLaren is addressing. Worship in many churches is as much about putting on the right face, if you know what I mean, as it is about declaring the glory of God.

So, given that, whatever you think of Brian McLaren, watch the following and answer this: What do you agree and/or disagree with? Also, what is true worship?

Isaiah and the Nations

2007-05-18T17:52:00.000-04:00

The Tuesday night study group of which I'm a part has been studying Isaiah. We are planning a break for a few weeks from Isaiah and are going to use some Q&A from Redeemer and Tim Keller as a way to talk about a wide variety of subjects (Redeemer's website has been redesigned and if the Q&A audio is still available I cannot locate it).

In wrapping up Isaiah for a few weeks we concluded with Isaiah 21. For the last several chapters, Isaiah has been writing "oracles" (ESV translation) against foreign nations. As part of our (temporary) wrap-up, we discussed why God would have Isaiah deliver all these oracles to all these nations. Three reasons were discussed, each of which are major themes in Isaiah.

Reason one is that God takes all sin seriously. The majority of the oracles are prophecies of coming judgment. How God is going to use, typically, another nation to destroy the nation being prophesied against because of their wickedness. We see similar judgments offered by other prophets (perhaps most famously Jonah against Nineveh). God will judge all sin, whether by those who have His word, or those who don't. In Romans 2, Paul puts it this way:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Reason two that Isaiah spends so much time on the nations is to show that God is sovereign. In that time it was supposed that local deities controlled only the affairs of specific areas. One could judge how strong a deity was by how far that deity could extend the control the people that worshiped him (or her or it). Through Isaiah God is declaring that the idols of the nations are nothing. Yahweh is declaring the fall of these other nations not to be the work of the deity of the conquering nation or their god, but His work. The nations should not fear idols, but the true and living God. Regarding the idols of Babylon Isaiah (21:9) writes:

9 And behold, here come riders,

horsemen in pairs!”

And he answered,

“Fallen, fallen is Babylon;

and all the carved images of her gods

he has shattered to the ground.”

Similarly, Isaiah (19:1) had earlier pronounced judgment on Egypt and her idols:

1 An oracle concerning Egypt.

Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud

and comes to Egypt;

and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence,

and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

It matters not whether the nations are small like Philistia or Moab, or great and powerful like Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon. God is sovereign and will do His will in their midst (Isaiah 14:26-27):

26 This is the purpose that is purposed

concerning the whole earth,

and this is the hand that is stretched out

over all the nations.

27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed,

and who will annul it?

His hand is stretched out,

and who will turn it back?

Reason three that Isaiah deals with the nations is God's love for all His creation. In the midst of displaying His judgment, God shows that His sovereignty will reach out to those who are far from Him and bring them near. Of Egypt, who had long been an oppressor of God's people, Isaiah (19:20) writes:

20 It will be a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the Lord because of oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and deliver them.

Eventually, regarding the Suffering Servant, Isaiah (49:6) will write:

6 he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

God through Isaiah is telling us that sin is no minor matter and that we cannot escape His judgment unless we can find refuge in His lovingkindness. One day, those who have done so, people from every tribe and tongue and nation, will together worship the Lamb, God's Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) Jesus.

God Moves

2007-05-18T17:26:00.000-04:00

In part due to a discussion elsewhere, I have been thinking about William Cowper. Cowper is best known, at least in Baptist circles, for the hymn "There Is a Fountain" but my favorite is "God Moves in a Mysterious Way". Cowper struggled through several periods of severe depression in his life, to the point of attempting suicide. He had experienced the dread of cloudy days, had seen God's frowning face of providence, and tasted the bitter bud.

Should we experience the kind of despair that Cowper experienced? I proposed in "These Days" that we have a better witness if we display the joy of our salvation. But I don't want to minimize the fact that believers will at times walk through very dark and difficult days. We see this in many Psalms, especially in Psalm 88, the "black sheep of the Psalter."

1O Lord, God of my salvation;
I cry out day and night before you.
2Let my prayer come before you;
incline your ear to my cry!

3For my soul is full of troubles,
and my life draws near to Sheol.
4I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
I am a man who has no strength,
5like one set loose among the dead,
like the slain that lie in the grave,
like those whom you remember no more,
for they are cut off from your hand.
6You have put me in the depths of the pit,
in the regions dark and deep.
7Your wrath lies heavy upon me,
and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah

8You have caused my companions to shun me;
you have made me a horror to them.
I am shut in so that I cannot escape;
9my eye grows dim through sorrow.
Every day I call upon you, O Lord;
I spread out my hands to you.
10Do you work wonders for the dead?
Do the departed rise up to praise you? Selah
11Is your steadfast love declared in the grave,
or your faithfulness in Abaddon?
12Are your wonders known in the darkness,
or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

13But I, O Lord, cry to you;
in the morning my prayer comes before you.
14O Lord, why do you cast my soul away?
Why do you hide your face from me?
15Afflicted and close to death from my youth up,
I suffer your terrors; I am helpless.
16Your wrath has swept over me;
your dreadful assaults destroy me.
17They surround me like a flood all day long;
they close in on me together.
18You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me;
my companions have become darkness.

In other Psalms that start similarly, the Psalmist always comes to an affirmation of God's final deliverance. Not here. The Psalmist knows the bitterest despair (though still he prays).

Though not explicitly a Messianic Psalm, in reading this I cannot help but reflect on the night of Jesus' betrayal, arrest, and ultimate abandonment by His friends. Notice three particular statements here, though we could look at others as well.

First, the Psalmist says his soul is full of trouble and he is about to die. In Matthew 26:38, Jesus tells Peter, James and John, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me."

Second, the Psalmist says that his friends shun him and see him as a horror. All the disciples flee at the arrest (though John has returned by the crucifixion) and Peter denies Jesus three times.

But, third, in Jesus we find the answer to the Psalmist's question:

10Do you work wonders for the dead?
Do the departed rise up to praise you? Selah

If Heman is the one mentioned in Chronicles, then the answer would not come for hundreds of years, but the question was answered. Yes, God does work wonders for the dead. Yes, the departed have (Jesus) and will (those in Christ, from both sides of the cross) rise up to praise God.

We will know sorrow in this life. Jesus, the Suffering Servant, was described by Isaiah as "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." We very well may experience times like the Psalmist when we feel abandoned and even crushed by God. Others may look at us like they looked at Jesus and assume that God has abandoned us. In those times, joy may seem very far away, and we may be in deep despair.

But we can and should endure, like Jesus, for the joy set before us. And we can and should sing with Cowper:

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
- William Cowper (1731-1800)

For we will likely never know the why of suffering in this life, but the great question of the Psalmist has been answered. Even if death overtakes us, one day God will work wonders for the dead, and we will rise up and praise Him forevermore.

Closet Feminist?

2007-05-15T21:51:00.000-04:00

There is an interesting post (short) over at the Reformation 21 blog by Carl Trueman (HT: Riddleblog)

I have to say I agree. I think that in resisting culture we often let the pendulum swing too far the other way. To go a little deeper here, Dr. Trueman's post was in response to this post by Phil Ryken. In Dr. Ryken's post he relates a story told by D. A. Carson at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (PCRT) in Philadelphia. Dr. Carson also told the story at the PCRT in Grand Rapids:

Don Carson shared a telling anecdote from a colleague involved with the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. Women on campus face three crushing cultural pressures: first, to get all "A's" -- a parental and in some cases personal expectation; second, to be themselves and have a good time all the time; third, to look totally hot.

Dr. Carson observed that it is little wonder that as many as 80% of college women will be clinically depressed at some point during their college years. Whatever happened, one wonders, to doing your best for the glory of God, to being who you are in Christ, and to cultivating the inner beauty of a quiet spirit, which is pleasing to God?

The answer is that is not the culture we live in, but is the culture we need to transform (in many cases starting with ourselves) with the power of the gospel. In that vein, and in response to these two posts, Rick Phillips added his own thoughts. Really, you (especially since most - who I am kidding - all four of you are male) need to read this if you have not already. Let me try to whet your appetite.

So while so much effort goes to repudiating evangelical feminism -- and to a certain extent this is unavoidable given the force of today's polemic -- it is more important and more ultimately fruitful for us to repudiate bogus evangelical masculinity.

That's the end of his introduction. Go read the whole thing. Seriously. I'm convicted and I'm not even married. Then after you're done reading that, go read this.

These Days

2007-05-13T22:10:00.000-04:00

In my younger days (high school and college), I was really into music (all pop culture generally, but music in particular). I think I shocked my 11th grade high school English teacher, who used to write quotes on the board that we had to copy down and occasionally pick one for an essay. He began writing one morning,

"I've seen the needle and damage done.
The little part of it in everyone.
But every junkie's like the setting sun."

I leaned over to a friend of mine and finished the quote before the teacher finished writing. He turned around when he was done and, somewhat incredulously, asked if I knew the song (Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done" off of the "Harvest" album; arguably Mr. Young's best work). I wasn't exactly the kid you would expect to be a Neil Young fan. I was one of those kids that you would have expected to never have his nose out of a science fiction novel or a comic book (somewhat true, at that).

One artist, out of many, that I would buy every time he released something new was Jackson Browne. While probably not considered as artistic as a Neil Young, Browne likewise tended to a more philosophical lyrical content, but at a more introspective and less social turn than Neil Young. This is particularly true of Browne's work up to and including "Running on Empty" (after which he began to take a more political bent musically. He had always been something of an activist, but with the election of Ronald Reagan, his activism started to increasingly infiltrate his music).

On an early album ("For Everyman") there was a song called "These Days." We are attracted, I think, to music that either reflects something within us, or calls us to something to which we aspire. "These Days" was the former for me, particularly in the closing line, which states:

"Don't confront me with my failures;
I had not forgotten them."

I have a tendency to dwell on the past. Particularly on things that remind me just how fallen I am.

Why bring this up? Because I want to reflect on the power of the Gospel. In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us that under the Old Covenant "gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper" (ESV Hebrews 9:9). I would argue that this is true not only of the Old Covenant sacrifices, but any religious activity that man undertakes. It fails to deal with our guilty conscience. So we seek other things (sex, drugs, and rock&roll) to blunt our own recognition of guilt.

Let me quote another artist who I've quoted before on this issue:

"There's a void in my heart
I can't seem to fill.
I do charity work when I believe in the cause,
But my soul it bothers me still.
Hey Lord you can make me like I am,
Can you heal this restlessness?
Or will there be a void in my heart
When they carry me out to rest?"

That's from a song titled "Void in My Heart" from John Mellencamp's "Big Daddy" CD. This also includes the lines:

"As I sit alone tonight
I see a billion just like me.
With a void in their hearts,
And running from eternity."

Not surprisingly, on the back of one CD ("The Lonesome Jubilee" I think) Mellencamp had the first chapter of Ecclesiastes reproduced.

There is only one answer to this guilt and void. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel tells us that Jesus has removed our guilt by being the once for all sacrifice for sin (see Hebrews 10:1-23). Note especially in contrast to Hebrews 9:9 that in 10:22 we are told, "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." The Gospel, rightly understood, cleanses our guilty conscience and fill the void in our heart.

We, even we Christians, must continually preach the Gospel to ourselves for this to be true. Especially those of us who are prone to reflect back on past mistakes and dwell on them. One of the most comforting passages for me in this regard is the close of the book of Micah (chapter 7). A proclamation that one day God would deal with our sin, and not by punishing us.

18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
19 He will again have compassion on us;
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
You will cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea.
20 You will show faithfulness to Jacob
and steadfast love to Abraham,
as you have sworn to our fathers
from the days of old.

At the cross, the burden falls from our back and we are free. All our sins, not just part - not everything but that one thing we can't let go of - all our sins are tossed by God into the depths of the sea. So deep that no submersible can ever reach them. They are gone forever. For "there is now therefore no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus!"

So Far As Possible

2007-05-06T22:54:00.000-04:00

In dealing with Romans 12:18, the final question I want to address is what do we do when it is not possible to live peaceably with someone? I think there are different answers depending on what kind of disagreement is in view. Perhaps the most frightening, but easiest to deal with in the theoretical, is the person who is violent. In this case, the state, if it is fulfilling the purpose for which God created it, should step into the situation (see Romans 13). Unfortunately for Paul, it was often agents of the state who were being inappropriately violent. In this case, we submit to the persecution and praise God anyway.

Those who are merely being antagonistic should just be avoided. I see this as the equivalent of Jesus telling the disciples that if they were not received in a town, to shake the dust off their feet. I do not think this should be done hastily, but if after repeated attempts to be civil have failed, the best option is to avoid the situation as much as possible. This assumes, of course, the other party is an unbeliever. As believers, we are called to reconcile our differences, if necessary seeking other believers as mediators.

The New Testament is also clear that those who seek to undermine the authority of the Scriptures, or to distort the gospel, cannot be left to promulgate their teaching in the church. Paul, in Galatians and the Pastorals especially, makes it clear that false teaching of this type requires swift and decisive action.

But what about those who hold the Scriptures in high regard, and are sound on the gospel, but hold to some doctrine that we feel is contrary to Scripture. Should those who hold to infant baptism have discourse with one who believes in believer's baptism? Should one who holds to a day-age view of creation be shunned by those who believe in literal 24 hour days? Individual lines are always difficult to draw. What may be a major doctrinal point for you may not be for me.

In my opinion, those who hold to certain essentials should be treated as brothers. In non-essentials, we should be able to openly disagree without dividing. Being at peace with someone should not exclude us from having spirited (Spirited?) discussions about doctrine. In fact, it should encourage it. Our unity in essentials should free us to discuss our differences in substantial matters that are not essentials. I have benefited from interacting with and reading those with whom I have some fairly significant differences.

I am a fallen creature, and as such I know that my doctrine is not now perfect. Therefore I have to be open to the possibility of change. At the same time, I have centuries of discussion on critical doctrines where other redeemed men have been united on key doctrines that they have found in the Bible. I cannot in good conscience set those aside because of a contemporary mood that finds them distasteful.

Therefore, so far as I am able, I will live peaceably with all. But I will also heed the call to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Addendum (Monday, May 7 at ~ 8:30 EST): Reading through this again, I want to emphasize that the ending is not intended too mitigate the beginning of the series. There are only a few doctrines for which I see us being called to contend earnestly. While I don't see these doctrines as being limited to either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, they are definitely good starting points. I would quickly add the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I would not include, for example, the mode and timing of Baptism, which I see as important and worth discussion, but discussion that first and foremost acknowledges the bond of Christ. This does not mean that I would expect an expressly paedobaptistic congregation to accept me into leadership (I would, in fact, expect the opposite). But I would expect that we could fellowship and grow together in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe in that situation I have an obligation to not make baptism a subject of discussion. (As a sidenote, it is generally much easier for a Baptist to be accepted into a congregation of paedobaptists than vice versa.)

This is all to say that I think too many of us are too willing to divide over doctrines over which we should not be dividing. While some of them may lead us to be parts of different congregations, they should not prevent us from having close friendships with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. If it sounds like I've been listening to the Together for the Gospel guys again, I have.

Not Peace, But a Sword

2007-04-29T21:07:00.000-04:00

I've been blogging about Romans 12:18, where the Apostle Paul writes:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (ESV)

But doesn't Jesus tell us that He came not to bring peace but a sword? Is this a contradiction to Paul telling us to live peaceably with all? Does not Paul himself describe the Christian life in terms of warfare? Obviously, I do not believe Scripture contradicts Scripture, so how we to reconcile these statements?

First we have to understand that the latter statements are indicatives of what will occur, not imperatives that we are to instigate the conflict. This is why Paul says at the start of Romans 12:18 "so far as it depends on you." We will always have conflict, but we should not be the ones who cause the conflict. I think the command in Romans 12:18 is harder than we like to think.

The comparable command from Jesus is found in Luke 6:27-36:

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (ESV)

Notice that final line. Our acts of mercy are to reflect God's act of mercy. Mercy that bore the cost of sin, our offense against Him, without demanding anything in return from those that turn to Him. The simple act of trusting in His goodness is sufficient to finding forgiveness and peace. We should be a people where others know that forgiveness is always available.

Second, then, we must see that Romans 12:18 is an imperative - a command. A command based upon the Gospel, that we who were enemies of God have been reconciled to Him. Therefore we must display that Gospel forgiveness, meaning that to all who will live peaceably with us, we will live peaceably with them. And to those who will not live peaceably with us, we must still try to live peaceably with them.

Peter tells us the same thing as Paul, saying (1 Peter 3:13-18):

13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit . . . (ESV)

Most of us who have been Christians a while can paraphrase v. 15, that we are to be ready to give a defense, but note the character of that defense in v. 16 - gentleness, respect, and a good conscience. If I'm honest with you, and me, gentleness is not that a trait many people would use to describe my giving a defense. In football, a good defense means you "stick it" when you are tackling someone. There should be no doubt that they know you were there. Football is popular, of course, because it reflects many of the ways of this world.

God calls us to a defense that is gentle and full of respect, even for those who have no respect in this world. We are to remember two critical points - first, that every human being bears the image of God, and therefore should be treated like an image bearer; and, second, that every one of us, including ourselves, have marred that image through sin. I am not better than the dealer, the gang member, the addict. I have dealt sin to others, forced my will on others, and not been able to escape the grip of my habits. Despite my salvation, I still struggle with these things.

So Paul commands us to live peaceably. It will not just happen, it will take effort. My natural tendency is to react with resentment, bitterness, and anger at those who do not pay me the respect I feel I deserve. But what if God reacted that way when I did not pay Him the respect He really does deserve? But Peter reminds us that Jesus suffered in our place, bearing God's just judgment against my lack of respect, my animosity, my raised fist with finger extended, my angry rebellions.

In light of that forgiveness, how do I justify my anger at those around me? How do hold a grudge against those that have committed slight or grievous offenses against me? Because I forget. I forget the greatness of my sin, and the even more abundance of His grace. My goal is to look to the cross when I feel I've been mistreated. To remember that Jesus deserved nothing of what He received. Yet He prayed, "Father forgive them . . ."

This raises at least one more question - how do we deal with those who absolutely refuse to live peaceably with us? I hope to have that up by the end of the week, but I fly to Charleston tomorrow and will be there at least until Thursday evening. I'll hopefully have some time in the evenings, but there will be a large group of us there, and I'm expecting long days and late dinners that will not be quick.

Another Verse

2007-04-27T21:22:00.000-04:00

I've been talking about Romans 12:18, which I noted as a long-time significant verse for me. So I pop onto the blog tonight (I use the links I have to visit blogs I frequent) and read the daily verse (in this case, verses) from the ESV site; Hebrews 12:1-2 which are also long-time friends:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

More PCRT 2007

2007-04-25T22:30:00.000-04:00

One of the more interesting sessions at the PCRT-Grand Rapids was Dr. Carson's seminar on Recent Undermining of the Doctrine of Scripture. I think a number of people had ideas about what Dr. Carson was going to address in this session. In fact, when some questions about "emerging" churches were read and discussed during the morning Q&A session, one of the other speakers (Dr. Dever?) mentioned that Dr. Carson was probably covering material from his seminar. Dr. Carson's response was that he had not even touched on the seminar material.

Sure enough, he really had not. In the seminar, he noted four trends that are undermining Scripture and its authority.

1) An alarming rise in Biblical illiteracy
2) A cultural plasticity
3) A theological plasticity
4) A growing cultural and philosophical antagonism to Christianity in general and "evangelicals" in particular

Of these, I would say that he emphasized the first, in no small part by putting it first. This puts a significant portion of the blame for what is happening relating to the Scriptures on the shoulders of the church. The more I have thought about it, the more I believe this is a very important point. Many have lamented the fact that Biblical exegesis is a rare jewel in our churches. We are instead ministering moral lessons, sometimes based on a Bible verse or passage. But, Dr. Carson noted, people are not being taught the Scriptures. He gave some rather startling examples of this increase in Biblical illiteracy. If the church does not take the Bible seriously, how can we expect that those outside the church will?

Of course, they will not. This is compounded by the cultural plasticity that makes it difficult to speak out on issues on which the Bible speaks. The old tolerance said, "I may detest what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The new tolerance says, "You don't have the right to say anyone is wrong." Therefore, for Christians to say certain behaviors are sin is no longer accepted. As a personal sidenote here (which Dr. Carson may or may not agree with; I simply do not remember him addressing this), in the past we have tended to go to far as Christians and shunned the lost who did not live as we live. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that we cannot escape associating with those outside. Jesus' model is that we should associate with them, but without participating in their sin. But I digress.

Add to these a theological plasticity, which is stressing the boundaries of what it means to be an evangelical. One key example Dr. Carson gave here was the New Perspective school (I think he also mentioned the "Open" view of God's foreknowledge). He noted that the New Perspective paints a compelling picture of the Bible's main story, but it does so leaving out some critical elements, primarily God's just wrath against sin.

During the final point about the growing antagonism, Dr. Carson stated that in many cases the dislike of self-professed evangelicals was deeper than the old dislike of "fundamentalists."

I would highly recommend this session for those who are able to purchase either the MP3 or other version from the Alliance website (once it is available). I would also recommend the others, but if you can only get one, this is it. If you could get just one more, while Dr. Carson's other sessions were good, as were Dr. Duncan's and Dr. Ryken's, I would recommend Dr. Dever's session on "The Mighty Word."

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

PCRT 2007 Grand Rapids

2007-04-23T21:26:00.000-04:00

I'm not done with thoughts about Romans 12:18 (I want to deal with questions like - "why does Jesus say He came not to bring peace but a sword?") but while it is still fresh in my mind I want to reflect a bit on some items from the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (PCRT) this past weekend in Grand Rapids. This is not even intended to be something akin to Tim Challies live-blogging of a conference, just overall reflections.

First, I was a little surprised to learn that this was the first year the PCRT (this was the 34th year for the PCRT) had dealt with the subject of the Scriptures. Given Dr. Boice's long history of involvement in defending the inerrancy of the Scriptures, this seemed odd. But it was noted that there were other conferences in which Dr. Boice was involved that covered this topic. One interesting note is that Dr. Boice had commented that while evangelicals had won the battle over inerrancy, we are losing the war on the Scriptures. This was a statement about the general decline in the belief in the sufficiency of Scripture and a corollary decline in Bible knowledge.

Second, from a personal standpoint, I realized at one point that I was not as excited about this conference as I was the Desiring God conference last fall. In large part this was due to the speakers at the two conferences. Not because one group was more knowledgeable, or godly, than the other. Not because I feel one group is more able to represent Christ. But I was putting too much emphasis on the speaker, not enough on the Word itself. It is the Word that transforms life (and lives). God has promised to bless His word. Dr. Duncan's final address in the pre-conference seminar ("How to Listen to a Bad Sermon") in particular addressed this.

Which leads me to: third, in counterpoint to the second, this is not to say that the speakers are unimportant. There was an emphasis, particularly in the pre-conference seminar, on the need for preachers to be prepared and as engaging as possible. Much of Dr. Duncan's last session in the pre-conference seminar came from Richard Baxter's "A Christian Directory" Chapter 19, which provides much good information about how to listen well. But even Baxter, early in the chapter, writes:

"Live under the clearest, distinct, convincing teaching that possibly you can procure. There is an unspeakable difference as to the edification of the hearers between a judicious, clear, distinct, and skillful preacher, and one that is ignorant, confused, general, dry, and only scrapeth together a cento or mingle-mangle of some undigested sayings to fill up the hour with. [This was good for a laugh from the crowd.] . . . Ignorant teachers, that understand not what they say themselves, are unlike to make you men of understanding; as erroneous teachers are unlike to make you orthodox and sound."

I would like to reflect a bit on Dr. Carson's break-out session on recent underminings of the Scriptures, but I'll save that for later.

Just More Randomness

2007-04-19T00:19:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow (okay, today now, if you want to be technical) I'm off to Grand Rapids. The long winter is (seems to be) over. I'm not sure if people who have always lived south of Tennessee can really understand cabin fever, but it will be nice to travel a bit and hear the Word proclaimed.

While reading this, one of the early lines:

I sometimes - not often enough - grieve at how little the Scriptures actually touch my heart.

reminded me of a song (most things do, I just don't usually talk about it, because, well, many of the songs from my youth might be better if I forgot them). It was off topic there, so I didn't post it as a comment, but thought I would bring it up here.

There was (still is, I think) a CCM group called Glad that was most popular in the '80s. One of their songs was "Most of the Time" which had lines like:

"And sometimes I hear You with Your gentle soothing voice;
Your words are always truthful, and they cause me to rejoice.

But most of the time I'm still not understanding,
the smallest part of what Your trying to say.
And most of the time I find that I'm pretending,
And the things that You desire get in my way."

The song struck me when compared to most Christian music of the time because it was not about how great everything was if you were a Christian. The song found hope and joy not in blessings in this life, but in total dependence on Jesus and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures:

"All of the time You say that You're perfecting me;
And everything You've said I know it's true.
And some of the time I'm close to understanding,
That it isn't up to me it's up to You."

That is the hope, that my sanctification, like my salvation, is in His hands, not mine. Not that I don't "press on" but that I know that "He who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete it." It is the message of Colossians 3:1-4 - focus on Jesus, on the Kingdom that is not fully here yet, not on this world which is passing away.

Which reminds me of a Bob Benson story . . .

Have a blessed weekend!

Live Peaceably with All

2007-04-16T22:10:00.000-04:00

In my last post, I quoted Paul from Romans 12:

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
(ESV)

I want to spend a little time "unpacking" this verse. Three things I want to note briefly here. First is the context, second is the extent, and third is the command. Paul also acknowledges that there is a problem that will be discussed somewhere in here.

First, keep in mind that Romans is the great epistle on the gospel. Chapter 12 is the first time Paul has moved from predominantly theological/doctrinal reflection and argument into predominantly "how should we then live" discussion. In context, I think Paul is saying you were once enemies with God, and He has made the great sacrifice to live peaceably with you. What then is too large a sacrifice for you to live peaceably with others?

In the first part of this verse, Paul admits that it is not always within our grasp to live peaceably with others. As the old cliche goes, some people only want to bury the hatchet in you. Regardless of what you do, they will not be reconciled to you. They will always think you mean them harm. They will always read/hear your words differently than you intended. They will never give you the benefit of the doubt.

But even here the we are to love that person and not be antagonistic. I'm a good calvinist, in the school of Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. Some of the TR's out there and theonomists might disagree with me on that assessment, but I think it's correct. Therefore I know that we read words like "every" and "all" we have to be careful. To read "all" as every single individual in some contexts would make one a universalist. So, point two, extent, what does Paul mean by "all" in Romans 12:18? I think this is a particular universal. It is particular to me and universal in its application to me. "All" for me is everyone I know and with whom I have contact. "All" for you is everyone you know and with whom you have contact.

Yes, as noted above, there will be some with whom this is not possible. BUT . . . that is not an excuse for you (or me) to return the antagonism. An outsider looking in on the situation should be able to see clearly who is supplying the fuel to keep the conflict raging.

"All" here clearly is a reference to fellow believers. But it also goes beyond that to those of the world who reject Jesus. The context of Romans 12:14-21 is that of responding to persecution. Think about why Paul endured the persecution he did without bitterness or malice - because once he was the persecutor and had been shown mercy while the persecutor. This passage has its corrollary in the parable of the good Samaritan. Who is your neighbor? With whom should you live peaceably? Too often we (or at least I) look for why I should be allowed to exclude someone from my favor (not, mind you that my favor is such a valuable thing that its missed terribly when not given). But the Gospel is that we who are the least deserving of God's favor have been given it anyway through the sacrifice of the Son. God makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both the just and the unjust (both rain and sun are necessary and blessings). We are called to honor that modeling that.

Finally, the command then is to live peaceably. Some people (too often I) like to stir the pot. I can give absolutely horrible examples of when I have done this in my own life. But we are not to be antognists. We are to love and reach out. We are to seek reconciliation, because we have been given the ministry of reconciliation. Try selling someone, "God loves you and wants a relationship with you, but we really don't want your kind in our church." Or "God loves you but I find you offensive." God finds us all offensive in our sin; He loves us anyway. He became one of us and lived among our filth.

To live peaceably with others we must humble ourselves. If we see ourselves as better than others, we will destroy any peace that exists between us. To live peaceably we must be broken because of our own sin. When we have wept over our sins we are able appropriately weep over the sins of others and call them to repentance. To live peaceably we must be sure of our standing with God in Christ Jesus. We can endure persecution and slander only when have properly grasped that it is only for a time and that our standing with God will never change.

I have not lived this recently. I speak these things not from the mountain, but the valley. God grant me the grace to climb.

When I Grow Up

2007-04-11T22:56:00.000-04:00

I want to be a librarian. Think about it. All those books and a nice quiet atmosphere. A long time ago I read a list of the best jobs. At the top was actuary (quiet and better pay, I suppose) but second was librarian. I'm sure there are the periodic confrontations, but mostly it would seem like a quiet job.

But that's not the career path I chose. So I'm an engineer. Not a bad job, but more stressful, I think, than being a librarian would be. Which is to say I generally want the rest of my life to be quiet and uneventful. I'm starting to see that's not likely to be the case. It is said there is an ancient Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times." Our times are interesting, I will say that.

I bring this up to say that one reason I haven't been blogging, or reading blogs, much these days is because they are (gross generalization coming) contentious. There are exceptions. Voice of Vision, The Dow, Dluxe's World, Craver VII, Between Two Worlds and others I readily acknowledge as exceptions. But many of the places I (used to) frequent seem to thrive on debate.

I'm not against debate. There are those who are called to the front line and all of us are there on occasion. I just don't want to be there all the time. So I'm going to try to remove that "tone" from my posts. This is not a call for others to do the same. If you read this and are happy with your blog, by all means carry on. Sometimes the debate blogs get the lion's share of the attention, so not everyone feels like I do. It's probably more of a temperament thing anyway.

I thought about deleting some of my more contentious old posts, but that's more work than I want to spend on this. Besides, they provide a measuring stick for whether I've really changed or not. Part of this attitude change may relate to being out (again) of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), but probably not. I'm not sure if it's a life verse (if you have a life verse, feel free to let me know) but it's a verse that I have come back to quite often since I found it years (okay, I can probably measure this in decades now) ago:

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (ESV)

When I grow up, I want to be a peacemaker.

The Event that Transforms the World

2007-04-08T13:02:00.000-04:00

The religious leaders were right not to be concerned about Jesus' followers. The huddled together or scattered. None were Marc Anthony's out trying to raise indignation over the sham trial through which Jesus had been put. They were concerned only for their own well being. They had thought they were following the Messiah. They had thought that the kingdom was coming. Instead, Jesus had not overthrown the Romans, their oppressors, but had been killed by them. Now, what were they going to do?

The women had at least one last task, to properly prepare the body for its long decay. The job done after the crucifixion was hurried to beat the setting sun. So they arrived early on Sunday morning with the intent of mourning and anointing Jesus' body. Only there was a problem. There was no body to anoint.

Something earth (existence) shattering had happened. Death was not able to hold Him. Jesus was raised from the grave. God the Father has accepted the sacrifice of the Son and our sins are forgiven. Witness the empty tomb.

Christianity did not grow slowly, but exploded into the Roman world. It did not begin in some out of the way place, but in Jerusalem, where it's claims could have easily been refuted had they not been true. Putting an end to the church should have been easy, unless there really was no body to find. Jesus literally died on a cross and literally rose from the grave.

And so a few fishermen, a tax collector, a zealot, some others, and eventually, in God's perfect irony and plan, a Pharisee took this "good news" to world. That Pharisee, the Apostle born out of time, would right these words (1 Corinthians 15:12-28):

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.(ESV)

For more on the resurrection, please see Pastor J.D. Hatfield's post.

For an attempt at harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection using a fictional disciple, see this post of mine.

He is risen indeed!

Saturday Night before THE Sunday Morning

2007-04-07T22:06:00.000-04:00

What must it have been like for the disciples that Saturday, particularly as darkness fell again. By now most of them knew about Judas' suicide, probably about Peter's denials, and about the guards at the tomb. Based on what would happen on Sunday morning, John and Peter, at a minimum, were together. Was John berating Peter for the denials or trying to comfort him?

We don't know the details, but we can be pretty sure from what the gospels do tell us that they were very apprehensive, even scared. They worried that they might be the next targets. Probably, however, apart from concerns that the disciples might try to steal the body the religious leaders were little worried about this band from Galilee. Fishermen, a tax collector, a zealot, and other less than influential people were not a concern. With Jesus dead, those who had followed Him would surely fade into obscurity.

Unless something earth shattering happened . . .

Good Friday 2007

2007-04-06T22:26:00.000-04:00

Approximately one thousand nine hundred seventy seven years ago God incarnate hung on a Roman cross just outside of Jerusalem. He had come unto His own, and His own had not received Him. Instead, they had turned Him over to the their oppressors, and demanded that He be killed. None of this surprised Him. He and the Father had planned these events from before time.

This is not just a story. Jesus literally hung on a wooden cross in agony. He in whom the fullness of deity dwelt was separated from God. In once sense, it is the height of arrogance to call this "good" Friday, because the only good Man who ever lived was killed by wicked men, men like me. But He was "delivered up according to ⁱthe definite plan and ^jforeknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). When Peter indicated that Jesus should not die, Jesus called Peter "Satan". The crucifixion was no accident and we call this Good Friday because of what God has wrought from the greatest crime ever committed.

Jesus suffered as no other man has ever suffered. The One who had eternally been in a love relationship with the Father was rejected and bore the Father's wrath. Not because He deserved it, but in our place - because we deserved it. This act was the act of sacrifice to redeem His chosen ones. This act was the act of love to reconcile those estranged from God. This act was the act of atonement to pay the penalty for our sins. This act was the act of propitiation to allow the Father to justify us.

Praise God who can take our vilest act and use it to cleanse us from all our sin.

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?(ESV)

ⁱLuke 22:22; [ch. 3:18; 4:28; 13:27]

^j1 Pet. 1:2; [1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8]

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ac 2:23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

A Maundy Thursday Reminder

2007-04-05T23:12:00.000-04:00

Luke 22:14-22

14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (ESV)

Easter Truth

2007-04-04T20:17:00.000-04:00

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on." Winston S. Churchill

Churchill knew this about as well as anyone in recent history, seeing the west deny what Hitler was really trying to accomplish until it was almost too late despite his persistent warnings. I don't know Churchill's religious convictions, but as we approach Good Friday and Easter, I'm reminded that Jesus told us that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." Because of our sin, as a result of the fall, we stumble over Him, but too often pick ourselves up and carry on as if nothing at all happened. Again, the Spirit knew we would, and inspired the Biblical writers to tell us that Jesus would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."

This Easter weekend, there is one question that matters - did Jesus rise from the grave? Is the resurrection a literal, physical reality, or just the imaginations of some men roughly 2000 years ago. If it is the latter, then Paul the Apostle says Christians are of all men the most to be pitied.

But if it is real, then Jesus the Christ has conquered death and is putting all enemies under His feet. If it is real, then there is a life and a kingdom beyond this world that has broken into this world. If it is real, then we can suffer and endure tribulation in this life because, as Bob Benson said, we are going to a celebration. Instead of eating, drinking, and being merry in this life, we have a joy and a peace that passes all understanding, because we will feast (whatever that may mean for perfected saints) eternally when the Bridegroom returns for His bride.

The resurrection is God's promise to us that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover our sins. It is the new rainbow. When the Father looks at the Son seated at His right hand there is an eternal reminder that sin's debt has been paid, that sin's penalty has been meted out. Easter reminds us that Jesus is the first fruit from the dead, and one day death itself will be destroyed.

Happy Easter!

Superbowl Champs

2007-02-04T23:53:00.000-05:00

Colts Win!

To all the Chicago Bears fans, congratulations on a great season. From the last few years I know that's not much comfort, but you have a solid team that could make it back to the Super Bowl next year.

Football: The New American Religion

2007-01-29T19:40:00.000-05:00

FYI: First Post with Googles New Blogger

Well, here goes nothing. At least I didn't seem to lose anything in the transition. The question now is whether or not to continue to use the Technorati tags or switch to the blogger tags?

I passed a church sign on my way home today that said:

If God is Love
Go Colts!

I'm sure the first is a sermon title (having passed this term before) and the second is merely a show of support for the local NFL team which (finally) has made it to the Super Bowl. I'm reminded that the local radio station that carries the games has a song "Lord Help Our Colts" as well. Considering that Sunday used to be about church and now it is about football for a significant portion of the population, has football become our new religion?

Lest anyone mistake my statements as looking down on others, I have managed to mention the Colts in my last two posts (and will likely post a huge "Colts Win" should they beat the Bears in the Super Bowl). I'm just thinking out loud and at least partly to myself about what the boundaries should be here. I would suspect that of the local churches that have a Sunday evening service still (many around here do not) many will cancel this coming Sunday because attendance will be down due to the game. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised; many local business (and some schools) have announced closings for Monday if the Colts win.

So I'm just thinking, that's all. If people can post on Ultimate Fighting and their college teams, maybe I shouldn't be so hard on churches, business, and schools that are supporting the local pro football team.

By the way:

Go Blue!

Mostly Dead

2007-01-28T15:56:00.000-05:00

If the blog were all dead, all you could do would be to go through its pockets looking for spare change.

Things have been busy since the start of the year, and while I've had things I would like to write about, they have been significantly lower priority than other things that are going on. That may (or may not) be changing. But I had a few moments and one item of interest that a quick search of the blogs I would normally frequent has not turned up.

I spent the last week in Mexico on business, which is significant because I don't get HBO at home. I generally don't spend much time in Mexico even attempting to watch TV because there are only a few channels in English, but Thursday night we got back to the hotel early (shortly after 9:00 PM - not early by my home standards) and while I was repacking to fly out on Friday I flipped the TV on and caught the end of "Inside the NFL" which reviewed the amazing Colts come from behind victory last week ("Go Blue").

After "Inside the NFL" went off, and HBO special "Friends of God" came on. I had not heard about this show before (apparently I caught a premier episode). The show was a look at evangelicals. Since I fall into that broad category, I was disappointed. Not by the show, but by the state of evangelicalism. This has been the subject of many blog posts by people from across the spectrum of Biblical Christianity, but what passes for evangelicalism today is morality with a smile. We want you to like us and we want you to be like we are. Every Christian should watch the special, but do so through a lens of Scripture. While not everything or everyone in the documentary is a disappointment, to realize that this is what the evangelical church has become is a sad commentary on our faith.

Let me end with a quote I'm stealing (I mean borrowing) from Jonathan Moorhead. The speaker is Dr. John Hannah:
I think that evangelical preaching today is baptized morality. And it’s good, but morality will damn your soul if it doesn’t have an object. Morality preached apart from the gospel is no gospel. Law and grace must always be put together. We seem to prefer to help people next week instead of forever. My goal is not to have a better existence, but to have a better eternity. By preaching a better eternity, they may have a better existence. But I don’t confuse the two. Don’t confuse cause and effect. If I preach cause, I’ll get effect. But if I preach effect, I won’t get cause.
What was missing from "Friends of God" was that kind of understanding. I don't know if people presented that to her and she just didn't get it, or, more likely in my experience, evangelicals are more concerned with pet ideas (creation vs. evolution, conservative vs. liberal, etc.) than with the Biblical gospel.

End of the Year, Semi-Political Quasi-Rant

2006-12-31T13:58:00.000-05:00

At this time every year, TV's, radios, and the internet are filled with lists, reviews, and retrospectives for the year that is ending. On one such program that was reviewing news from Country music (give me a break - I live in a small town in a farming state), there was one piece that rubbed an old sore spot with me - celebrities and politics.

Who Bought that Soap Box, Anyway?

This particular sore spot deals with the Dixie Chicks. Now, if somehow you have not heard of the Dixie Chicks, feel free to google them, but here's the story. Three women formed what turned into one of Country Music's powerhouse acts. At least for a while. About two years ago, tDC decided to go public with their feelings about President Bush.

Let me pause here for a moment. I believe that everyone has a right in this country to speak freely about the government and the people who make up the government. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. Therefore, I will defend the right of any individual to say what they want about our leaders. But just because I have the right to do something, doesn't always mean it is the right thing to do.

There are a couple of things with this particular situation that just are not right in my book. First, tDC chose to make these statements in jolly old England, not here. All the family may know that Uncle Harry's a screwball, and we may discuss it between ourselves, but we don't discuss it with strangers. My impression of what tDC were doing with this statement was less about politics and more about opportunism. They sensed that they could win support there by bashing a US President that was not popular there. But even if that were not the case, save your criticisms for the people who actually get to make the decisions (U.S. citizens). Its just the right thing to do.

Second, and worse, is the celebrity aspect. See, tDC have a platform to speak not because they articulated a political viewpoint and were supported for that viewpoint. They are popular because a group of people, with diverse backgrounds and political persuasions, like(d) their music. But then tDC (and many other celebrities today) used that popularity to make political statements.

Ever Heard of "New Coke"

Of course, a fair amount of the Country Music audience tends to be more conservative and therefore took offense to tDC's statements. From a marketing standpoint, this was like "New Coke". Your core customers aren't going to like it, and your "new" fans prefer something else anyway. The backlash against tDC was quick and massive.

Think for just a second. The question is, if I'm just an average fan who listens to tDC on the radio and buys their CDs, how do I make myself heard? How do I let the world know that tDC does not speak for me, even if I did help buy the soap box? It's called a boycott.

Fans boycotted shows, smashed CDs, and demanded that radio stations stop playing tDC. Fans did the only things fans could do to show that they did not endorse the political statement tDC were making. The seemingly inevitable cry of "censorship" started to be heard.

It is not censorship. If President Bush had outlawed the playing of tDC music, that would be censorship. When fans call for a boycott of buying tDC music, or boycotting radio stations that play tDC music, it is not censorship. What is interesting, of course, is that no one ever calls the anti-fur lobby picketing a Ted Nugent concert censorship. But that's what many called picketing of tDC shows. But I digress. (Let me go on the record here as saying threats of physical harm or death - which tDC apparently received - were totally and completely out of line. Again, I think their statements lacked wisdom and prudence, but we all have the right to make complete idiots of ourselves if that's what we want - I do it all the time.)

This Year

After taking a break for a year or so, tDC released a new album this year. The first single and video was "Not Ready to Make Nice" which, you can probably guess without ever having listened to it, spoke to their unwillingness to "back down" (their words). But with whom were they "not ready to make nice?" It seems clear this could only be addressed to their former fans who had parties smashing their CD's and calling for boycotts of radio stations that played their music. The single was wildly hailed by the MSM, and they have been nominated for several Grammy's.

Which brings me a long way around to what caused this post. I saw the video shortly after it was released and after that allowed tDC to drop off the radar. Given the changing sentiments in this country about President Bush and the war in Iraq, I figured tDC were again riding a wave of opportunity. The MSM, at least, seemed sure that CD and tour would be a success.

Apparently not. The show I saw mentioned that many concert dates in the south had to be canceled for lack of ticket sales. One of tDC stated (and this is what really got me) that they just wanted everyone to forget the past and let them play music.

Hello? Is there anybody in there? You're not ready to make nice, remember? The irony here is if they had come out with something like "Wide Open Spaces" or "Goodbye Earl" many (though not all, I know) Country fans probably would have warmly received them. But they choose a confrontational approach and apparently were surprised when the fan base reacted negatively. You cannot have it both ways. It was tDC, not the fans, who first made the past and issue for this tour.

Conclusion

A wise man once wrote: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1 NASB'95) How many times in my own life have I had the harsh word, then wondered why I got an angry response? I'm not really all that different than tDC. I'm sure that there are blind spots in my own life that cause me to overlook what is obvious to others. Be friend - if you see such a thing in 2007 (or in reflecting on 2006), let me know. Just be sure to be gentle.

More Favorite Hymns - It Is Well with My Soul

2006-12-30T23:49:00.000-05:00

It Is Well with My Soul seems to be one of the best loved of the old hymns, perhaps because we can relate to the grief out of which it was born. Many people know the story of Spafford losing his children when a boat sank. This song was written during his journey to be with his wife (who had been on the same ship as the children).

While many CCM artists have recorded this hymn, my favorite is by Audio Adrenaline (a duet with Jennifer Knapp) on the Underdog CD.

As is common with older hymns, there are two stanzas here I have not typically heard sung. It is interesting (and sad) that we don't include many of these verses in our hymnals anymore, and when we do sing the hymn, we don't even sing all the stanzas that are included. This, I think, we do to our poverty.

It Is Well with My Soul

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Tho' Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

But, Lord, ‘tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh trump of the angel! Oh voice of the Lord!
Blessèd hope, blessèd rest of my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Tags: Hymns, Poetry, Quotes

Wilberforce

2006-12-27T21:22:00.000-05:00

I'm not much for pictures on the site, much less video, but if you've not seen the following (HT: Justin Taylor), you really should watch it. Then in February go see the movie.

Also, if you don't know anything about William Wilberforce here would be a good place to start.

William Wilberforce stands in stark contrast to the blindness of many otherwise godly American Christians, particularly in the south, but by no means limited to the south, who refused to see modern slavery for the evil that it was. Piper in the link above quotes Wilberforce as saying of the slave trade: "If it please God to honor me so far, may I be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty as never before disgraced a Christian country."

QT: Calvin on Liberty and Offense

2006-12-26T21:15:00.000-05:00

Quotation Tuesday - John Calvin on Christian liberty and offense to a weaker brother - from Book 3, Chapter 19, Section 11 (Beveridge translation):

I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." Again, "Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way;" and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification." elsewhere he says, "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak." Again "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake." Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other." Finally, "Give none offense, either to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God." Also in another passage, "Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind," (Matth. 15: 14) The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.

What Is Christmas About (Conclusion)

2006-12-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

In John 12:41, after quoting two passages from Isaiah, John writes, "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." The first of the quotes from Isaiah is from Isaiah 53:1. This is one verse out of passage that referred to the "Suffering Servant". The entire passage is Isaiah 52:13-53:12:

13Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted.
14As many were astonished at you—
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
15so shall he sprinkle many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
for that which has not been told them they see,
and that which they have not heard they understand.

1 Who has believed what they heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah is the prophet who proclaims that the virgin will conceive and bear a son. Isaiah is the prophet who tells us that the Messiah shall be the mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. But not without suffering.

Every Christmas, gifts are exchanged. Sweaters for necklaces. Toys for cheap perfume and cologne. Unwanted items for cash (after an incredibly long wait in line). But Christmas is about what Martin Luther called the Great Exchange. Jesus takes my sin, and gives me His righteousness. Think about that for a second. Jesus bearing our sin that we might bear His righteousness. A crass application is that we shouldn't complain if we come out on the short end of a gift exchange this Christmas. The scales are already infinitely weighed against us.

But it is so much more than how we view the little gifts we exchange. God the Son took on human flesh, and died, that we might have life. Christmas is about the Great Exchange.

May you not only get what you want this Christmas, but what God knows that you need. Merry Christmas.

PS - Regarding Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (to be fair, I've not actually read the book, so perhaps Hollywood's A Christmas Carol would be more accurate): Why did I say this was the anti-Christmas story? Because from everything I can tell, it is a morality play. An older, more serious version of My Name Is Earl, if you will. A series of circumstances leads a "bad man" to be a "good man" by his own effort. While Christians should be moral, the message of Christmas is that we do not become "good men" by our own effort. Our goodness is based on the Great Exchange - sharing Christ's righteousness. Scrooge's change is great, from a human standpoint, but if all he did was change his outlook on life, he still goes to hell. If that makes me a Scrooge in your eyes, so be it. But don't think your New Year's resolutions are going to save you. Trust in Christ.

Favorite Carols - What Child Is This?

2006-12-23T22:57:00.000-05:00

There is a different version of this carol than the one below, where the end of the first stanza becomes a chorus. Doing that, however, loses some wonderful words at the end of the second and third stanzas. So I'm presenting the older version here as found on Cyberhymnal.

What Child Is This?
What Child is this who, laid to rest
On Mary’s lap is sleeping?
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste, to bring Him laud,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh,
Come peasant, king to own Him;
The King of kings salvation brings,
Let loving hearts enthrone Him.
Raise, raise a song on high,
The virgin sings her lullaby.
Joy, joy for Christ is born,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

PS - When I was a young heathen, my favorite Christmas songs were Silver Bells and Do You Hear What I Hear? What is missing from these songs is the substance of the carols that I now prefer to hear/sing. I'm not saying that they are bad, but they represent more of the culture we have built around Christmas than what the church intended to remember on Christmas day. Notice the references in What Child Is This? both to Jesus' kingship and to His cross. Those are the reasons Christmas is so important.

Enjoy the cultural celebration of Christmas, just don't forget why the Baby is so significant that we are still celebrating His birth over 2000 years later. Have a blessed Christmas.

What Is Christmas About (III)

2006-12-23T10:00:00.000-05:00

When I was young(er), Christmas was all about the presents. I would shake the boxes and do all kinds of other things to try to figure out what I had gotten for Christmas. Heavy and odd shaped boxes were best, because it meant it wasn't clothes.

I still remember one Christmas when I wanted a new bicycle - a five speed. But there was nothing under the tree that remotely resembled a bicycle. By the time we opened presents, I resigned myself to not getting a bicycle. My birthday's in the spring, so a bicycle made more sense as a birthday gift. Sure, I was disappointed, but after opening presents I got busy playing.

It was around this time that Dad requested I go get a blanket out of the back of the station wagon (yep, Dad drove the 60's and 70's equivalent of a minivan pretty much the entire time I was growing up). I didn't want to go outside. There was some snow on the ground and I had new toys with which to play. But he insisted, so out I went. I'm not sure exactly when I realized that the blanket was covering my new bicycle, but I still remember the smile on Dad's face as a reflection of my joy. We were sharing a moment. That bicycle and the other presents are gone, but the shared memories and the shared connections with family still remain.

Christmas is about sharing

That's why at a relatively young age, I stopped having to be the first one to open my gifts, and started being the one who passed them out. Strange as it sounds to our society (Acts 20:35), "It is more blessed to give than to receive." When we exchange gifts, we are sharing something of ourselves with each other. And that's a good thing, because sharing is at the heart of what Christmas is about.

Whether we have the date right or not, Christmas celebrates Christ's birth. It is a commemoration of the Son of God sharing our nature. He is Immanuel, God with us, as I noted earlier. John (1:14) says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." The anonymous author of Hebrews tells us (Hebrews 2:14-18) that:

14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

We share in flesh and blood, so He became flesh and blood. He was made to be like us. Even though from eternity He had been with the Father, and equal to the Father, Jesus humbled Himself and shared in human flesh. Paul, in Philippians 2:5-11, says this about Jesus sharing our nature:

5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

God the Son continues to share our nature. He did not give up His human nature in the resurrection. He continues to have a human, albeit glorified, body. Christmas is about the divine sharing in humanity.

But Christmas is also about humanity sharing in Christ. Those who believe in Jesus share an inheritance with Him, that is true. But we do so because we share in His righteousness. Between His birth and His death, Jesus kept the Law perfectly. Unlike Adam, who failed to obey God, Jesus, the last Adam, obeyed God to the uttermost. Therefore, those who are in Christ have a righteousness (an alien and imputed righteousness) that makes us acceptable to God.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul says that "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Some might want to say that we "become" the righteousness of God, meaning that God changes us so that we do righteous deeds and are faithful. While everyone who comes to Christ is a new creation, that is not what Paul means here. That he intends us to understand this righteousness to be a shared righteousness with Christ can be seen in the first Corinthian epistle (1 Corinthians 1:30) where he writes, "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." Here Paul is clearly saying that Jesus is our righteousness and we are righteous because we share in His work. Let me emphasize this point: the Father looks on us and declares us righteous because we share in Christ.

Therefore, since Christmas is about God giving, God loving, and God sharing, I have just a few words of conclusion that I hope to post early Christmas morning.

Have a very blessed Christmas!

What Is Christmas About? (II)

2006-12-22T17:00:00.000-05:00

In the last post, I showed that Christmas is about giving - the Father giving the Son and the Son giving His life. All to reconcile scoundrels like me. I then posed the question why. Why would God do this? There are different ways we could answer that question (e.g. to display His glory) but in the context of this discussion, I would answer the question with the second thing with which Christmas is associated.

Christmas is about love

We give gifts to family and friends, or, to 'loved ones'. In other words, at its best, our giving at Christmas is an expression of love. Christmas is about love - that is, not just a noun connotating an emotion or feeling. There is a sense in which this is true, but more importantly Christmas is about loving - that is, acting for the benefit of another. For us as sinful fallen men, the former may more often be true of our actions. We give because of a warm affection for another person (or worse yet, out of obligation). But the first Christmas was about an act of love.

I direct you again to John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Why did the Father give the Son? Not because He saw anything in us worth saving. The reason for the sacrifice is in the heart of God, an expression of the love He has for us.

If that sounds harsh, hear the Apostle Paul's words on the subject (Romans 5:8): "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." God's love is manifested not to righteous people. Not even to "nice" people, but to naughty people. To sinners. Paul goes on to say in Romans 5:10 that it was while we were enemies of God that we were reconciled to Him. We associate Christmas with being with people we like, and who like us. But Jesus came to a world that rejected Him (John 1:11 - "He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.")

As a side note, some of you may know what that is like. You may be rejected by your own family. If so, take comfort that Jesus knows rejection as well. You need not walk through that valley alone, for He walked it before you did and knows your pain.

Do you see the depth of the Father's love. He did not send the Son to those who would welcome Him with open arms. In fact, after the birth of Jesus, Herod was so intent on seeing Him dead he killed every male child under two years old that was in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18). The Father's love was so great that He sent the Son to those who were His enemies.

And the Son came willingly. Just as the Father loves us, so also Jesus loves us. His love is a love that sacrifices for others. Not just some little sacrifice, but the sacrifice of His life. Jesus said (John 15:13), "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends." Jesus loved us to the point of dying in our place. He gave up His life that we might have life. He bore the Father's wrath for our sin that we might stand blameless in the Father's presence. That little baby in the manger came with the express purpose of hanging on a cross in my place.

But not just the the Father and the Son love us. The third person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, loves us as well. Look again at Paul's words, this time in Romans 5:5, where the apostle writes, "and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." We see again giving, but now, after Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, we are given the Spirit.

See what this passage says about what the Spirit does. The Spirit is the instrument by which we experience the love of God. Jesus paid our the penalty of our sin that we might experience God's love. Yet it is the Spirit who is the active person of the Trinity in bestowing that love upon us. That is to say that it is the Spirit who in love transforms us from sinners to saints. Then He confirms His love by never leaving us, even though at times the Bible says we "quench" His work and even "grieve" Him. Still He comforts us and intercedes for us.

I said there were three terms that we associate with Christmas. I have discussed giving and loving. Next I want to discuss a term that may be less common than it once was, but has a very significant role in our understanding of Christmas.

What Is Christmas About? (I)

2006-12-21T19:21:00.000-05:00

Let's face it, while people in the west may still have some inkling of why Christmas is important to the church, by and large that has been lost in Santa Claus, reindeer, snowmen, and shopping (especially shopping). So they see a nativity scene and recognize that Christmas has something to do with the birth of Jesus (maybe). But why is that birth so significant? After all, He would live thirty years before He would start His earthly ministry.

To help answer that question (Why is this birth so significant?) I want to look at three common terms that are associated with Christmas. That they are associated with Christmas is great. But today, we have lost why they are associated with Christmas and have other ideas about why they are important. These ideas are all linked to the Christmas tradition of exchanging presents. By the time I'm done (Christmas morning, if the Lord wills) you will hopefully understand why Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is the anti-Christmas story.

Christmas is about giving

Children learn this early, though for many Christmas is actually about receiving. Sometime after Thanksgiving, a tree is brought into the house and decorated. Sometime after that, neatly (or not so neatly) wrapped packages begin to show up under the tree. Christmas presents. Gifts bought (or brought, if you use the Santa myth) for those who have been nice (and apparently the naughty too since people get gifts). But why did the idea of giving come to be associated with Christmas?

Because the Father gave the Son. The most famous verse of the Bible (John 3:16) says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." The greatest gift ever given was the Father's gift to sinful man - His only begotten Son. Wrapped not in brightly colored paper, but in swaddling clothes. Not placed on display under a tree, but in a manger. Not a gift that we asked for, but the only gift that could meet our deepest need, the need for a savior.

This fact so amazed the Apostle John that he not only recorded it in his gospel, but also in his first epistle (1 John 4:9) where he wrote, "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." Sent is another way of saying gave. We need to tell the world that the baby in a manger is significant because that was not just any baby, it was the incarnate Son of God given by the Father to save His people. The angel tells Joseph (Matthew 1:21) that "(Mary) will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

How would He save His people from their sins? By giving His life for them. Jesus told His disciples (Mark 10:45), "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." That little baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes, had a purpose. Jesus came not primarily to show us how we should live, though He did that. He came not primarily to condemn the religious hypocrisy of that day, though He did that too. Jesus came with specific intent of dying, and not an easy death either.

The writers of the New Testament are very clear on this point. The cross was not a surprise to the Father or to Jesus. They did not fall back to plan B when the Jews would not receive Jesus as their Messiah. The cross was plan A and there was not plan B. Peter told the crowd at Pentecost (Acts 2:23) that "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Paul says at least three times that Jesus "gave Himself" for us (Galatians 1:4 - who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; 1 Timothy 2:6 - who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time;
Titus 2:14 - who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.)

Christmas truly is about giving. It is about the Father giving the Son and the Son giving His life. All that we might be reconciled to God. But why would God do this? That has to be a cliff-hanger.

A Few Quick Items

2006-12-18T20:37:00.000-05:00

This isn't exactly a best of the blogs post, but there's some interesting stuff here.

Chris over at Not So Famous got this started by linking to this article about the top ten junk science stories of 2006. Great link.

Jonathan Moorhead has some excellent thoughts about why your blog (and mine) may be worthless.

Frank Lockwood has an update on Robert Tilton. I lived in Dallas during Tilton's peak, and have some interesting articles from the Dallas Morning News I might need to dig up if RT starts to become popular again. (HT: Thabiti Anyabwile)

Looking for an exciting computer game for Christmas? Check out Left Behind: Eternal Forces. Just don't get your theology for a computer game (or fictional books, for that matter). (HT: Shane Rosenthal)

Finally, police work is not always as exciting as it appears on TV.

Favorit Carols - O Little Town of Bethlehem

2006-12-16T21:16:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite Christmas passages is Micah 5:2:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

I like this carol (O Little Town of Bethlehem) in large part because it recalls this verse, the prophecy that this little town would be the birthplace of the Messiah.

O Little Town of Bethlehem

O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by;
Yet in the dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light;
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight.

For Christ is born of Mary,
And gathered all above,
While mortals sleep, the angels keep
Their watch of wond’ring love.
O morning stars, together
Proclaim the holy birth,
And praises sing to God the King,
And peace to men on earth!

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is giv’n!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heav’n.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive Him, still,
The dear Christ enters in.

O holy Child of Bethlehem!
Descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in,
Be born in us today!
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us,
Our Lord Immanuel!

Logos Hymnal. 1995 (1st edition.). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Random Thoughts

2006-12-13T21:50:00.000-05:00

The following is pretty much worthless, but I've really been behind on blogging so I thought I'd put something up two days in a row just to prove that I could. My next stunt will be to put up two things that have at least some value . . .

I've had a little time this week to peruse some old haunts, otherwise known as the blogs on the right. Certain things became evident quickly. One, major bloggers are either much more dedicated to this than I, or they have more free time, or they are better managers of their time. Probably some combination of the first and the last.

Second, there's all kinds of interesting posts out there, but I'm sitting here beside a stack of books I'd like to read. How does one make a priority call. Blogs are nice in that, even the wordy ones, you can easily complete the post and, usually, the comments in a single sitting. But are blogs to serious writing what pop music is to classical music (that's a tenuous analogy for me because I really don't know much about classical music, except that it tends to be long)? Seriously though, do blogs allow us to do sound bite theology?

Third, two of the Pyro guys, among others, are talking about Blogger Beta. Now, I like my blog. Sure it is simple and plain. I don't have the graphics of the Pyro's, nor Centuri0n's stats, and don't get me started about Challies, but this is home. When I want to make a point, any break from the basic black and white makes the point stand out. But I know technology. The change is inevitable, like the tide.

Finally, we sure like certain topics, don't we? Months after Desiring God national conference M.D.'s name still shows up in posts, most frequently those who have a bone to pick. Maybe it's a legitimate bone; I just don't have the desire to read anymore about it. At this point, I don't see a blog post having a great amount of influence on anyone's opinion of Mark.

I'm probably just being grumpy.

Of Crosses and Incantations

2006-12-12T22:25:00.000-05:00

Crosses

Last week, while flying into Chihuahua City, prominently on display (at least for those seated on the same side of the plane as I) was a cross. Not an actual cross, but a lighted outline on the side of one of the many hills in the area. This cross could also be seen from certain parts of town at night.

Given that we are talking a largely Roman Catholic country, with a heaping helping of superstition added for good measure, I wondered what the intent of this cross was. Was it there merely as a reminder of the sacrifice of Christ? If so, then I don't know that I would have much problem with the display. But I wondered if perhaps it was more of a talisman. Something to help ward off evil spirits. Was this cross placed here more as a magical object, like something people wore around their necks in the old vampire movies?

Incantations

I didn't have long to think about this before we started banking to line up the landing. It was at that point that I began my ritual prayer. I'm not one of those people who are terrified of flying (like Earl on last week's episode), but I do tend to be a little anxious, particularly during take-offs and landings. A fair part of this concern is not having any control in the situation. In a plane, you are truly along for the ride. So, in the past, I developed a habit of praying during take-off and as we descend for landing.

Now, if you do the same, God bless you (particularly if you are on a flight with me). But I had been thinking about how superstitious a cross on the side of a hill was, and I realized that my prayers had become little more than an incantation to invoke God's favor. I was not in the least seeking to glorify God and have communion with Him. I was trying to bind Him into making sure we didn't crash.

Now, I'm not saying you should not pray for a safe flight. Nor do I want you (or me) to stop giving thanks when God brings us safely to our destination. But I realized I needed to be willing to say to God that I turned the entire trip over to Him. That regardless of the result, that I wanted my life to glorify Him. I want my relationship with God to be more than the relationship I could have with a genie in a bottle, and I don't just mean I want more than three wishes. I want the wishes (aka - supplications) to be a minor part of my prayer life, whether I'm on a plane or on the ground.

See, the reason I could identify superstition in placing a cross on a hill is because it's in me. I have my own talismans and incantations. I may not display them as prominently, but they are in my life. But I long for more than a rote religious experience with God.

I'm not talking about some deep spiritual encounter here (though that would be great, I don't see a Biblical warrant for expecting such until my plane does crash, if you know what I mean). I am talking about knowing Him by the Spirit through His word and having real communion with Him in prayer.

So it's not that I stopped praying during take-offs and landings, but I tried to alter the nature of the prayer. I still prayed for a safe, uneventful flight. And I gave thanks when we taxied to the gate. But I tried to examine my motives, and I tried to leave my anxieties in God's capable hands. I tried to acknowledge that since He is in control, I don't have to be.

Favorite Carols - O Come All Ye Faithful

2006-12-09T21:52:00.000-05:00

I've been sick and traveling, so this blog has been neglected for most of the last couple of a weeks. I'm still fighting the flu, but hopefully will be back to posting more regularly in the next week.

There seems to be an "O" theme here that I really did not think about when beginning this series on carols. I'm not sure if it is significant or not. The following version of O Come All Ye Faithful includes verses I'm not used to singing, but which I wish we would.

O Come All Ye Faithful

O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye, to Bethlehem.
Come and behold Him, born the King of angels;

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

True God of true God, Light from Light Eternal,
Lo, He shuns not the Virgin’s womb;
Son of the Father, begotten, not created;

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Sing, choirs of angels, sing in exultation;
O sing, all ye citizens of heaven above!
Glory to God, all glory in the highest;

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

See how the shepherds, summoned to His cradle,
Leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze;
We too will thither bend our joyful footsteps;

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Lo! star led chieftains, Magi, Christ adoring,
Offer Him incense, gold, and myrrh;
We to the Christ Child bring our hearts’ oblations.

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Child, for us sinners poor and in the manger,
We would embrace Thee, with love and awe;
Who would not love Thee, loving us so dearly?

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning;
Jesus, to Thee be glory given;
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing.

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Favorite Carols - O Holy Night

2006-12-02T10:32:00.000-05:00

If you look up O Holy Night on Cyberhymnal, you will find a different, though perhaps more familiar version of this carol. However, my preference is for this version of the carol, which puts greater emphasis on Jesus and the wonder of the incarnation.

O Holy Night

O holy night! the stars are brightly shining—
It is the night of the dear Savior’s birth!
Long lay the world in sin and darkness pining—
Till He appeared, gift of infinite worth!
Behold the Babe in yonder manger lowly—
’Tis God’s own Son come down in human form:
Fall on your knees before the Lord most holy!
O night divine—O night when Christ was born!
O night divine—O night, O night divine!

With humble hearts we bow in adoration
Before this Child, gift of God’s matchless love,
Sent from on high to purchase our salvation—
That we might dwell with Him ever above.
What grace untold—to leave the bliss of glory
And die for sinners guilty and forlorn:
Fall on your knees! repeat the wondrous story!
O night divine—O night when Christ was born!
O night divine—O night, O night divine!

O day of joy, when in eternal splendor
He shall return in His glory to reign,
When ev’ry tongue due praise to Him shall render,
His pow’r and might to all nations proclaim!
A thrill of hope our longing hearts rejoices,
For soon shall dawn that glad eternal morn:
Fall on your knees! with joy lift up your voices!
O night divine—O night when Christ was born!
O night divine—O night, O night divine!

Logos Hymnal. 1995 (1st edition.). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

QT: Centerpoint

2006-11-27T22:17:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in my post of O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, one of my favorite renditions is from Jeff Johnson's Centerpoint CD. This Christmas collection includes some old carols and poems. The poems are by Keith Patman from a collection entitled Centerpoint. I am reproducing that poem here.

Centerpoint

It is a still scene -
Animal, human, angel awe
Surrounds the newborn, radiant child
- A centerpoint in time, whose ways and places wrap
In layers about the crib of straw,
Enveloping Bethlehem as a many-folded map.

It is a star's still centerpoint -
God's scissors cut it out in paper layers
- Rays piercing Babylon, Sodom, pyramids,
Dark rain and floodswell, Eden's flaming gate . . .
Rays shot through Rome and Dachau, martyrs' prayers,
Wake of galleons, hoofbeats, moonwalk, 1998 . . .

God's hands, at either end of time,
Unfold the map, reveal the geometric star
And its still centerpoint: Himself, incarnate.

Favorite Carols - O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

2006-11-25T20:15:00.000-05:00

Now that Thanksgiving has past, for the next several weeks I'm going to post my favorite Carols. First up is O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, an old carol that isn't sung as much as some more famous carols, but is full of references to prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. It seems appropriate, therefore, that this should be the first carol that I post.

A beautiful instrumental version of the hymn starts off Jeff Johnson's Centerpoint: Poetry and Music for Christmas (a little over half way down the page). Tuesday I plan on posting one of the poems from this collection.

Cyberhymnal once again provides more verses than our typically in our hymnals. I will post all the verses here, because they each speak to some aspect of our Lord's character and mission.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
Who orderest all things mightily;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And teach us in her ways to go.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times once gave the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Root of Jesse’s tree,
An ensign of Thy people be;
Before Thee rulers silent fall;
All peoples on Thy mercy call.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

Regeneration and Faith

2006-11-24T22:30:00.000-05:00

In the meta for Phil Johnson's post on Lordship Salvation (for more on this topic, see this post) there is probably material for a years worth of posts from several bloggers (that's hyperbole for all you literary fans). A couple of things in particular struck me as worth further consideration. I'll deal with the first in this post and maybe the second one later.

The first from the meta regards the discussion on regeneration and faith. A good way to deal with this subtopic, IMO, is to consider what Lou Martuneac wrote:

Calvinists hold the trigger is regeneration followed by faith, repentance, conversion, and justification. As I noted this is a system that is born from logic and reason. The Bible order of the events has faith as the trigger. The Bible teaches faith and belief result in regeneration. John 3:16; Eph 2:8-9;

Evangelist John VanGelderen and Pastor George Zeller both use the following questions to demonstrate the absurdity of regeneration (being born again) preceding faith:

Is it “look and live” or “live and look?” Is it “Look unto Me, and be ye saved” (Is. 45:22) or “Be ye saved, and look unto Me?” Is it “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or “He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?” Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 6:36) [I believe this reference should be Acts 16:31, which I linked to] or “Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?” (Faith vs. Fatalism, p. 3.)

Phil (and Nathan at Pulpit Magazine who I also questioned on this) believes regeneration (everlasting life) precedes/triggers faith and belief. Nathan never did reply, he might later.

This extra-biblical position is one of the extremes of Calvinism that leads to Lordship Salvation.

You can read more on this at:
www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm

There is an article on this issue at my blog.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Phil notes in the meta that the word "precede" implies a time relationship that is not really is not what we want to imply. A better word, perhaps, is "cause". The events of salvation are simultaneous, from the effectual call/regeneration, faith, repentance, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The question is whether or not the Bible teaches this, or does it teach that faith is the cause of regeneration. Let's consider the texts cited as saying faith produces regeneration.

Isaiah 45:22 Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

This verse does not speak to the ordo salutis (the order of salvation). This verse is a general call issued by God for everyone to repent (turn) in order to be saved. (Sidenote: This is an interesting verse to be referenced by someone arguing that repentance is not a integral part of salvation.) It really doesn't speak to the "how" of turning, which is the question. There is no question that turning to God is necessary for salvation. The question that the ordo salutis asks is how does one turn to God.

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

This and the other passages in John again do not address the ordo salutis. However, what this reveals is that these authors cited by Lou have confused regeneration with salvation and eternal life. There is no doubt that eternal life is a gift to those that believe. But regeneration is not equated in the Scripture with eternal life. Both are part of the total work of salvation that Christ accomplished for us, but they are different aspects in that salvation.

What the Bible Says about the Relationship

Perhaps no Biblical author addresses the relationship of faith and regeneration more than John. In the first chapter of his gospel we read:

John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Simple word order here might lead one to say that faith is the causal element (receive and believe come before born). But the emphasis of v.13 is that salvation is not based on man's will but God's will. Those who did receive Him are those who were born. Still, by itself, these verses would not help in settling the debate. But John builds the case in chapter 3:

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Notice here that there are two statements that without being born again (regenerated) man is unable to see or enter the kingdom. Jesus goes on to teach Nicodemus that if you are of the Spirit (you have been born of, i.e. regenerated by, the Spirit) you understand and therefore come to the light (John 3:21) but those not born again reject the light and do not believe(John 3:19-20).

John is saying that there is something that distinguishes those who come to the Light (Jesus - see John 1:4-9) and those who do not. That something, in context, is being born of the Spirit, i.e. regeneration.

John continues to build the case, in many ways reaching a crescendo in John 6:44-45:

44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

Notice the "box" created here by the phrase "come to me" which links the two verses. Man's inability is highlighted in v.44: "No one can . . ." Apart from the drawing of the Father, not only will we not come to God, we cannot come to God. It is not in our nature. We reject Him. Now, without spending a lot of time doing a word study on draw, some people argue the word here means that the Father "woos" us, and we can either accept, by faith, the Father's wooing, or we can reject it. While a word study would rule this out, let's be simpler and look at the other half of what Jesus is saying.

While man's inability is highlighted in v.44, v.45 highlights the Father's effectual call: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father . . ." Notice that it is not some that have heard or some that have learned. Everyone who has heard and learned comes to Jesus.

So, no one is able to come apart from the Father, but all who hear and learn from the Father do come. So what does it mean to hear and learn? What is the drawing of the Father? It is the effectual call, i.e. regeneration. The Father draws us through the Holy Spirit, teaching us to see the beauty of the Son and to trust (i.e. believe) in Him. This drawing and teaching removes inability and always (everyone) results in salvation (coming to Jesus).

One final verse on the subject:

John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

Why is it that there are some who do not believe? Because, according to Jesus, they are not part of His flock. It is not that they are not His flock because they do not believe. How do we interpret this? Jesus' flock is those that the Father has given to Him (see John 6:37, 10:29, 17:2, 6, 9, 24). We believe because we belong to His flock, and faith has been granted to us because we are His sheep. Those who are not His flock do not believe because the Father has not granted them to come to Jesus (see John 6:65).

Conclusion

We could go to Paul's letters and see what he has to say on this subject. He is not silent on the order of salvation. Romans 1-3 establish that man in his fallen state does not seek God. God must be the initiator in salvation, to the point of granting new life before we will come to Him. When new life is effected, we immediately believe and are justified. But it is God's work of regeneration that causes us to believe.