A Resting Place

"A Resting Place" has Moved!

2005-06-28T23:59:00.000-04:00

I went crazy tonight and decided to try something new. Presenting...(soft music playing in the back ground begins to swell)...

The ALL NEW...

...IMPROVED...

A Resting Place!

(Wild applause)

Thank you. Thank you.

I get so frustrated with all the glitches I've run into with blogger that I'm going to give typepad a shot for a month or so. Over time, especially when I'm having a writer's block, you'll see repeats from here over there, so I can get them archived into categories and saved for good. Let me know if you like the change. And again, stay posted for the research paper.

the blog is acting funny

2005-06-28T16:11:00.000-04:00

Sorry if you're having trouble reading posts right now. This blog is acting up. I'll try to figure out the problem as soon as I can.

the home stretch

2005-06-28T11:40:00.000-04:00

Over the next two days, I will be finishing my major ministerial research paper for my master's work. I must be done by about 5:45 tomorrow. This means that in the very near future, I will begin posting it piece by piece. I wanted to offer a few disclaimers and guidelines for those of you who read it.

1. This is by far not my best work, because I was quite crammed for time, but I'd like to make it my best work. That's where you come in. I welcome any and all questions, comments, criticisms, declarations of heresy, etc.

2. If your comments are going to be long (i.e., more than 1,000 characters, the Haloscan limit), please email me instead. If the majority of responses are over email, when I'm done posting every section of the thesis, I'll start a series of response posts using your emails (I'll ask your permission first).

3. It will take me a bit to reformat everything so that references are included, so there will be a few days between posts. This is good anyway, since it will give folks time to read. I know most of y'all have better things to do than read my paper.

So there it is. Look for the first installment by the end of the week.

I'm also working on an essay entitled, The Answer to Every Question, in which I'll argue that Sunday School kids know more than our systematic theologians. I may stick that in the middle somewhere if I'm tired of my blog being filled up with my paper.

blog of evil

2005-06-20T12:04:00.000-04:00

At the rate things are going, I may soon need to change this blog's name to "the blog of evil." I learned recently that being a fan of the Yankees makes me evil. I'm part of the "evil empire." Guess who's back over .500?

I'm also evil, as you already know, for liking Harry Potter. July 16 can't come soon enough. Stay tuned for more posts on this subject.

After mentioning these two evils in my life, my wife kindly reminded me that I belong to not two, but three evil empires. The third? The Republican Party.

Ok, so maybe she has a point on the third one.

Faith and Politics

2005-06-12T08:45:00.000-04:00

This is the "home page," so to speak, for my political ramblings, wherein I toss around the ideas of democracy, theonomy, and other related issues. This is where I try to wrestle with how our Christian faith and the claim that "Jesus is Lord" relates to politics and government. This post will be updated whenever there is a new one, and there is a permanent link in the right hand column. Enjoy!

The Christians are Coming! - A prominent atheist writer blows the whistle on the left's paranoia about Christian values in America.
Politics at the Cross - N.T. Wright challenges the notion that Jesus was not political in any sense and places politics at the center of the rest of the Christian life - the cross.
JFK and Freedom - JFK on freedom, God, and government.
Of Jesus, Caesar, Elephants, and Donkeys - where I ask all the big questions on my mind and give very few answers.
Jesus Not Political - a very insightful reader responds to the previous article.
Proctor & Politics - I respond to the insightful reader.
Jesus is Lord - Here I struggle with the application of the lordship of Christ to earthly government.
Mohler on Peretz on Liberalism - Another prominent liberal attacks the left on its mischaracterization of Bush.

scripted evangelism

2005-06-12T08:41:00.000-04:00

We showed up to a church last Sunday having found online the theme for the service for last week - "Interview with a Pagan." The proposed idea was that the pastor was going to model for the congregation how to converse with people of different beliefs by loving them instead of tearing them apart.

Almost the entirety of the service consisted of the pastor interviewing an old friend from high school who was a self-identified pagan. I thought we were in for a real treat. The "pagan" man had grown up Catholic, but when his particular church offered no real answers for his frustrations with the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., he bailed. The conversation was set up beautifully for an opportunity to ask questions about, "What was it that Christianity didn't provide that paganism did?" Or, "What exactly are your beliefs and how do you find comfort in them?" Or any other thing that would have told us something other than, "I call myself a pagan, and I was dissatisfied with the church."

Then it happened. Rather than finding out anything at all about who this guy actually was, the pastor left all of that and moved immediately into a "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" line of questioning.

1. Would you admit the Bible is historically accurate? ("Sure," answers the pagan).
2. Given that you admit to the historically accurate nature of the Bible, and given that Jesus claimed x, y, and z, would it not then stand to reason that He was either a lunatic, a liar, or who He said He was?

*sigh*

We left quite frustrated. I just don't see how you can walk around with a scripted presentation to jam into any and every conversation and call that loving. People who love care to listen to what other people have to say. I get the feeling C.S. Lewis would not be thrilled with this use of his apologetic.

If you're going to love people, you have to be interested in them. You don't have to agree with them, and you can think their beliefs are quite dangerous. But you can't simply ignore what's important to them.

I'm a Cultural Creative

2005-06-07T10:51:00.000-04:00

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative

81%

Fundamentalist

50%

Postmodernist

50%

Romanticist

50%

Modernist

25%

Existentialist

19%

Idealist

19%

Materialist

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

Just shows how much these quizzes can tell you. I think organized religion (i.e., the institutional church) is extremely important.

a harry topic

2005-06-06T16:39:00.000-04:00

Forgive the bad pun. Anyway, my readers will notice that certain titles of books from the Harry Potter series will be appearing in book lists to the right. I read the five available books last year, and I am reading books 3-5 again in preparation for the release of the 6th book in July. Some will be just fine with this; others will not. I thought about just not putting the names up there, but then I thought that instead, it might be an opportunity to share another point of view besides the one that says, "Harry Potter books are evil because they contain witchcraft."

Let me first address a few peripheral concerns:

1) This is a "non-essential" issue for Christians. What I mean is that we should have a little perspective - no Christian is going to hell for reading or even enjoying the series. So let's all take a deep breath and learn from each other.

2) Yes, I believe parents can and should decide what their children can and cannot read. These blog posts are not an attempt to convince any parent to read Harry Potter to their kids, nor an attempt to deceive your children (no kids read this blog in the first place). I also tend to be of the opinion that even if you're fine with the series, children should come to a point of being able to clearly distinguish make-believe from reality before reading the book. This, of course, will be different for each child, so there's no particular age in my mind.

Now, on to the two main concerns of those are opposed to the series:

Concern: The Book is about witchcraft.

Answer: No, it's not.

First of all, we should understand that the magical world is the setting for the book, not the point of it. Secondly, the magic within the book is not even close to modern day wicca. I once heard a pastor argue that a book would not be "cute" like Harry Potter is if it were about a little girl named Harriette Potter who went to school to learn to be a prostitute. Well, if by "prostitute," the book meant, "a job in which little girls sell cookies on street corners of a magical world that doesn't exist," we might not find the same danger (though we might cringe a little at the word used to describe it).

Thirdly, we have to be consistent about this. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and The Chronicles of Narnia series portrayed magic in both positive and negative lights. Again, magic was a setting for the point of the story.

Concern: Harry and his friends are sometimes rebellious, and sometimes there are no direct consequences for their actions.

Answer: Yeah, just like the real world.

C'mon, folks - have you read those Bibles lately? Can you imagine if today's Christian editors got a hold of the story of Abraham, who got to lie and get away with it multiple times? Or Rachel the cookie-seller (I mean, prostitute) who was actually praised for lying in order to hide the spies? I'd rather have the heroes in the books I read have gigantic flaws and be realistic than to always make the right choice. In the books, we see Harry's character develop and grow through trials, even while he still struggles with rebellion, lying, and other such things. Sounds a lot like the Christian life, doesn't it?

Which brings me to my final thought for now and reason for this post. As I read through these books again, I plan to note from time to time parallels to the gospel that we can see in the Harry Potter series. Believe it or not, they're there. I'm not re-reading book one, so let me include a brief one from that volume. Harry descends into the place where the philosopher's stone is kept and there comes face to face with Lord Voldemort. In protecting the stone and keeping it from Voldemort, Harry is taken down and slips into darkness. Three days later he recovers, Voldemort having been defeated. Book two, Chamber of Secrets, follows a similar pattern in which Harry once again descends into an underground chamber to defeat a serpent. See the parallels? Hopefully you'll come along with me as I try to find more of them.

If you're interested in futher reading on this topic, I recommend Looking for God in Harry Potter by John Granger. You can read an excellent article by him from Touchstone - The Alchemist's Tale - about the role of alchemy in the stories. Very insightful. Eric Rigney's The Good Spell of Harry Potter is also a good read.

Brief Updates

2005-05-30T12:20:00.000-04:00

I'm posting a bit less frequently right now as I try to finish up this thesis. A rough draft should be complete tonight. I'll include an excerpt at the bottom of this post.

I promise I'm done, at least for a while, posting pictures of Gordon Lightfoot and gushing about his music all over the blog. Go buy Sundown, and you'll know why I go on and on. You can usually get it for pretty cheap on ebay.

Go read this post by Michael Spencer, which made me happy to be a "reformation Christian" again. It's been fascinating, and sometimes very sad, discussion at the BHT and around the reformed blogosphere lately.

Finally, a quick excerpt from my rough draft. I'll keep it very short for now, because I plan posting almost the entirety of the paper in larger chunks over a long period of time. Here's one small paragraph introducing the proclamation of "fatherhood of God" to postmodern folks:

In a postmodern context, proclaiming the fatherhood of God seems at the outset a fruitless endeavor. To elucidate God in such blatantly male terminology is to evoke notions of the male-dominated metanarratives so eschewed by postmoderns. While Jesus’ unmistakable yet almost scandalous concern for women will provide a more than acceptable answer to this charge, we must indeed be sensitive, though not embarrassed, when we proclaim God as father.

Gordon Lightfoot @ Massey Hall, 5/21/05

2005-05-25T08:18:00.000-04:00

It was a very interesting Saturday evening at Massey Hall in Toronto. It was the last of Lightfoot's four concerts there, his favorite place to play. We didn't have great seats, but we could see Gord and all the band members just fine. The show started right on time, with the band members taking their places at 8, and Gord strolling out onto the stage to a standing ovation. Picking up his guitar, he started right into Never Too Close, a song that's been stuck in my head since Saturday night.

I had no idea what to expect as we took our seats in the familiar concert hall. After the first and second songs (the second being Don Quixote), I was wondering about his voice. He seemed quite strained, and the higher register was hurting. He abbreviated several of the songs. Minstrel of the Dawn, for example, dropped a couple verses, but added a brilliantly beautiful instrumental section; I wish I had a recording. The following song, Harmony, was the highlight of the first half of the show. Following Harmony were In My Fashion (he had a blast on the "rap" part), Christian Island (abbreviated; my dad was hoping for this one), and Ghosts of Cape Horn. He picked up the pace a bit with Cotton Jenny, I Used To Be A Country Singer, and the classic, Sundown. We were dancing around as best you can while sitting.

With the last four songs of the first set, he did something I've never heard him do before. He played Ribbon of Darkness, and concluded the last chorus by singing, "ribbon of darkness..." and then allowing a long pause. As we all expected the words "over me" to finish the song, he broke into the opening riff of The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The crowd went ape crazy; it was very cool. Then he strung together two ballads, Spanish Moss and Shadows, the second of which he had a lyric stumble on and had to start over (another thing I've never seen him do).

Like the last Lightfoot show I saw, it took him the first half to get warmed up. Apparently this wasn't the case Wednesday night; reviews say he was "on" right from the get-go. But hey, it was the fourth night in a row for a guy who almost died two years ago and has been through several major sugeries in that time. Can't blame him too much.

At intermission, I was a bit concerned about his career, given the vocal struggles of the first set. But as soon as he opened his mouth to sing the first line of Waiting for You at the start of the second set, I was thrown back in my seat; what a difference from the first half! Beautifully done, and I love the melody changes since the original recording. Restless followed, one I had personally hoped he'd do. Clouds of Loneliness, a sad ballad from the new album, contains some interesting autobiographical lyrics - "I'm all dressed up to be somebody; all I need is a friendly face."

An excellent version of Let it Ride had us dancing in our seats again. Couchiching, a song about his hometown or Orillia by a lake, was surprising - the vocals Saturday night were even better than on the album.

Then came the night's highlight - thunderous applause erupted at the first few bars of If You Could Read My Mind. It was magnificently sung, and the crowd sat in that sort of hushed silence that tells you something special is happening, even if you don't quite know what.

Baby Step Back has never been a favorite of mine, but I enjoyed it Saturday night. Then came Early Morning Rain, a song that Gord noted was recorded by "many important people" (Just for the record, those people include Elvis, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul & Mary, the Kingston Trio, and Ian & Sylvia, among others). Then came the soft and simple ballad Song For A Winter's Night (gotta love the sleigh bells).

Bitter Green and a lovely version of On the High Seas (after some tuning issues) set up the show's last pre-encore song, a riveting rendition of Old Dan's Records. The band had a blast with this one, and a long standing ovation brought Gord out for an encore of Canadian Railroad Trilogy (Canada's "other national anthem"). He doesn't quite have the voice for this one anymore, as it is very demanding vocally, but the crowd was in it nonetheless, and it was a good performance. We stood to our feet once again, bringing him out one more time for a final encore ("Thanks, but we were coming back anyway," quipped Gord). I was hoping for "Carefree Highway," but alas, Cold on the Shoulder would be the night's last song. He left the stage to shouting and clapping and cries of, "Thank you, Gord!"

This trip and concert were the most fun I've had in a long time. I'm excited about Lightfoot's music again, maybe more so than ever before. It'll be quite interesting to see what he does with however many years he has left. More than that, the time with family was a blessing. I couldn't have asked for more out of a two day vacation.

Revenge of the Sith: Initial Thoughts

2005-05-20T09:20:00.000-04:00

Despite some rough acting and more poor dialogue, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was far better than the first two prequels. Here are a few initial thoughts from the morning after my first viewing of the movie.

Let's start with the bad:

1) Hayden Christensen. Better in this movie than the last one, but still a shoddy performance. The scene where he transforms to the dark side could have been far more intense than it was, but his wooden performance, showing almost no struggle whatsoever with his decision, left me unbelieving. I found Padme's faith that there was still some good in him laughable, since we didn't even get a glimpse of it in his conversion to the dark side.

2) Natalie Portman. She got worse each movie. The hardest parts of the movie to watch were the scenes between Padme and Anakin. The dialogue was horrible, and the acting didn't redeem it any. I just didn't really care about the characters.

That, by the way, is one of the key differences between the prequels and the original three. In the first three, we were drawn to the characters and cared about them. We were excited when Han Solo came onto the scene, and we were wondering just what the bond between Luke and Leah was. We were sad when Obi Wan died, and we smiled when the spirits of Yoda, Obi Wan, and Anakin stood there in the final scene of the trilogy.

3) Vader's "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" in one of the final scenes. It sounded and looked dumb.

On to the good:

1) The climax of the movie, flashing back and forth between Yoda vs. the Emperor and Obi Wan vs. Anakin.

2) Yoda rocked this movie again.

3) Ewan McGregor. I believed he cared about Anakin, and I could see his struggle to be a Jedi (not holding onto a strong connection to anyone, in order to remain strong) and to love Anakin.

4) Plenty of excellent story set-up for the original three. I'm looking forward to watching Episodes IV, V, and VI again.

5) No Jar-Jar.

Points of interest:

1) As Emperor Palpatine is trying to tempt Anakin to the dark side, he calls the Jedi way "narrow and dogmatic." He explains to Anakin that he needs to develop "a broader view of the Force." How many times has the church faced the same criticism and been enticed by the same temptation?

2) As Obi Wan faces off with Anakin, Anakin makes a statement that if Obi Wan would not be with him, he must be his enemy. Obi Wan responds, "A Sith always thinks in absolutes," and the battle ensues.

Summary:

This movie redeemed the Star Wars series from the weaknesses of the first two prequels. While it would have been better served by more convincing acting, the story was better and more faithful to the traditional feel of Star Wars. I'm looking forward to heading back to the theater sometime soon and giving it a second watch.

Headin' North

2005-05-19T12:21:00.000-04:00

I would travel all my life if loneliness was not the price
But headin' north across that line is the only time I'm flyin'
~ "Hi'way Songs"

Being so close to the Canadian border has messed me up a bit. Growing up I tuned in as often as possible to a very fuzzy picture of Hockey Night in Canada. Gretzky was my hero. I could take or leave Florida, but trips to Toronto were my favorite family vacations. And my appreciation for the music of Gordon Lightfoot is darn near the point of obsession.

So I'm absolutely thrilled to be headin' north this weekend up to Toronto with my wife, my parents, my two brothers, and their wives. It's just a quick overnight stay, but we'll walk Yonge Street, shop at Eaton Centre, spend time in the hotel's pool, hot tub, and sauna, but best of all, get to see Gordon Lightfoot on stage at Massey Hall, the venue he has called "the centre of my universe as a performer and as a Canadian." We're seeing the last of four shows, so hopefully he won't be too tired to give a full set list. The word is last night's was 27 songs! His comeback to the stage is being celebrated by folk musicians, and I am looking forward to hearing his now rustic voice singing the classic songs again. I'll post a review when I get back.

a new look?

2005-05-19T07:58:00.000-04:00

After I'm finished with this thesis (soon!), I plan to invest quite a bit more time into writing, including blogging. I've been toying with the idea of a new template or even a new blog client. I'm not sure I want to pay much (or at all) for one, but I'm bored with blogger already. And for some reason, the blogger bar at the top annoys me to no end.

Any suggestions? Another blog client? A place where you've found some better templates for blogger?

why music is not different

2005-05-16T21:09:00.000-04:00

When one becomes a nurse, does the evangelical church make that one find a hospital run only by Christians, that specializes in treating Christian patients, and gives out tracts and altar calls for any non-Christians who happen to receive treatment there?

Then why do we do it to our musicians?

There was a time when I bought all the rhetoric that a Christian who plays music should play only songs about God, sign on a Christian label, and should never tour with non-Christian bands. Any band that signed on a "secular" label or wrote lyrics that were not in your face about Jesus had "sold out."

We could make the same case for our nurses, couldn't we? Let's apply evangelical rhetoric to that example. Most doctors in a secular institution learned their biology from (gasp!) evolutionists. Many don't even give a thought to praying for their patients. The physical needs are given priority over spiritual. I mean, shouldn't a person who might be dying be more concerned about their spiritual well-being than their physical? A "secular" doctor might not think so. Therefore, it's probably best if all Christian nurses find only Christian hospitals in which to work, so they won't be taken captive by the vain humanistic evolution-believing liberal lies of secular hospitals. If you're sick, you should also find a Christian hospital. If you're having a heart attack and the closest one is 12 hours away, you should just trust that God will sustain you until then, since God doesn't like secular hospitals. Too much "compromise."

You see how silly this all is. I surprised my wife with tickets to Alison Krauss and Union Station. What a tremendous night of bluegrass music. Alison Krauss' voice is unbelievable. Dan Tyminski (it's the Soggy Bottom Boys!) is an incredible musician. Jerry Douglas - there are just no words for what he can do on the dobro. This could be the most talented band touring now. And by the way, Alison Krauss and Ron Block are Christians. Ron Block writes excellent Christian lyrics to bluegrass music, and he rocks on that banjo. The concert's encore was nothing short of a sacred moment. The gospel was communicated through the music, in the midst of lyrics about heartbreak, loss, war, and other difficult aspects of life. Alison and Ron aren't caught in all the trappings of the Christian subculture. They are using their talents to honor the Lord with their vocation - music. Thank God for them, and would that there were more like them. This is what engaging the culture with the gospel and honoring the Lord with the arts should look like.

Chronicles of Narnia, December 9

2005-05-13T11:25:00.000-04:00

This will give you chills.

gradumatation from my edumacation

2005-05-13T08:55:00.000-04:00

I graduate tomorrow with an M.A. in theology. Which is weird because I don't have my thesis done yet. Because of the way the seminary schedule goes, and because they want the seminary students to walk in the same commencement as the Roberts Wesleyan students, there's a provision that if your course work is scheduled to be completed in June, you can walk in May of the same year.

There's something really weird about having no formal education lined up. I've been involved in some form of formal learning for 22 years straight. I think I'll plan for myself a bit of a learning schedule, and it will include a lot of the issues I've collected books on but been unable to dig into deeply. Open Theism. New Covenant Theology. Federal Vision. N.T. Wright. After all these years, I think I'm finally feeling like I'll be disciplined enough to start on an issue and see it through for a while.

Of course there's the question of further education, but I think I'll sit on that one for a while. I'm still not sure what I want to be when I grow up.

Truth or Fiction (in forwards)

2005-05-06T13:18:00.000-04:00

Calling all forward senders: Stop sending forwards!! Alright, alright...but if you must send forwards, especially you Christians out there who love to send them along and guilt people into sending them by telling them they don't really love God if they don't email a cheesy story to 10 friends in the next 10.7 seconds, go visit Truth or Fiction first. It's a website that sorts out the true stories from the false ones. For example, NASA never found the missing day in Joshua, and Democratic candidates have not "misquoted" John 3:16 and said John 16:3 instead.

If you get a forward and don't know if it's true, send it along to them like I did with the story of Christians being saved from the tsunami, and let them do the research first. If it's in doubt, better to not be a liar than the send it along. I hear these stories pop up in sermon illustrations, and it's just kind of embarrassing (not to mention insulting to people's intelligence).

Weekends On Call

2005-05-02T16:02:00.000-04:00

I always enjoy my weekends on call, because I have to stay home; I have no other option. This usually means I get a good amount of reading done, and since I'm plugging through book after book for my thesis, I was able to finish two that relate to the topic.

Thomas C. Oden

Rebirth of Orthodoxy, Thomas C. Oden
As I said in another post, Oden is my new hero. I am extremely close to being sold on paleo-orthodoxy as the way to go. I feel like a theological wandering star these days, and a good remedy for that is the tested and true doctrine of the early church fathers. Sure, they had some stuff wrong, but when it comes to defining the essentials of the faith, no one's better. I'm going to start digging into all the emerging confessing movements that are calling us back to the historic Christian faith.

Escape from Reason, Francis Shaeffer
Shaeffer has officially made it into my "I need to read everything he's ever written" list. He makes an interesting and relevant distinction between rationalism and rationality. Postmodern rhetoric tends to group the two together and throw them both out. Schaeffer argues that rationalism is the silly belief that the intellect is not fallen and can come to the right conclusions (Enlightenment thinking). Rationality, on the other hand, is allowing for antithesis (if A is true, not-A is false). Lots more in the book, but that's enough for now.

ATF Review, Part Two

2005-04-29T16:18:00.000-04:00

I mentioned in passing in the previous post that there was a bit of a "war" theme at ATF this year. This was perhaps one of the most disturbing trends of the weekend, for various reasons.

1. There was no clear definition at all of the enemy's identity. Generally, the students were accosted with a slew of statistics about how many teens are getting pregnant, having abortions, doing drugs, etc. right before pressing the war theme, which involved bold calls to "take a stand." With no clear definition of the "enemy," it would be very easy for teens to run home and think they are supposed to unleash an unmerciful barrage of criticism on anyone who would commit such sins.

2. This leads to point number two, which was the absolute absence of mercy in the message. Sin is bad; the Bible is right. Therefore, go take a stand against sin. Not, "Go preach the gospel," but "fight the war."

3. There was absolutely no balance whatsoever. Verse after verse using "war time" metaphors ("fight the good fight;" "put on the full armor;" "violent people take the kingdom by force," etc.) were severed from their literary contexts in Scripture, and there was not a single reference to a verse about peace. Not a single mention that Jesus gave us a different way of "fighting a war" than developing an offensive attack strategy. No "blessed are the peacemakers;" "live at peace with all people;" "pray for kings, etc...so that we may live a peaceful and quiet life." It was all about getting loud and riled up. All throughout Saturday evening, every couple of minutes, "Joel the Superchristian" would say, "Let's hear your battle cry!" And thousands of teens would erupt into shouting.

4. The whole thing, as far as I could tell, was a big advertisement to get all the teens to go to Teenmania's big "Battle Cry" event next year. This event was played up as the ONLY way to take a stand in this generation. After getting us all fired up about the event, we were "challenged" to get in our youth groups, discuss how many God wanted us to bring to the event next year, and submit a card with the number along with our youth group contact info. Our discerning youth group (I'm so proud of them) looked at me and said, "how 'bout zero?" Good for them. I told them we'd do something different; perhaps calculate the amount of money we'd waste going to the big event and use it to do ministry in the area. You know, like feeding the poor, and taking care of orphans and widows. Remember that?

Next youth group lesson is going to be a discussion of Michael Spencer's article, Wretched Urgency. After that, I think we'll watch Saved! and have some good discussion. No more silly nonsense. Time to follow Jesus instead, who told His disciples to put down their weapons and pick up a cross.

Responding to ATF

2005-04-26T20:14:00.000-04:00

This will be the first of hopefully a few posts responding to a weekend I just spent with thousands of teenagers at a Teenmania Aquire the Fire event. I had a group of 12 teens with me, along with some chaperones, including my lovely wife, who was very gracious to go.

The speaker for the event was some guy named Joel, a bona fide Superchristian. Dad left when he was 14 months old; mom married again to an alcoholic abusive guy whom they had to spend lots of their teenage years running from.

At age 14, Joel was radically saved at a Christian camp, and by age 16, he was preaching from cafeteria benches in his high school during lunch time. He even brought a white picket fence into school with him for a few weeks, and when asked why, he explained that you can either be on the wrong side of the fence or on the right side with Jesus. Believe it or not, he was "persecuted" for this. (I'm a Christian, and I think I would have taken his fence and hid it on him, too).

The great thing was, after everyone "got saved" the first night, the next day we learned about how shallow we all are since we've only got the gospel now, and how we need to (1) read the Bible a lot; (2) pray; (3) witness a lot, apparently being as obnoxious as you can while doing it; (4) go on a Teenmania missions trip; (5) go home and break all secular cds; and (6) make sure you're at the big Teenmania Battle Cry event next year. These are the secrets to the Christian life. This is what it means to "go deeper."

There was lots of yelling and shouting, and kids were told they were in a war with everyone who gets abortions and has premarital sex and needed to take a stand.

The theme for the weekend was "keep it real." Funny thing was, it was all about the wonderful victorious Christian life and not sinning and stuff. Not a single (not one!) mention of real life struggles with sin. Not a single mention that Christian teens sin. Joe, the Superchristian was on fire for Jesus all his life, and you can be, too. There were lots of references to how the "world" and "sin" and other such things are not "real," but the whole production looked like MTV baptized into the Christian subculture.

At one point, they got the kids all hyped up about donating to help the Dalits (lowest caste in India), and followed it right up with an advertisement: the ATF 2005 event was on DVD for $30, but act now during the next break, and you can get it for only $25. In fact, it was amazing how often flow of the weekend went like this: (1) Get the kids all fired up at the end of a message, then (2) present something for them to buy or some Teenmania event for them to join.

I'm certain Teenmania thinks they just won a bunch of teens for Jesus. I say they created thousands of little monsters.

I posted these thoughts over at the BHT, and Michael Spencer responded with a good summary of what these types of youth events are normally like:

-Raw emotion
-Stupid, lying speakers
-Hawking of someone's CDs and shirts
-Blatant attempts to get emtionally damaged people as upset as possible with lots of stories of abuse, etc.
-Manipulation of emotion and thought through media, to the point of little critical thinking.
-Constant appeals to legalism and fanaticism.
-Lies and more lies about what will result if you come forward, pray, surrender, etc.
-Little or no reference to anything Biblical that would matter past the last altar call.
-Fanaticism constantly held up as healthy and normal.

I would leave these meetings beyond upset. Really, if you think I am emotionally damaged, these are the people to sue. I can give you the names.

A good summary, indeed. Thanks, Michael.

"worship"

2005-04-21T15:13:00.000-04:00

Props to Gaines for linking to this article from Challies.com on "worship." I really do get frustrated about all the singing about how we're going to sing, and worshipping by singing that we're going to worship. In fact, I'm overall tired of all the things we say we're going to do in modern worship songs. "I will" this and "I will" that... Isn't worship about what God has done? I'm becoming more convinced that, overall (though not in every case), hymnody really did take a bad turn sometime in the 19th century.

Are Your Hymns Too Spiritual? is a chapter from In the Face of God by Michael Horton. I read the book last year and highly recommend it to every single living Christian. I think it addresses the issue well.

Al just posted on this as well, and he quotes Marva Dawn, whom I'd highly recommend on the issue of worship. Check out Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down.

Calvinists and Unity

2005-04-21T12:29:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to link to this post by Doug Wilson on Unity and Doctrine. An excellent summary indeed.

Resources

2005-04-19T15:01:00.000-04:00

To IVCF:

Ok, here are the resources I mentioned to you at the retreat.

ESV Online
For reading the Bible without chapter, verse, and header markings:
Click on the "Read it Online" link from the homepage.
Click on the "options (beta)" link in the top right hand corner.

Monergism.com resources on Church History
Excellent series by Sam Storms on Historical Theology
Hall of Church History (or, "Theology from a bunch of dead guys")

I'll provide more as I think of them. Happy reading!

To SUNY Geneseo, IVCF

2005-04-18T00:41:00.000-04:00

Hello, all. Once again, thank you for being so gracious to me this weekend. I always enjoy the chance to be with you. As I said, I intend to post a good number of links that I hope will be helpful to you to pick up where we left off this weekend, whenever your studies permit you time to do so. I will try to put that list together tomorrow.

I trust your time of communion, singing, small groups, and lunch together after I left was blessed by God. I look forward to being with you some time again in the future. Until then, feel free to come visit my blog here, post some comments, or keep in touch by email.

A Passing Comment

2005-04-14T10:23:00.000-04:00

Please take the following as a passing comment as I work through this stuff, and not as a definitive statement, since I haven't read enough of Wright or his critics to even make definitive statements yet.

I found the following on the N.T. Wright Page:

Anyway, Paul's point in the present passage is quite simply that what now marks out the covenant people of God, in the light of the revelation of God's righteousness in Jesus, is not the works of Torah that demarcate ethnic Israel, but "the law of faith," the faith that, however paradoxically, is in fact the fulfilling of Torah. There is no problem in adding the word "alone" to the word "faith"--a tradition that goes way back to Aquinas--as long as we recognize what it means: not that a person is converted by faith alone without moral effort (that is true, but it is not the truth that Paul is stressing here), nor that God's grace is always prior to human response (that is equally true, and equally not Paul's emphasis here), but that the badge of membership in God's people, the badge that enables all alike to stand on the same, flat ground at the foot of the cross, is faith."

--From the Commentary on Romans, by N.T. Wright

Now, I'm just a normal guy and all, but doesn't it seem that Wright is not denying some of the most beloved truths of Reformed theology, but rather making us look at texts more closely to see which ones are communicating those truths and which ones are addressing other issues? That's how it looks to me. It sounds like he's calling us back to the Bible and away from applying the statements in our Reformed confessions to any and every text, as though Paul was addressing in Romans the exact same questions that were being hashed out when the Westminster Confession, or any other such statement of faith, was written.

I could be wrong. It's just a passing thought based on one comment, but struck me as interesting nonetheless. Anyone who's read more Wright than I, feel free to add your thoughts.

Preaching Romans 12

2005-04-14T08:06:00.000-04:00

So this is new. As I said, I'm preaching at the IVCF chapter retreat this weekend, and I've been asked to preach Romans 12. In days gone by, this passage would have been easy to preach. A long list of commands. Check. Hammer away for a few hours about how we should be doing these things, and if we're not, we might not really be Christians, or at the very least, we're about to be judged terribly by a holy God. A series of great big mean sermons. Easy.

Now that I'm recovering from my Christian moralism and actually believe the gospel is our only hope for being saved from sin and progressing in sanctification, I'm finding it not so easy to preach a list of moral commands!

Something tells me the way to do it is to place it in the context of the whole biblical story, especially since it follows 11 chapters of Paul's accounting of that story, but that's going to take more work than just listing rules we should be following.

I've got a long day of sermon writing ahead of me.

on the frequency of posts

2005-04-12T07:26:00.000-04:00

Word around the cath lab is that they're going to be taking the internet away from us (@#$%@!!). Since many of my posts are written during breaks at work, there may be fewer posts until I figure out an alternative time to post more often.

I'm also trying to keep up better with the BHT now, so that's also a factor.

If you read this and think of it, toss up a prayer or two for me - I'm preaching to college kids all weekend again (one of my favorite things to do). I've been asked to speak at the SUNY Geneseo IVCF chapter retreat - 4 messages (30-45 minutes each) out of Romans 12.

BHT Fellow

2005-04-09T10:36:00.000-04:00

I was accepted this morning as a fellow at the Boar's Head Tavern, one of the discussion blogs I regularly visit, which means my life is complete and I could die a happy man. But before I do, come on over and check out the discussion.

Oden Rocks

2005-04-09T09:02:00.000-04:00

Thomas C. Oden is my new hero. That's strange, since he's not a Calvinist, but he seems to be the only one I've read so far who's making the most clear-headed sense of what the church should do in our current cultural situation. Not only is he not a Calvinist, he's a United Methodist. J.I. Packer likes him, too, so I'm not in bad company. In fact, the two just co-edited a book called One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus in which they document the growing theological agreement between the various Christian denominations and organizations. He's a former liberal and modernist who is skeptical about modernism but does not think postmodernism is the answer.

I intend to post more (which means I might, if I remember) about his own quest to promote classical ecumenical confessional theology as a point of unity for Christians, but for now, I just want to provide a few great quotes. The one thing I love about reading Oden is that almost every page is jam-packed. He has this uncanny ability to say a whole lot in just one or two sentences. Here are just a few examples from The Rebirth of Orthodoxy:

"The Freudian idealization of sexual liberation and the dream of freedom from limits have resulted in the realization that it is easier to make babies than parent them morally." p.8.

"Those who willingly enslave themselves to passing idolatries should not be surprised when the gods of modern times are shown to have feet of clay." p. 11.

"Both Jews and Christians view all of history as the arena of revelation, but both see revelation through the lense of a particular history. They tell the story of salvation as a particular narrative, not as a general logical, scientific, or philosophical set of arguments." p. 17.

"The most salient feature of orthodoxy is not its rigidity but its flexibility. Since orthodoxy is centered in life in the eternal Word, it is free to enter willingly into infinitely varied cultural settings on behalf of its all-embracing vision of the truth." p. 41.

Wilson on Wright

2005-04-08T16:24:00.000-04:00

Here is an absolutely excellent post by Doug Wilson on N.T. Wright.

He gets at a key issue which a lot of people seem to misunderstand - it is possible to learn things from people with whom you disagree on certain other issues. For some reason, there's this odd tendency to entirely dismiss someone because "he believes in [insert theological agenda]." But that's dumb. Especially with someone like N.T. Wright, who has done far more work trying to understand the issues at hand than you or I.

Thesis Outline Revisited

2005-04-08T14:38:00.000-04:00

As some of you know, my thesis topic has changed from historical research of Christianity during the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution to an evaluation of the present Christian response to postmodernity and an agenda for moving forward. I'm workin' away at it, and at the present, the outline will take the following form:

Part One: Postmodernity and Emergent Church - A basic overview of postmodernism and a look at the "Emerging Church," a group of believers who believe, in one way or another, that Christians must embrace postmodernism.

Part Two: Postmodern Idolatry - Some concerns about "Emergent" based on an argument that postmodernism feeds perfectly into a consumer mentality that results, in essence, in a system of idolatry.

Part Three: Root Problems with Postmodernism - this will be a deeper look at the challenges we face as Christians when it comes to postmodernism and argue for a return to classic ecumenical consensus as a path forward for believers (Oden).

Part Four: The Apostles' Creed Applied - I will put part three into practice by formulating a response to postmodernism using the Apostles' Creed (classic ecumenical creed) as an outline.

The paper will be from a Reformed position, but I will be arguing for a more "generous orthodoxy" than most Reformed believers are willing to allow (though perhaps not quite as generous as McLaren's).

I'm still working some of the bugs out, but I'm hoping to pull this all together finally in the next few weeks.

Meet Bodhi

2005-04-04T21:55:00.000-04:00

everything's a debate

2005-04-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

As much as I've been helped by many of the writings of James White over the years, I've come to the conclusion that he is the embodiment of every negative connotation associated with the word "dogmatic." Sometimes I want to clobber him over his bald head and say, "RELAX!" Here's an excerpt from his thoughts on the death of John Paul II:

Sit back and start taking notes. How many, anywhere, even in "Christian media," will address the only relevant issue regarding the death of John Paul II? And that issue?
Well, it isn't the length of his Pontificate, one of the longest and most stable in centuries.
It isn't the fact that as far as Pontiffs go, he was a great administrator, traveler, even uniter of a very factionalized church. His "greatness" as a Pope isn't an issue.
It won't be that he was a nice man, or that he took courageous stands on controversial issues.
No, the issue almost no one will speak about is very simple: the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And further:

As I have noted on the Dividing Line, the passing of John Paul II opens up a tremendous opportunity for dialogue. Are you prepared? Can you address the issue of the Papacy, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how Rome does not possess that gospel (but instead dogmatically denies it)?

You see? Everything in evangelicalism these days is turned into a debate to prove that we're right.
The reason he believes no one will get the "real" issue?

It will not be spoken of for the simple reason that very, very few today believe the gospel can be known with sufficient clarity and depth to even address the issue of Rome's teaching.

Well, maybe. Or maybe it's because not everyone in evangelicalism thinks that the day a pope dies is the day to embark on a 30 city evangelistic crusade to "save" Catholics. Or maybe not everyone in evangelicalism believes that White's particular version of "Reformed Baptist" theology is the most perfect definition of orthodoxy.

So if you're looking for a kinder, gentler Protestant response from a solid, orthodox Christian, check out Leithart on Pope John Paul II instead.

credo, paedo, and the learning space between

2005-04-02T08:46:00.000-05:00

This post by Doug Wilson is tremendously helpful for me right now when dealing with the question of infant or believer's baptism. I know that wherever I end up landing on this issue, I'm going to spend a good, long time studying it.

Rochester Sports

2005-04-01T07:40:00.000-05:00

Now that I live in Rochester, I'm looking forward to getting into Rochester minor league sports. Good time to start, too. The Rochester Americans, farm club for the Sabres, is tearing up the league, and the playoffs are starting soon. The Red Wings' season is starting April 9th, which also means that Rohrbach will be brewing its "Red Wing Red" again. I'm looking forward to some nice evenings in the ballpark.

Another slow day at the cath lab...

2005-03-31T14:39:00.000-05:00

I'm a German Shepherd.

What kind of dog are you?

Blah.

2005-03-30T16:00:00.000-05:00

I've finally finished reading The Next Reformation. Blah. That's about all I can come up with right now. I may try to review portions of it this weekend. Overall, I can't believe I trudged through all that verbiage to have him recommend the most extreme forms of pentecostalism as the real answer to postmodernism. He went from chapter upon chapter of philosophy (albeit, bad philosophy) to "we're in the end times, 'latter rain,' get slain in the Spirit, no structured worship, blah blah blah."

I'm going back to reading Wright now.

The Challenge of Wright

2005-03-28T09:15:00.000-05:00

I'm finally getting around to reading at least a little bit of N.T. Wright now that I've found that some of his work addresses Christianity in the postmodern context. I'm through the first chapter of The Challenge of Jesus, and I'm not scared yet. I know it's a tiny part of his work, but the basic premise - the absolute necessity of understanding first century Judaism in order to interpret the gospels and Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom - is right on target.

Though I am indeed a "Calvinist," I'm always a bit skeptical when the shrill voices of Reformed criticism find a new person to tear to pieces, and right now, Wright is that person. I just don't see how Wright's basic premise is any different than an attempt at semper reformanda, the Reformation principle that we should be "always reforming." Have we really turned the interpretations of Calvin, Luther, and the old Princeton theologians into the new documents of an infallible teaching magisterium?

I'm looking forward to reading a couple of Wright's "big books" this summer, and I'm looking forward to having some calm, reasonable discussion about them.

Shiavo

2005-03-25T16:35:00.000-05:00

I've been very hesitant to weigh in on the Terri Shiavo story for various reasons, the greatest of which has been my lack of time to really investigate for myself. I was sent an article by a pastor friend of mine, and if you have the time, I commend it to you. World Net Daily has been covering this story longer than anyone, and this article, "The Whole Terry Shiavo Story" summarizes the story as well as providing links to their research.

For some opinion on the matter from what I think is a reasonable Christian perspective, check out this post at Blogodoxy.

This case is just fraught with controversy and many unexplained and unanswered questions. In light of that fact, it seems to me it would be better to take more time with this. I know - it's been 15 years. But it's a person's life. Even a few more years would be worth it.

Raschke's Attack on Presuppositionalism

2005-03-23T16:57:00.000-05:00

I mentioned a few posts ago that there was a section coming up in Raschke's book on "presuppositionalism," and I briefly typed out a few of my own thoughts on the value of such a doctrine for Christian apologetics in a postmodern world.

Raschke saw things much differently than I had anticipated. For Raschke, presuppositionalism is a form of "foundationalism," which is bad, according to postmoderns. It is a sort of arrogance that says, "My worldview is right, and as we work out our worldviews to their logical conclusions (reason!), mine will be shown to be superior to yours."

I'll have to look up my Reformed systematic theologies again, but I'm not sure this is what most of us mean by presuppositionalism. At least it's not what I mean; perhaps I've missed what most Reformed believers say.

Over all thus far (about halfway through), Raschke's work is an incredible disappointment. The first few chapters are simply unreachable for most evangelical Christians. I have no idea how he think such a work could spark "the next Reformation." He spent so much time writing explanations of Derrida, Heidegger, et. al, in the first few chapters (explanations which would cause most laypersons, untrained in philosophy, to set the book down after a paragraph and grab the remote control), he spent a mere 15 pages explaining what sola fida looks like in this next Reformation. Basically, it means not enlightenment and not presuppositionalism (which is the same thing as enlightenment, but not really, but still - which is about what Raschke sounds like in plain words).

While Luther is his hero, Luther uttered his famous words, "Here I stand; I can do no other," after being attacked for his study and teaching on the word of God itself. Raschke spent 98 pages exegeting Derrida and then wrote, "Here we stand. We can do no other." Shocking.

I'm not giving up, though. There are some decent points in the book, and I will get to them once I've finished. Hopefully things will get better from here.

Concert Tallies

2005-03-21T16:53:00.000-05:00

Before I get into some serious meditations for Holy Week later on this week, I thought I'd do a fun little exercise. In making plans for the upcoming Gordon Lightfoot show in Toronto, I got to thinking about the concerts I've been to. I thought it would be fun to try to tally up all the artists I've seen and how many times I've seen them. I know I don't remember every single opening act, but here's my list, the best I can remember.

Andrew Peterson - 4 times as the main act.
Bob Dylan - 4 times, main act.
Bebo Norman - 4 times, 3 as main act, 1 as opening.
Barenaked Ladies - 4 times, main act.
Gordon Lightfoot - 3 times as main act (it'll be 4 in May).
Caedmons Call - 2 times as main act (both times before Derek Webb left).
Moxy Fruvous - 2 times, main act.
They Might Be Giants - 2 times, once as opening act, and once as main act.
Laura Story - 2 times, opening act.
Derek Webb - 1 time, main act.
Blues Traveler - 1 time, main act.
Michael Card - once, main act.
Newsboys - once, main act.
Rebecca St. James - once, main act.
Grateful Dead - once, main act (post-Garcia).
Eric Peters - once, opening act.
Andrew Osenga - once, opening act.
Jill Phillips - once, opening act.
The Nields - once, opening act.
Justin McRoberts - once, opening act.
Ani DiFranco - once, opening act.
Nicole Nordeman - once, opening act.
Scott Phillips - once, opening act.
PW Gopal - once, opening act.

I know there are a few that I just can't remember, but I recalled more opening acts than I expected!

Is Postmodernism a Metanarrative?

2005-03-20T18:15:00.000-05:00

In the comments section of the previous post, several good issues arose pertaining to whether or not postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, thereby being defeated by its own argumentation. I am going to rely heavily on Middleton and Walsh here, quoting them at length, because they articulate this better than I can.

Middleton and Walsh, while exceedingly sensitive about postmodern concerns (based on their writing and my personal encounters with Middleton, they are even political liberals on many issues), do indeed believe that postmodernism is another metanarrative and does not escape its own criticism. Note the following: Postmodernism sees Modernity as the problem from which we need "salvation," so to speak. Postmodernism is, of course, the answer, or the "savior," if you will. As Middleton and Walsh say, "[Postmoderns] typically tell us a large-scale story in which modernity, with its totalizing metanarrative funcations as the complicaton or problem that is to be historically/narratively resolved by transcending the need for metanarratives. But isn't this itself a tall tale, a metanarrative of universal scope which is simply unacknowledged" (Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be, p.76)?

Using a "smorgasbord" of options as an illustration of the postmodernist "mulitplicity of worldivews offered for our consumption," they continue with the following:

If among the variety of offerings we find Western modernist soup, Marxist rice, Christian stew and Muslim bread (so to speak), is there also a postmodern dish of some sort? Do postmodernists consider their own worldview as simply one option among many? Not at all. Postmodernity, as the master discourse which guides our understanding that all stories are mere human constructs, does not appear on the table. It is the table on which all other dishes are served. Postmodernity thus functions as the larger interpretive frame that relativizes all other worldviews as simply local stories with no legitimate claims to reality or universality. Given the clash of ideologies and aggressive violence which so characterizes postmodern plurality, why should we trust the outcome, unless we are rooted in a metanarrative that demands this? The postmodernist is thus caught in a performative contradiction, arguing against the necessity of metanarratives precisely by (surreptitious) appeal to a metanarrative (pp.76-77).

As I've tried to say before, postmodernism's critique of the universality of reason is good, because modernity has its issues; but I think it fails to address the key problems. Eliminating any possibility of a correct worldview will not solve the problem of oppressive metanarratives, but, while being a self-contradiction in and of itself, will plunge people into hopelessness, buying their identity off TV rather than finding it in the reality for which we were created.

A Late Thinker

2005-03-15T10:02:00.000-05:00

I've been finding on a regular basis that as I analyze issues and try to come up with answers or relevant biblical points of view on those issues, that sometimes I have some pretty good ideas. Now, there are other days, mind you, when my brain is as dull as a spoon. But every once in a while, something makes sense in my brain before I've read anyone else who came up with the same idea. When I have such a thought, I sometimes wonder if anyone else has thought of this yet, and immediately book ideas begin to spring into my mind...until I'm reading along and find that someone else has already had that thought and been published.

Now, none of this really matters at all, except for perhaps the shot it takes at my pride (you're not as smart as you think you are, Travis), which is probably a good thing. Nonetheless, I am going to officially get a jump on this particular one, just for the record's sake. As I'm reading The Next Reformation, I noticed that the next chapter has a section entitled, "Presuppositionalism." So here are some thoughts I've been developing before I read someone else who has written about it.

For some time now I've been formulating the idea in my head that the advent of postmodernism should drive Christians back toward a presuppositional form of apologetics. In other words, we start with the existence of God and the truth of His Word, rather than attempting to prove it by empirical evidence first. Spurgeon said that one does not need to defend the Bible in the same way that one does not need to defend a lion. One only needs to let the lion out. That's a good illustration of presuppositional apologetics.

Sounds mindless, right? Well, let's head back to the Garden of Eden. "In the beginning, God..." That's presuppositional. There's no footnote with 10 philospohical reasons that God exists. Now, He creates the whole world, and Adam and Eve have all the evidence they could possibly need for the existence of God. What did they do? Sinned. So, did all that empirical evidence do them any good? Is that what they really needed to really trust God? "Faith founded on fact"? And that was the human condition pre-Fall!

If the human problem is sin, and the solution is the regenerating power of the Word of God, and we believe the Word of God is, indeed, powerful enough to transform a sinner into a saint through the proclamation of the death of Jesus, then evidential apologetics must take a back seat. It may be important for certain discussions or may be a starting point to dialogue, but no one is going to say, without the regenerating work of the Spirit, "Ok, I have enough evidence now. I'll receive Jesus."

This relates to postmodernism in this way - the postmodern person has been burned by the claims of rationalism and empiricism. It turns out we don't all have the exact same rational capacities, and there is no definite conclusion to which the principles of universal reason will lead us. Indeed, the very belief that there is such a universal reason has caused the more powerful people to impose their way of life on those who disagree with them, based on these "universal principles." One group imposes, by force, its "universal principles," which are not really universal, on another.

Yet Jesus came in humility as a man and boldly challenged those who imposed their way of doing things on the poor and downtrodden.

Many postmoderns don't care how much "evidence" we have. And "evidence" won't change anyone anyway. We must return to the simple, bold, and humble proclamation of the Word, and let it have its own transforming work. Postmoderns are looking for genuine, honest people, not people with the most evidence and statistics to back up their arrogant claims. Dependence on evidential apologetics betrays a lack of trust in God's Spirit and Word.

Ok, then, thanks for entertaining this over-simplified version of my thought. I'll let you know how Raschke's section on presuppositionalism compares and contrasts with mine when I get to that point in the book.

Rush, Warren, Challies, New Age, and CNN

2005-03-15T09:04:00.000-05:00

Challies.com had an interesting post yesterday on a call he got from CNN about a report they want to do on the Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren's best-selling but rather plain and sometimes way off base book. It's getting attention because of this whole hostage thing with Brian Nichols, and apparently CNN wants to report on it. You can read his article for yourself, but I found this particular paragraph rather amusing (though some Rush fans may not):

Interesingly, Rush Limbaugh spoke about the book in his program today, suggesting his listeners purchase it (read more here). Of course that doesn't mean much coming from Rush, as he also recommended the New Age abomination Conversations With God "if you want to have an even more detailed understanding of how some people look at this [how God shows up through people] and analyze it."

2005-03-11T13:14:00.000-05:00

I love my wife. That is all I have to say.

Praise the What?

2005-03-11T07:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, as my wife and I were frantically searching the internet for tips on crate training little Bodhi, she came across this particularly interesting piece of advice:

If you find a mess after the fact :
1. Do not punish the dog.
2. Accept the fact that you were not paying attention to the dog.
3. Do not show the dog that you are upset. Calmly put the dog on his leash and bring him to the location of the accident. With the dog at your side, firmly scold the potty. Do not scold the dog.
4. Blot up some urine, or pick up some stool with a piece of paper. Take the evidence and the dog to the latrine area. Place the paper on the ground and with the dog watching praise the potty for being in the "right" place. Temporarily leave the paper there. (Remove it when the dog isn't watching)
5. Clean up the remaining mess in the house as outlined above.

Praise the potty? We laughed very hard.

Warning in Hebrews 10

2005-03-09T16:45:00.000-05:00

Doug Wilson has posted today on the perseverance of the elect. Oddly enough, this particular possible interpretation of the warning passage of Hebrews 10 (one of the more difficult for monergists like myself), has never crossed mind mind:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26-29)

What does it say? It does not say anything about Hell or everlasting damnation. The context is that the author of Hebrews (in the mid to late 60's) is trying to talk some Christians out of returning to the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem. Obviously, they would have to go to Jerusalem to do this, and it was a masterpiece of bad timing, for Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. The Lord Jesus had prophesied that this would certainly happen within a generation, and that generation was almost up. The only thing they had waiting for them in Jerusalem was raging fire that would consume the adversary. They would not find in Jerusalem any sacrifice for sin. That was done, once for all in the death of Christ.

I'll have to give that one some thought.

Nerd Score

2005-03-09T12:44:00.000-05:00

You can tell it's a slow day in the cath lab when...

The Orthodoxy of Green Day?

2005-03-09T08:35:00.000-05:00

I haven't listened to Green Day since my high school years, but I just might need to find someone with a copy of American Idiot. No, I haven't become a political liberal or anything like that, but I did come across an interesting article on Break Point by Catholic Mark Gauvreau Judge that argues that music is not primarily about liberal agendas or conservative values, but one can find an incredible mix of both in music that is either beautiful or ugly. The article is Beautiful Green Day: Is Rock and Roll Liberal or Conservative?, and here's an excerpt:

...according to many theologians – and this conservative Catholic Green Day fan – beauty in music is an echo of God. (Of course, beauty and ugliness, which represents the dark side of life and the spirit world, can both be represented on the same record).This is a truth which is often ignored – both by conservatives bent on silencing rock and liberals who think that music is all about social protest.

Interesting stuff indeed. I think a Calvinist theology of Common Grace can manage to fit some of these ideas into it.

Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee

2005-03-08T16:00:00.000-05:00

This is the "Home Page" for my recovering pharisee confessions. This will be updated whenever I write a new one, and there will be a permanent link over in the right hand column.

Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee
Recovering Pharisee Confession #1 - the evils of "secular" music
Remedies for Pharisaism - a few iMonk posts that have helped in my recovery
Recovering Pharisee Confession #2 - on not avoiding even the appearance of evil
Recovering Pharisee Confession #3 - why churches should cancel their evening services on Super Bowl Sunday

Featured Posts

2005-03-08T15:54:00.000-05:00

Since things have been far too hectic for me to put together any good, original posts, I thought I'd start something I've been wanting to do for a while. I have been working on a couple of "series" of posts, including "Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee," "Christianity and Politics," and my issues with being or not being a "Baptist." I'm going to create sections over in the right hand column to organize these, so they're not all over the place and can be accessed at once. In order to do that, I'll need to make an "organizer post" for each one, which you will see above this post. I'll start for now with the first two, as there really aren't enough posts in the Baptist series to merit a whole section. I'll check these regularly for comments.

Happy Reading.

Evangelism and Social Action

2005-03-08T14:14:00.000-05:00

I'm not a United Methodist, but I do love to read Wesley Blog. (I do think John Wesley rocks). Ever since my "Evangelism and Social Action in the Urban Context" class at Houghton, I've been trying to return to this issue regularly. Wesley Blog has a good post on this as it relates to a recent warning issued by the National Council of Churches on tsunami relief and evangelism.

(See also his post just previous to that one on getting rid of the whole "let's turn around and greet one another" part of the service...something I've always hated).

Dachshund!

2005-03-08T07:20:00.000-05:00

This is not my dachshund. But this little guy does look a bit like Bodhi (pronounced, BO-dee), the mini dachshund my wife and I just got. If I can ever figure out how that "Hello" pictures thing works, I'll take some digitals of Bodhi and post them. We're having a lot of fun with little Bodhi Baggins so far, even though he is a lot of work. It's amazing how much time a little 7 pound animal can take up.

Eugene Peterson

2005-03-07T06:49:00.000-05:00

Eugene Peterson

Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, has drawn his readers' attention to an excellent interview with Eugene Peterson. I wanted to provide a link to that interview here for my readers, since many from our church only know what we've heard about the Message paraphrase (which is an interesting paraphrase, but it is just that - a paraphrase. It's not a translation, and it's not heresy; it's just a paraphrase.)

So here's a Christianity Today interview with Eugene Peterson that might bring some of us down out of the clouds and back to earth. I think you'll find it a good read.

Mohler on Peretz on Liberalism

2005-03-04T14:05:00.000-05:00

Al Mohler has chosen an interesting issue for today's column: Martin Peretz's article in The New Republic on the current state of liberalism. Peretz is its editor-in-chief, and it is a liberal publication. I heard Rush (no, I'm not a big Rush fan) talk about this a few weeks ago, and here Mohler provides some interesting insights and excerpts. Here's one in particular (keep in mind this was written by Peretz, the liberal, not Mohler, the conservative:

This patronizing attitude is proof positive that, as deep as the social and economic gains have been among African Americans, many liberals prefer to maintain their own time-honored patronizing position vis-a-vis 'the other,' the needy...This is, frankly, in sharp contrast to President Bush, who seems not to be impeded by race difference 'and gender difference' in his appointments and among his friends. Maybe it is just a generational thing, and, if it is that, it is also a good thing. But he may be the first president who apparently does not see individual people in racial categories or sex categories. White or black, woman or man, just as long as you're a conservative. That is also an expression of liberation from bias."

It seems to me that those on both sides of the aisle who have been willing to open their eyes (see my post on Christopher Hitchens for another example) have seen that Bush does not fit into the stereotypes coming from the shrill voices on the far left bank.

In any case, very interesting thoughts from Peretz and Mohler.

A Bills Counter Point

2005-03-04T10:55:00.000-05:00

What if I told you a certain quarterback went 9-2 in his last 11 games, and the team that owned him decided to drop him in favor of an untested rookie? Would you think that was crazy?

So do I.

The problem is, there's so much emotion stirring around Buffalo over some bad games that Bledsoe had (and keep in mind, in Buffalo, the bad offensive line is never to blame), including the very last game of this year's season, that many simply aren't thinking clearly. J.P. Lossman might be great. But "might" is the key word there. When you've got a veteran like Bledsoe, who is a good and humble leader, who's turned an 0-4 season into a 9-7, including a 9-2 record in his last 11 games, you've got to make the rookie earn his start.

Just my two cents on the matter.

Sundry Things

2005-03-03T07:25:00.000-05:00

Craig vs. Spong on the Resurrection. Now's that would be a good watch.

Dawn Treader vs. Emergent Church. I'm really looking forward to getting into the Emergent Church issue.

Doug Wilson on Postmillenialism, where he calls Christianity "a religion of world conquest."

Mohler on Postmodernism. Joel Hunter from BHT says Mohler's wrong.

'nuff for now.

late night ramblings

2005-03-01T23:08:00.000-05:00

I had another one of those moments this morning when it hit me that I have been so out of the practice of prayer that I wasn't quite sure how to start. I hate those moments. Can you say "slow sanctification?" Very good. You've just described my life.

I finished reading Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be tonight. Lots to comment on there. Most intriguing was the way the authors dealt with the OT problem texts (terribly immoral things happening, often to women, with no disapproval whatsoever expressed by either the characters in the story or the author of the text). The primary thrust of the book was that the biblical metanarrative is a counterideological and antitotalizing narrative that embraces the marginalized and suffering, rather than a metanarrative that oppresses. I would have been quite angry had the authors not made an attempt to deal with those OT "texts of terror."

Basically, Middleton and Walsh want to read the inclusion of those texts as evidence of what goes wrong when God's chosen people try to use the biblical story (of their election) in order to grant themselves a place of privilege over other people, resulting in their oppression. No correction is made in the text itself, because we the readers, as part of God's redemptive purposes in the earth, are supposed to recognize the sin in the text and conclude that this or that particular instance (for example, the woman raped, treated badly by her husband, and torn into 12 pieces in Judges 19) was a time when God's people failed to live out their election properly. In other words, even when the author of the text does not plainly recognize a problem, we the readers, who have the rest of God's revelation to us, including His redemptive purposes, in view, should recognize a problem. I'll try to include some direct quotes from the book when I have more time.

I've also started reading The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernism. It should be a very interesting read. As I start plunking out rough draft portions of the thesis (which I'm thinking of titling, "A Trinitarian Theology for Our Postmodern Times," or something like that), I'll include some of it here in blog posts.

the fellowship of sinners

2005-02-26T07:15:00.000-05:00

"He who is alone in his sins is utterly alone. It may be that Christians, notwithstanding corporate worship, common prayer, and all their fellowship in service, may still be left to their loneliness. The final breakthrough to fellowship does not occur because, though they have fellowship with one another as believers and as devout people, they do not have fellowship as the undevout, as sinners. The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner. So everyone must conceal his sin from himself and from their fellowship. We dare not be sinners. Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous. So we remain alone in our sin, living in lies and hypocrisy. The fact is that we are sinners!"

~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Jesus' "Embrace of Pain"

2005-02-25T15:20:00.000-05:00

"It is the Christian claim that Jesus paradigmatically embodied the central biblical trajectory of embracing marginality and pain - ultimately death - on behalf of both the margins and the center, thus bearing the sins of the world. This radical embrace was vivid testimony to his trust in the Creator of both center and margins, a Creator who is able to bring life even out of death. The person of Jesus, and especially his death on a cross, thus becomes in the New Testament a symbol of the counterideological intent of the biblical metanarrative and the paradigm or model of ethical human action, even in the face of massive injustice."
(J. Richard Middleton & Brian Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be, p. 104-105)

Updating the Links

2005-02-24T13:39:00.000-05:00

Over time, I'll be updating the "links" section on the right, adding places that I regularly visit. I may eventually separate the regular sites from the blogs and including more of the blogs I frequent.

For now, here's what's been added:

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals - It's always good to see Reformed folk getting together rather than fighting.
Challies.com - a blog with regular good articles.
St. Anne's Public House - an excellent tape ministry.
Touchstone Magazine - "A journal of Mere Christianity."

Ethics in a Mall Culture

2005-02-23T08:18:00.000-05:00

"Postmodernity is, after all, a 'mall culture'...Aimlessly wandering through a mall with an incredible range of consumer options can be extremely tiring. It is not simply the multiplicity of options that tires us; at bottom is the inability to make a normative choice.
But people do act. People do make ethical decisions every day. The problem is that we have no way to argue definitively with each other about the grounds of those actions because all such grounds are the limited and idiosyncratic perspectives of our particular moral community at best, and our own consumer desires at worst. If ethical norms are socially constructed, and if all criteria by which we would judge the legitimacy of social contructs are themselves embedded in other social constructions, then we find ourselves in a situation where it is impossible to come to any final ethical decisions."
(J. Richard Middleton & Brian Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be, p.60)

Lightfoot!

2005-02-21T08:49:00.000-05:00

Yup, he's back on stage. Gordon Lightfoot. The man.

Back when I was in junior high, I didn't listen to any music. Ever. When I was a kid, I jammed to the oldies and all sorts of stuff, but for some reason (maybe 'cause I couldn't understand Bob Dylan at the time, and my dad listened to him a lot), I didn't purposefully listen to much music by the time I was like 11. Then one day, my dad popped Gord's Gold into the car tape deck. I wore that tape out listening to it over and over. Gord's music became something the whole family had in common, something we could celebrate together.

Right around his 1993 release, Waiting for You, my dad surprised us with tickets to a Lightfoot concert down at Chataqua Institute. I remember it settling in..."Wait. You mean I can actually see the guy in concert that I'm hearing on these cds?" It was an incredible outdoor show, my first concert ever. Since then, my family has made two trips up to Toronto to see him at Massey Hall, where he plays once every year and a half. We always stay at the same hotel, and we always have a great time.

Then, of course, Gord went into a coma and it was questionable whether he'd ever play and sing again. Now he's back with a new cd, Harmony, which is simply stunning given all he's been through. His voice is certainly not the deep baritone of the 70's, but it still has that character to it.

He's also resuming his Massey Hall plans. The last time my family went up to Massey Hall was May 9, 1998, and Gord played this set list. Being that he's six years older and has had so many health issues, I'd be surprised to hear such a great set list again. But regardless of how the show goes, this will be a special trip. My brother Brad and I are both married now, and in a month, my other brother, Eric, will also be married. We're taking the whole family - dad, mom, us three boys, and our marvelous wives - to his show on May 21st. I can't wait.

Personal Philosophies

2005-02-19T08:07:00.000-05:00

As my own way of looking at things is transitioning from a sort of naive moralism to, well, hopefully something not so naive, I thought the following thought from Lemony Snicket was appropriate:

"Having a personal philosophy is like having a pet marmoset, because it may be very attractive when you acquire it, but there may be situations when it will not come in handy at all."
(from The Grim Grotto)

Calm Down! Just Calm DOWN!

2005-02-17T22:11:00.000-05:00

What am I getting so riled up about, you ask? Al Mohler wrote the following in his blog in yesterday's entry about Brian McLaren, a leading influence in the Emerging Church movement:

McLaren was listed as one of 25 influential evangelicals in the February 7, 2005 edition of TIME magazine. In its profile, TIME referred to a conference last spring at which McLaren was addressed with a question related to gay marriage. "You know what," McLaren responded, "The thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side." TIME referred to this as "a kinder and gentler brand of religion." Others would be less charitable, for McLaren's "nonanswer" is itself an answer. This is a man who doesn't want to offend anyone on any side of any argument.

It simply amazes me that evangelicals, particularly my wonderful Reformed friends, are so up in arms about his answer. This is the second time I've read a Reformed writer that I respect hammer on McLaren for his statement. Douglas Wilson, whose Credenda Agenda issue on homosexuality a few months ago was so well-written, was unfortunately even harsher than Mohler on his blog recently:

He [McLaren] was asked about homosexual marriage, and his answer said it all. He said that what broke his heart was the fact that no matter what he said, he was going to hurt people on one side or the other. Of course hurting people on the other side is what you are supposed to do in a war. If you know what side you are on.

Um...when did this become a war against the gays? I thought we were in this to save souls. We're in a war in which we're supposed to hurt people? Somebody stop. I want to get off this train. I want to sign up with another country or something, 'cause if Wilson is right, somehow I wandered into the wrong camp. Jesus didn't say stuff like this.

Now, it is absolutely true that people are going to get hurt in these discussions. I'm not saying that we should neglect to do anything about the clear teaching of God's Word because it might hurt someone. But isn't it ironic that Christians are the ones acting the most hurt by McLaren's statement? How 'bout some sensitivity and humilty since we happen to be sinners too? How 'bout we stop acting as if this one sin is the really, really bad one? They're all really, really bad ones, including the ones you and I committed today. Jesus also died a really, really bad death to deal with it. So here's a suggestion. Put down the weapons and stop failing to care about whether or not you hurt someone. Point instead to the One who was hurt (i.e., whipped, beaten, spit on, mocked, and killed) for our sins.

If we evangelicals had enough discernment to realize just how poorly we've handled this issue, we'd see McLaren's statement as a good, foundational, and humble start to this discussion. It stinks that people are going to get hurt when we talk about this. No, it really does. I know. Truth is important; it is vital. But so is speaking it in love. While it is likely, from what I've read, that McLaren (whose works I will definitely be reading in the near future) will be a bit more theologically relaxed (if you will) than I am comfortable with, his attitude is a much needed balance to the vitriolic reactions of many Christians these days.

There's a lot of important stuff to say on this matter, and I do think what we Americans do with it will have wide-ranging cultural and religious implications. But we all need to start with some apologies, and then we can sit down over a cup of coffee with fellow sinners and explain to them Jesus' opinion on human sexuality.

snicket on "fate," and other things

2005-02-17T08:06:00.000-05:00

"Fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant, filled with odd waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don't always like."
(from The Slippery Slope)

The conversation over at Boar's Head Tavern and the iMonk's last two essays have been a breath of fresh air on the issue of "inerrancy," a word (that I said in a college paper a few years ago) that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

My teaching on 1 Corinthians 15 and the Millenium over at my other blog.

a little odd

2005-02-15T15:46:00.000-05:00

I'll let you make what you want of the following story from Brit Hume on Fox News:

Nature vs. Nurture?
A German zoo's plan to introduce females into a group of what they think are homosexual male penguins has angered gay rights groups — who complain that the zoo's actions are trying to turn the penguins straight.
The Bremerhaven Zoo concluded the penguins might be gay after the males tried to mate with one another. Zookeepers say they just want to see whether the birds were acting that way because of a lack of females.
A spokesman added, "Nobody is trying to break up same sex pairs by force."

a familiar pulpit, and Saved!

2005-02-14T15:06:00.000-05:00

I was asked by the current pastor of West Bethany Baptist Church to fill the pulpit for him in his absence this coming weekend. I can't say it won't be a little odd being back in the pulpit of the church I pastored for one year. That was overall an extremely odd year of my life. But it will be fun as well. I always love preaching, and it will be good to see old friends.

I watched the movie Saved! this weekend, and while it's a harsh critique of the Christian subculture, a fairly accurate one nonetheless. It was very uncomfortable to watch, and I found myself pretty angry afterwards. Not angry that a moviemaker would pick on Christians, but that he would pick on Christians and be so accurate. We deserve almost everything the movie poked fun at. The "answer" given to the problem of the Christian subculture in the film's resolution ultimately was as shallow as what the movie was picking on. Nevertheless, I think lots of Christians, especially those involved in teen ministry, should sit down and watch this movie. When you don't look in the mirror for a really long time, what you see when you finally do is scary. This is sort of what needs to happen to the American Christian subculture. Hopefully we'd be able to set aside the pride and defensive posture (i.e., persecution complex) and learn what we really look like sometimes.

leaving the circus

2005-02-08T07:20:00.000-05:00

For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ (2 Cor. 2:17).

For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends (2 Cor. 10:18).

I mentioned previously that the godlylife.com site was down, and that I had to decide what I planned to do with said site. In the time since its going down and today, I've done a lot of thinking. Here's where I'm at.

I'm tired of the circus of evangelical ministries. As if it were not enough for us to have formed 30,000 denominations of Protestantism, we also have an inumerable number of "Spirit-anointed" ministries, each believing its existence is necessary if the 21st century church is really going to make it. We've got ministries to bring revival, keep revival, teach you how to attract teens, teach you how to attract rich people to your church (not a joke), teach you how to combat postmodernism, or teach you that you need to embrace postmodernism. We've got Christian weight loss programs, apologetics ministries, and plenty of nuts who will take you on a retreat for a weekend to cast demons out of you. On and on it goes, ad nauseum. And the funny thing is, each ministry claims to be specially anointed of God. Each one says some silly thing like, "We believe we've created a ministry that God can use to [insert purpose of ministry]. Blah. I've had it.

Then there's the pastors and the young (and old) know-it-alls. I know a lot about these guys, 'cause I used to be one (and am currently trying hard not to be). These are the guys who honestly believe they are the next hot thing - God's gift to help the church make it through our current times. The church is struggling, but as soon as I get out there and preach, I'll be able (um...I mean God will be able) to bring us all back together, eliminate the heretics, gather the faithful in ecstatic revival, destroy the left wingers from the land, and even ensure that the pot luck dinners are filled up in plenty with good food each Sunday. Aunt Mabel will have repented of that funky smelling peas and beans casserole.

All the while, we are simply mimicking the American market system, selling ourselves to the evangelical world, as though they have a need that only our product (I mean ministry) can fill.

In days gone by, great pastors like Chrysostom, Augustine, and Calvin did not want to promote themselves to their pastoral roles. They had no ambitions to do such things. They wanted to quietly study the Word and write theology. What happened? The church recognized their incredible gifts and made them become pastors.

You see the difference? In our day, as soon as some young hotshot feels "called," he makes sure everyone around him knows it. Then everyone around him, not wanting to "limit God," immediately affirms the young lad and sends him on his way to evangelical stardom. And so another prideful pastor or another parachurch ministry is born.

Well, I don't want to be another one. I don't want to be a great preacher. I don't want to save evangelicalism from its circus-like state. I don't want to be a ringleader in the midst of this nonsense. I want to live a peaceful and quiet life with my wife. I want to become very active in a local church here in my community, teach and preach, worship and love, and write hard. If people hear my preaching or read my writing (I'm not abandoning my plans to write and get published) and want me to come speak (in other words, if THEY recognize some gift in me and want me to come), I'll gladly accept such offers. But I'm done promoting myself. I'm done commending myself as the next great revival preacher or any other such balderdash (great word, isn't it?). Let God, entirely by His grace, commend me where and when He chooses, if at all. I'm going to do my best to quietly, humbly, and joyfully serve.

So it's highly unlikely that the godlylife.com site will return. I may replace it with a personal homepage over time, or I may just stick with this blog. For now, if you want to read what I write, keep coming here. But you don't have to. I'm not trying to impress anyone.

Thank You to IVCF

2005-02-05T11:06:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to thank all of you at Geneseo InterVarsity. The last three weeks have been a blessing to me. Again, please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or declarations of heresy. I know I packed a lot of material into a short period of time. I hope you found yourselves challenged and encouraged as you continue to be a light on the SUNY Geneseo campus. I hope to see you all again soon.

GodlyLife site down

2005-02-03T07:57:00.000-05:00

My "home page," www.godlylife.com, is down for some reason, and will be until I get it figured out. As you may know if you've been checking it, I rarely update the site anyway. I've considered making a variety of changes, perhaps even publishing this blog as my homepage, so I may just let the site stay down and not pay on it until I make a decision. I'll make announcements about speaking engagements here at the blog.

Jesus is Lord

2005-02-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

Hopefully this post will address some questions that have been asked in various comments as well as outside of this blog. I want to take up the issue of the Lordship of Christ. Eschatology will make an important appearance in this article, as well as some vital questions and unhelpful confusion.

One of my hesitations about the total avoidance of any attempt at a Christian government is the overwhelming chorus of early Christian voices claiming that "Jesus is Lord." Lord of what? The Church? Individual Christians? Or is He Lord of the entire earth? And if so, how?

A key text here is 1 Corinthians 15:20-28:

20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For "God[b] 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. 28When 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.

The order of events seems plain: (1) Christ's resurrection occurs. (2) At His coming, the resurrection of believers take place. (3)"The end" comes. (4) Jesus hands the kingdom back over to His Father.

This destroys premillenialism, in my opinion, which means we are left with either amillenialism or postmillenialism. The text seems to favor post- (though I would gladly welcome alternate views if I'm missing something), because by the time the return comes, all things are put under His feet, and death is the final enemy.

Several questions must be answered: Who or what are the enemies? What does all things mean? Does He destroy every rule and power and authority at His coming, or during all the years leading up to it?

Here's the dilemma in my mind: If Jesus' reign is occurring now, which the text clearly says, and His reign ends at His return (hands the kingdom back to the Father), which it also says, and we are not supposed to seek for a Christianized world with Christian governments, then Jesus' reign over the earth is never entire. It is only over the church and was never intended to be over governments at all. Maybe that is indeed what the Bible says; I've got lots of studying to do there.

But something worries me here. If we are not supposed to have Christian governments, are we supposed to not try to elect Christian leaders? Should we not call on them to turn to Christ? Should we, in effect, not evangelize government officials, since the state is supposed to be secular? How do we affect our political atmosphere for Christ if it's not supposed to be Christian? Something tells me we'd do what we're doing now - engage in political power plays that show nothing of the true humility of Christ. Furthermore, it is obvious that we are, indeed, to call all to turn to Christ (Acts 17:30-31).

At the same time (it's like a literary tennis match), Christian governments have been absolutely horrendous in the past. Forced Christianity is never a good thing.

So perhaps I've come right back around to the idea of preaching the gospel to everyone everywhere and letting Christ take Lordship of what He wants to in His time. That's a little too vague for me, but it does keep the gospel primary and political power plays on the back burner. I'm going to explore the merits of this position over the next few days.

AIDS in infants almost eliminated

2005-01-31T07:47:00.000-05:00

It appears that the U.S. is closing in on the total eradication of AIDS in infants.

proctor & politics

2005-01-30T11:02:00.000-05:00

Attention: Be sure to read the post before this one, before reading this one.

Ben,

I think one of my difficulties in wrapping my head around this issue is that it is, indeed, a vast issue. It is hard to stay on one particular point without bringing in so many others. Your email to me, posted below, is helpful, and I am going to interact with it a bit here. At times I will take the opposing position, not because I'm sure I believe it, but to demonstrate the difficulties I'm having with this issue. Stuff you wrote will be in italics. So here goes.

The separation of church and state is not for the protection of the state, although secularists would have you believe that. It is to keep the state out of the church, so that the church would be free from the clutches of political power (political power is inherently corrupt).

This is a significant point! I do believe we have turned things around in our modern way of thinking, keeping the church out of the state rather than the state out of the church. I'm not, however, certain that political power is inherently corrupt. David was a good king. Jesus is called King. There are political positions. Rather, it seems that political positions are filled up by inherently corrupt people.

America was not founded on Christian principles....It was, however, founded to protect Christian principles as maintained by the church. The Christian leaders entering politics these days are turning to the state to do what the church has failed.

I would agree that deism won the day when it comes to the writing of the Constitution. I think you're saying here that the principles of American freedom and religious liberty were put in place to allow the church to continue to be what it is without any state telling it what it must and must not do. I also agree that Dobson and the like are trying to accomplish the work of the church through the state. But must we wait for everyone in America to be converted (a highly unlikely thing) before we can overturn Roe v. Wade? What is the best plan of action?

Furthermore, since we are agreed that America was not founded as a Christian nation (at least in the late 18th century), what is the standard for governmental laws? Enlightenment principles? Good and sound reason? "The tyranny of the 51%?" By what standard does a government say, "You can only drive so fast," or "You cannot put this type of plant into a pipe and smoke it," or other such laws?

You are concerned about the battle between the Christian right and left. I think it is one in the same with the battle between liberal and conservative political philosophies.

I agree that it's the same battle, but when divided evangelicalism enters the public, political realm on this issue, and Campolo and the left begin acting the same way as Dobson and Falwell, it's a recipe for destruction. My hope (at least at this point) is not that Campolo and company will rise up like the Christian right, but that the Christian right will take a deep breath, relax, and start coming at these issues with love rather than pharisaical rage.

Your points are all very well taken and worth much consideration. I look forward to more discussion with you and others. I intend to post soon on how the principle of Jesus' Lordship as well as the question of eschatology relates to this issue. Thanks for your thoughtful input.

Jesus Not Political

2005-01-30T07:51:00.000-05:00

Ben Proctor has written a response to my last post that sums up very well the position that Jesus (and therefore the church) are not primarily to be political, and there are some excellent observations of the current state of Christians and politics in America. He's agreed to let me share that response with you in full. I'll interact with it later today. Here's what he wrote:

Travis,

This is a subject I have spend a lot of time studying and thinking about. I don't have the answers, but I've gone through this struggle and come out with some interresting ideas. I hope you find them helpful.

Why did the angry mob seek to kill Jesus? Didn't the working Jewish people like Jesus, so that they put palms on the street and greeted him as king a week before? I think it's because of Jesus' refusal to be a political saviour, and the Jews wanted a king who would liberate them from Rome.

The separation of church and state is not for the protection of the state, although secularists would have you believe that. It is to keep the state out of the church, so that the church would be free from the clutches of political power (political power is inherently corrupt). The founding fathers understood that there is no way by law you can force a man to moral. By giving the maximum freedom to the church, you maximimize a positive influence on society. That is why the supreme court protected the right of high-school kids to hold prayer meetings in school, for example.

America was not founded on Christian principles. Many people say that it was, and that's because they don't understand the political philosophy behind the declaration and the constitution. Jefferson was much more of a humanist than a Christian. It was, however, founded to protect Christian principles as maintained by the church. The Christian leaders entering politics these days are turning to the state to do what the church has failed. If you want an example, look at the prohibition. Conservative politicians asked a panel of Christain leaders to come up with biblical justification for a ban on drinking. That's where the ridiculous wine/grape juice argument comes from. When the church tries to fix its failures politically, they often make the problem worse. The violence and huge increase in organized crime is the legacy of that law. Plus all those blind farmers!

However, I am pro-life and pro-marraige. I think that the laws a country holds do effect the poeple's view of morality. Abortion is a good example. Before Roe v. Wade, society held a basically negative view of abortion. One of the arguements given by the pro-choice lawyers was that because abortion was not favored in the public eye, if it were legalized it would be a rare procedure given only to women that truly needed it. That's not what happened--the legalization of abortion actually altered the way society viewed it from a moral perspective. This is the real crime--the lie protected by law of society that abortion is OK. The number of abortions skyrocketed since Roe v. Wade, as did the number of women pushed into therapy by the emotional trauma of abortion. Here's where I think the church still makes a mistake on the issue--we hammer on the political wrongness of abortion, and place secondary importance on the spiritual damage. Shouldn't the church be a place where a woman suffering from abortion trauma can find love, acceptance, and the healing truth of Christ? If we overturn Roe v. Wade--and I think we should--we have to do it for the right reasons or it will become another prohibition.

You are concerned about the battle between the Christian right and left. I think it is one in the same with the battle between liberal and conservative political philosophies. Essentailly, I think the American church has become infused with politics, to the point where we are at odds with each other based on political ideals instead of one body in Jesus Christ. For example, take one of Bush's speaches, when he said:
"This idea of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it."

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" is from the Gospel of John, however, President Bush means light of America while the bible means the light of Jesus Christ. Liberal Christians criticized it, such as Jim Wallis and Desmond Tutu, saying that Bush changed the meaning of scripture to fit his political agenda. Conservative Christians supported it, such as Falwell and the Southern Baptist Convention, saying that Bush is on a mission. Isn't that backwards? Aren't conservatives supposed to be against changing the meaning of scripture, and aren't liberals supposed to tolerate that kind of thing? Our Christian leaders are becoming more partisan every year and it scares me.

The only hope we have of becoming a truly Christian nation is if people turn to God. Right now, we are more a nation of Pharisees, IMHO. We should look to the examples of South Korea and the Philipines, that to change a country for God, you have to start with the apprehension of individuals by Jesus, not politics. We forget about America's oldest prejudice, distain for Catholics, while we start to creep towards the poisonous mix of religion and politics that brought down the Catholic empire. I think of Matthew 22:21, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. The coin bears the image of Caecar, but we are made in God's image, we bear the image of God. We shouldn't give what belongs to God to the USA, or any other political entity or philosophy. Patriotism is enough of an idol as it is.

I'm sure you can find more biblical examples. I have lots more thoughts, but i have to do some work now...let me know what you think.

peace--

Ben

2005-01-29T13:19:00.000-05:00

This is shocking.

Of Jesus, Caesar, Elephants, and Donkeys

2005-01-29T09:05:00.000-05:00

I usually prefer to write about things I already have figured out, so my readers know I'm smart and keep coming to read my stuff and learn. This morning, I'm going to write about something I'm very confused about. If you're another Christian struggling with this issue, or you've got it down, please help me

It's the issue of how the kingdom of God and the church relate to politics and government. This used to be really simple for me, back in the day. It went something like this: America is a Christian nation, but all the evil secular humanists were trying to change it into a secular state, and so we had to fight against that by trying to convince people of things like the strange idea that Thomas Jefferson was a good, evangelical Christian. While America is a "Christian nation," it's also one that contains religious liberty, which means that, while all our laws should be entirely Christian, and this nation should remain "one nation under God," (and by God we mean Jesus), all the other religions have equal rights in our nation. But they don't really count. But isn't it a grand thing that they're free to follow their pagan lifestyle in this great ol' Christian America?

As you can see, this point of view gets really confusing and results in a befuddled view of what it really means to be a Christian. It results in a strange view of Christian political action. Let's take the homosexual controversy for example. Christians argue that we should not give legal status to "married" homosexuals. When asked why, our reason is that God would not approve of such a thing. When our opponents point out that we have religious liberty in America, and a religious belief is not a good enough reason to pass a law, we give them the same answer every time: "Well, America was founded on Christian principles."

But this gets us nowhere fast. It's not even really a logical progression. "Yes, we have religious liberty, and that's really important, but it doesn't mean that we're not Christian, too." As if everyone can freely practice their own religion, as long as the government makes laws based on one - Christianity. Sounds a lot like the first century Roman Empire to me. "You can practice whatever religion you like, as long as you say 'Caesar is lord' and come out to play with the gods at our festivals."

With this past election, all sorts of confusion about America and Christianity has ensued. Is America Christian? Is it Christian to fight for our moral values? A deeply divided evangelical Christianity is showing the depth of its division on this issue. Dobson, Falwell, and the Religious Right are louder than ever. Now, the "Christian left" is organizing and preparing to mount a counterattack. Bush's inauguration speech is getting the theonomists riled up, and Doug Wilson is calling the President a false teacher. Other Christians are nervous about the extremes of the Religious Right (see Michael Spencer's recent stuff on Dobson and the homosexuality issue). I am nervous about a battle between the Christian right and left.

But in the midst of all this, I cannot yet get my head around an answer. There are so many questions involved that need answering. I compiled a short and incomplete list of them a few weeks ago while my head was spinning on this issue, and I'm going to add a few now. Here they are:

What should the Christian's position be toward government?
What is the meaning of Romans 13, especially in light of Nero?
How does eschatology relate to politics?
Is the Old Covenant civil law restricted to OT Israel and Judah, or does it have application to the modern times?
If so, how? Do we kill adulterers and Sabbath-breakers?
Does the church and church discipline replace the OT civil government for Israel?
OT - Israel, a physical nation, God's covenant people, with accompanying laws
NT - Church, God's covenant people, but "exiles" throughout the world, with its accompany "law of Christ" - Church discipline would then be punishment for breaking of laws
Does the NT specifically address what to do when nations are disobedient to God?
Should a nation become Christian?
Is there any hope of a nation becoming truly Christian?
Is there any hope of winning a nation over by conversion rather than by political action?
If this happened, would the nation then inact Christian laws?
If a nation inacts Christian laws, which ones? with what punishments for breaking those laws?
Will we ever establish an ideal government before the return of Jesus? (an eschatology question)

(Stay tuned for an upcoming confused post on how I try to deal with the eschatology questions.)

So what should we do? Is the Republican Party really the best representative of Christianity? Can a Christian be a Democrat? Does the statement, "Jesus is Lord," pertain to government as well? Should we call on them to bow to Christ? Or is Jesus only supposed to be Lord of the church? If a nation is supposed to be Christian, how do we avoid the corruption of power that has always accompanied the combination of church and state?

Feel free to join me in my quest for an answer.

Recovering Pharisee Confession #3

2005-01-27T11:55:00.000-05:00

Why Churches Should Have Super Bowl Parties Instead of Evening Services on Feb. 6

I'm bound to get into a lot of trouble with just about everyone for this post. My really spiritual friends will lie about how they'd rather be "with their church family in a worship service" than watching the Super Bowl. Some of my Reformed friends will be mad that I'm suggesting we approve of football on "the Sabbath." But I think it would be a really good thing to replace evening service, just one time a year, with a Super Bowl party. My Reformed friends can even have beer, and my Baptists friends can have pop (soda, coke, whatever). Of course, given my schizophrenia on the whole Reformed/Baptist issue, I think that leaves me with a digusting can of O'Douls or something.

It used to be my sincere belief that, if we were really (and I mean really, really) good Christians, things like the Super Bowl wouldn't matter so much. To not have a regular evening service would be to say that God wasn't as important as football that night. (Because, clearly, God commands two worship services on Sunday...it's in there somewhere). Besides, we might be tempted to get drunk by watching beer commercials, so we should avoid the televised event altogether. So good, moral Christians forget about the Super Bowl and go to church that night. It's a sacrifice we must make, but if we really are Christians, we'll be willing to make it. And as a Pharisee, since attendance at evening service was an important rule for true believers, I would be absolutely certain to tell you (or at least talk about you behind your back) that your desire to stay at home with your dad whom you rarely get to spend quality time with and watch the Super Bowl was misplaced, and you should invite your dad to evening service instead. After all, you can only honor God by doing religious things.

By no means do I intend to downplay the absolute significance of corporate worship. But the thing that Pharisees like me never realized is that it is, in fact, possible - and even right and good - to spend God-honoring quality time with family and with church family outside of the actual worship service. God can be honored (I believe) by Christians getting together and enjoying the Super Bowl. God is not missing something He needs by our changing one evening service a year into a fun time of fellowship. Have we become so gnostic that only "spiritual" things can honor God? I'm afraid many of us have.

If you do, indeed, prefer to go to evening service over the Super Bowl, that's fine. But let's not look down on others who miss evening service that night. They're just as Christian, just as accepted in Christ, and believe it or not, they're probably not home sinning. They probably just want some good time with family and friends, and events like the Super Bowl (once a year) provide excellent opportunities for such time. Would that more churches realized this and took the time to get together with other church members, family, friends, gather 'round the TV for a sports match, and had some fun together.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

2005-01-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

One of the troubling things about the recent silly controversy over SpongeBob/ We Are Family Foundation vs. Dobson is what they are objecting to in the first place. The so-called controversial statement reads as follows:

I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.

Now, I get it - there's that subtle attempt to equate sexual orientation with civil rights issues such as racism. But at what point did Christians decide it was ok to not respect people who are gay? Disagree with them? Absolutely. Fail to respect them? Absolutely not. I just don't think there is anything worth getting worked up about in this statement. The day we stop respecting certain sinners because they happened to choose a sin that we think is worse than the ones we commit is the day we've missed the entire point. For many of us, it's today, and it has been so for far too long.

I know there's a ton of politics involved in that "controversial" statement. We can discuss that calmly. But since Christians have done such an incredible job of acting really dumb when it comes to this issue, it might be a good idea for us to settle down, stop attacking statements like this and making ourselves look ridiculous by finding demons in cartoons, and start respecting all people, created in the image of God, once again. We can discuss the dangers of the cultural acceptance of homosexuality once we remember to respect all persons involved in the discussion.

JFK and Freedom

2005-01-25T20:17:00.000-05:00

Boar's Head Tavern once again provides some eye-opening reading in light of current events. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, are terribly misunderstanding President Bush's inaugural speech and tearing it to pieces. The following are excerpts, posted at the aforementioned Boar's Head Tavern, from John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech. This is longer than my normal posts, but it's worth a read.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God....
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty...
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed...Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself...
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

-Excerpts from the Inauguration Speech of President John F. Kennedy

worship and singing

2005-01-23T10:52:00.000-05:00

The Boar's Head Tavern is in the middle of an interesting discussion on worship and singing. This post by Michael Spencer is very informative on the issue and contains many links to other excellent pieces.

Here's one interesting quote from the post:

Music has become a sacrament on a level higher than preaching, Baptism or the Supper. It now has its own bizarre theology, which we have all heard hauled out by contemporary worship leaders. This must be reversed. Reforming worship in most churches today means taking music down several notches in priority.

Depravity and Free Will

2005-01-22T17:40:00.000-05:00

The question of free will frequently comes up whenever depravity is discussed, as it has in the last post (see comments for the last post). It is a vast and complicated topic and can by no means be handled by one post. I will share some brief thoughts and then leave some links to helpful resources.

It is certainly true that if the entirety of our understanding (heart and mind) is plagued by sin, then the will is also plagued by sin. We have to carefully define what we mean by "free will." If by "free will," we mean that humans are sort of morally neutral, with a blank slate, equally able to make choices of good and evil, the Bible does not describe our sinful state this way (not to mention that it is philosophically impossible). If by free will, however, we mean that we are able to choose whatever we want, then we do indeed have free will.

The problem, of course, is obvious. If we are able to choose what we desire, and our natures are fallen in such a way that we desire sin, then we will incessantly choose sin. Simply put, there is no fallen person who will, without a previous work of grace on the heart and mind, choose Christ. The person will not choose Christ because the person does not want Christ, because Christ is all holiness, and we are all sin.

Of course, the common grace of God in the world does indeed restrain the extent of our sinfulness, and as God "gives us up" (Rom. 1) to our debased mind, our sinful desires take stronger hold, and greater and more frequent sin does occur. But this, of course, is no fault of God's since He is merely giving us over to what we already want and, indeed, already are.

The following is a few links that might be helpful in trying to work on the issue of free will:

Monergism'section on Depravity
Mongerism's section on Free Will

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'll post more when I have more time. Monergism, by the way, is an excellent resource with tons of articles on almost any topic imaginable.

IVCF, 1/21/05

2005-01-21T22:31:00.000-05:00

To Geneseo IVCF: Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak tonight and for listening to my feeble attempts at laying out the doctrine of sin. My hope and prayer is that, hard as it may be, you will meditate deeply on the difficult doctrine of sin and learn to love Christ all the more. I realized that I plowed through the 7 points of application quite quickly, so here they are again:

Having a deep and penetrating understanding of the doctrine of sin and eternal punishment accomplishes the following:

1. It causes us to be totally dependent on God
2. It causes God’s grace to be magnified
3. It magnifies the joys of heaven
4. It motivates us towards obedience by freeing us from God's wrath
5. It causes us to remain humble, especially around unbelievers
6. It causes us to have mercy towards unbelievers
7. It brings glory to Christ – the work is all His! Many still trust from time to time in their own works to gain approval with God. Meditation and understanding of our terrible sinful state reminds us that Christ is our only hope.

Please feel free to ask questions or make comments in the "comments" section, and I am looking forward to seeing you next week!

(By the way, my regular readers are of course welcome to join this discussion as well).

Doubting Dobson

2005-01-21T09:45:00.000-05:00

Though I've been really nervous about Dobson for a long time, I've been holding a kind of idealistic hope that maybe, just maybe, a Christian who has such a prominent voice in American cultural discussions could be sane and reasonable. Well, I'm pulling my head out of the sand on Dobson now.

He thinks Spongebob is going to make kids gay.

Now, granted, the CNN report is biased against Christians in general, but this is silly. Spongebob, Dr. Dobson? This is the great threat to children? Or even a threat worth mentioning?

Free iPod

2005-01-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

Well, folks, I normally don't do stuff like this, but this one is quite harmless. In fact, the only thing that's happened to me is that I got 5 DVDs for really cheap (49 cents each). The deal is this: if 5 people sign up for a special offer (like the DVD offer I mentioned) by following the link below, I get a free iPod (which is an amazing, several hundred dollar little pocket sized thing that carries thousands of mp3s and has great sound quality). Then, if five people sign up under you, you get one too!

So help a poor guy get free electronic stuff; follow the link below!

Help me get a Free iPod!

IVCF, SUNY Geneseo

2005-01-19T08:38:00.000-05:00

I get to do one of my favorite things for the next three weeks: preach to college students. SUNY Geneseo's Inter Varsity chapter has invited me to speak three Friday nights in a row to kick off their semester. Here's the plan:

1/21, 7pm: On Being "in Adam" (Sin)

1/28, 7pm: On Being "in Christ" (Salvation)

2/5, 7pm: On Being in Community (God's covenant people - the Church)

Any questions, or if you'd like directions, just drop me a note in the "comments" section.

A Meditation on Competing Desires

2005-01-18T09:25:00.000-05:00

Satisfy us in the morning with Your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. ~ Psalm 90:14.

Starting last week, my wife and I have decided to memorize a verse per week for the year, taking the week to meditate on it. Here's some brief thoughts on last week's meditations.

It would be hard to argue with the following statement: Every morning we wake up with competing desires. We want to keep sleeping. We want to make it to work on time. We want a day off. We want to call in sick. We don't want to waste sick time. We are angry at our work schedule. We love that the weekend is coming.

And if we are Christians, we want to spend some time in prayer and Bible reading before starting the day. Some days this desire wins, and some days it loses. If for you, it always wins, you are more spiritual than I am.

It seems that there is, indeed, significance to the phrase "in the morning." If our day does start with a deep sense of satisfaction in the love of Christ; if our conflicted morning desires can be drawn to an appreciation of all God is for us in Jesus; if our cranky attitudes can early be repented of and early turn to joy in our Redeemer, my guess is that our days would be better.

Now, some Christians talk as though morning devotions were magical. Do your devotions, and you'll have better days. This is ultimately not true, in the way most Christians seem to mean (whether through poor wording or poor theology). Bad stuff will still happen in your day. Your boss will still yell at you. You'll still be stuck in traffic. Your child or spouse will still get sick. Someone will still get cancer. These things keep happening, regardless of your morning "quiet time."

So let me clarify. I'm not talking about a simple reading of the Daily Bread so you have a better day. I'm not talking about an "if...then" deal we make with God. I'm talking about finding a deep and peaceful contentment in our hearts and minds in the steadfast love of Jesus. Not only is it our only hope for joy, but it is also the only hope for those enslaved, whether knowingly or not, to sinful desires. When the world around us sees us satisfied with Christ's steadfast love, even in the face of ridicule at their hands, they are then confronted with the only remedy for their sinful state: the steadfast love of Jesus. It will introduce to them their only hope, which will, by the grace of God, compete with their present desires, overcome them, and draw them joyfully to Jesus.

as i was saying...

2005-01-15T22:32:00.000-05:00

Leave it to me to forget an important part of the whole discussion about whether or not the doctrine of Christ being "fully God and fully man" was an early Christian belief, or something invented by Chalcedon in 451. That is, of course, the Chalcedon Confession itself. Allow me to quote just the first little bit:

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body.

The italicized part was added for emphasis. Notice it says what I've been saying all along: the believers at Chalcedon were clarifying what the holy fathers had taught before them. It wasn't invented in 451 AD. It was given that specific wording in 451, because teaching had arisen contrary to what Christians had believed since the beginning.

Ok, I think I'll put this one to rest now. I should really start taking up church history issues on my other blog, where I'll be writing (hopefully) more about the Christological controversies of the first few hundred years, as well as some stuff on the Pelagian controversy in the coming weeks.

Cutting off the Roots

2005-01-15T07:31:00.000-05:00

I've been doing some thinking about early Christianity, having recently faced a good deal of criticism from the camp that tries to pass Christianity off as a religion that stole a bunch of ideas from earlier pagan religions and placed them on Jesus of Nazareth. Having run into people who are convinced that The Da Vinci Code is finally telling us the real story, I wanted to spend some time reviewing and learning more about first century Christianity. I am by no means an expert, but I think there is an interesting problem with the foundation of this whole concept of Jesus becoming a pagan dying and rising Godman.

That problem is this: The founders of Christianity were not primarily Greeks; they were Jews. More than that, they were Jews who saw in Jesus of Nazareth the fulfillment of God's plan in the world through Israel. Jesus became the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

This means that the first century theology of Jesus is rooted in Old Testament Messianic expectation, not Greek mystery religion. Jesus isn't Savior of the World to early Christians because Mythra was also "savior of the world," and that seemed like a good idea to apply to Jesus, but because YHWH had declared that He was Israel's "only Savior."

This, of course, is why early Christians concluded that Jesus had to be God. If only God could save, and Jesus was Savior, Jesus was God. But Jesus was also clearly a man, so much so that John put forth belief in Jesus' incarnation as a test of true Christian doctrine (1 John 4:1). While the exact words "fully God and fully man" were not used until a later council, the concept is manifestly present in early Christian literature, and it is rooted not in the idea of some god coming down, getting a woman pregnant, and birthing a "godman," but in the theology and Messianic expectation of God's covenant promises to Israel.

If you cut off the roots of Christianity (i.e., God's covenant promises to Israel in the Old Testament), then you can have all sorts of fun recasting Christianity as another pagan religion, borrowing all its ideas from Mythraism and other such belief systems. But this is to miss the point entirely, and it's irresponsible historical work.

things i love about being a baptist

2005-01-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

Before I begin a tirade of things I hate about being a Baptist, there are still some things I very much love about it. Here is an incomplete list which I will add to over time.

1. It was Calvinistic Baptists who pushed the hyper-Calvinist world out of its comfort zone and gave us the passion for world missions that exists in modern Christianity. William Carey in particular played a huge role in his persevering service in India, earning him the title, "The Father of Modern Missions." I've always loved the epitaph he chose for his tombstone:

A wretched, poor, and helpless worm, on Thy kind arms I fall

2. We've got Charles Spurgeon. Need I say more?

3. Regardless of my questions about church/state separation, Baptists stood up against some pretty harsh persecution from other Christians (whom, I must add, had fled England for that very reason). One can hardly blame Isaac Backus, John Leland, and the many Baptists of the 1700s for wanting freedom of religion across the board.

4. John Bunyan was a Baptist. I read The Pilgrim's Progress when I was just a lad, and it always stuck with me. I'm reading it to my wife now on our days off. We're at the beginning of Part 2, "Christiana's Journey."

These things about being a Baptist still remain, but I reckon they will remain dear to me whether or not I remain a Baptist in the future.

at the same time...

2005-01-13T22:49:00.000-05:00

(Read the post directly below before reading this)

I must admit that I agree with Michael Spencer that it is better to be an honest atheist than a fake Christian. So while I might think that the evidence some atheists are presenting is terribly biased against Christianity (and, if compared to other historical research on less controversial issues, would be shown to be quite poor), it is better to be real about who you are at this point in time than to pretend to be something that you're not. You'll only end up growing quite bitter against Christianity. Even I took a "sabbatical," if you will, from Christianity, and became a Unitarian Universalist (in theory - I never actually joined a congregation) for a year. And now here I am defending the faith I was once quite skeptical about.

why do you argue...

2005-01-13T21:51:00.000-05:00

A phrase keeps echoing around in my head. I cannot remember who said it, but it goes something like this: "Why do you argue against that which no one believes?" The question is meant to challenge people who set up "straw man" arguments, who refuse to take up their discussion with a serious position, but instead must caricature that position in order to defeat it.

I think one of the things that frustrates me most in dialogue with unbelievers these days is that many refuse to argue against what Christianity really is. The newest form of argument (which is really a recycling of an old one) is that, in fact, there were lots of different types of Christianity at first, but the big, mean, oppressive Roman Catholic Church which was in bed with the Emperor stifled all these "pagan" Christianities and persecuted them.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the later RCC did some unChristian things in its history. But this form of argument is terribly oversimplistic. Look: A good historical observation of the facts demonstrates that there was a basic Christian teaching, a "rule of faith," a creed, that passed on from Jesus, to His apostles, to teachers in the second century and on down to Nicea 325 A.D., when the 318 bishops, who were finally allowed to meet in public without being slaughtered, were able to put it down on paper. Depending on which source you use, the vote on the Nicene Creed was either 316 to 2, or 300 to 3. Not exactly a nail-biter. Apostolic Christianity vs. "Gnostic" or "Pagan" Christianity was not a close call. Genuine, apostolic Christianity had held onto the teachings of Jesus in the catacombs and house churches, had defended it against heresy and persecution, and were finally able to freely discuss it. This "rule of faith" is the same core Christian doctrine that has been held to for 2,000 years. It is what an apostolic Christian is.

The premise of this whole attack on Christianity is that if there were a bunch of different "types" of Christianities in the early centuries, then Christianity is invalidated. All sorts of attempts are made to make Christians look like they were deliberately taking pagan beliefs and baptizing them into the language of Jesus, and then turning around and oppressing the pagans. So people like Augustine and Justin Martyr are taken way out of context by websites like The Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth to say things they never intended to say.

The problems with this are manifold, but the biggest of all is that the theory of a Christianity that was terribly divided on the essential issues of the faith is not true. Those espousing it do not realize that their thinking is so heavily influenced by modernist and postmodernist assumptions that they cannot take at face value the wisdom and apologetic of early Christian writers, nor can they read them in context. Gee, could it actually be possible that Tertullian, writing about Christianity in the second century, had a better handle on early Christian history than John Dominic Crossan?

Now, of course, any attempt to defend our faith by pointing out historical evidence is met with scoffing and out of hand dismissal. It's very convenient to be able to argue "academically" against Christians, but when we present facts to back up what we say, we are accused of simply being stubborn and "relying on creeds and dogma." This is a huge, insulting overgeneralization, but then, Jesus said we'd have to deal with that, and I gladly will for His sake.

reformed and barely baptist

2005-01-13T13:03:00.000-05:00

I find myself presently in a theological identity crisis. For some time now, I've been slowly coming to the conclusion that there is barely any Baptist left in me. In my own theological study, most of the Baptist distinctives are either gone or in question.

For example:

I believe there must be more to the Lord's Supper and Baptism than just "remembering." Most Baptists act as though "Do this in remembrance of Me" were the only text on the issue. And it is nothing short of ironic that a group named "Baptists" so downplay baptism that all most of us can say about it is, "well, it doesn't save, and it should only be done to adults...when they feel ready." Well, that's really bad baptism theology.

The entire separation of church and state is in question in my mind. If Christ is truly Lord of all, and if N.T. Wright is correct in his article, The New Testament and the "State", that the principle of Christ's Lordship necessarily applies to government, and that religion and politics do indeed meet at the cross (see my post below, Politics at the Cross), then I have a lot of thinking to do on the traditional Baptist view of church and state.

Congregational style church government is very much in question. I'm leaning more and more toward elder rule for various reasons. John Piper manages to remain a Baptist while embracing elder rule. In fact, Piper manages to remain a Baptist while being an uncompromising Calvinist as well. This breed has become rare, but is currently seeing a turnaround in growth. The problem is, since we're Baptists, we're going to have 714 different kinds of "Reformed Baptists," and no two groups will talk to each other. I still have to spend some time reading and reviewing this "New Covenant Theology" that many Reformed Baptists are embracing. There's so much to read, and so little time.

There are many things I absolutely hate about being a Baptist (stay tuned for an upcoming series of posts on "why i hate being a baptist"). I hate that most Baptists embrace dispensationalism. I hate that most Baptists consider the Christian religion and the Republican party to be almost synonymous. There are more.

I still can't get past credobaptism (believers' baptism), however. I've tried. I think I almost want to believe in paedobaptism (infant baptism). It would unite me with longstanding Reformed Christian traditions with whom I feel much more affinity than Baptists. But I'm just not seeing it. I've debated the issue with myself and others. I've tried to listen to the paedobaptist side with an open ear. I'll try to post some theological thoughts on the issue in the near future. But if you're in the same place I am, or if you're solidly in either the paedobaptist or credobaptist camp, do me a favor and drop me some titles of some resources that have helped you. Once my Master's thesis is over, I plan to dig into this issue.

books a-plenty

2005-01-11T15:39:00.000-05:00

So, I'm working on saving more money and not spending an exhorbitant amount on books. This is hard for me. So suddenly, in the mail, come these intriguing book offers - "Join our club, buy 4 books for $1," and on some, it was added, "and you're not required to buy any more." Hmmm...can this be true? I've done the same thing with cds before...I must find out. If I can still get a few new books and barely spend anything on them, well, that'd be great!

So I investigated, and indeed, it is true. After looking through two clubs, I have the following coming in the mail:

The Entire First Eleven Books of A Series of Unfortunate Events
The First Five Books of the same series (for my sister in law)
The Chronicles of Narnia (all seven books, for my brother)
Lost Scriptures (translations of the Gnostic texts)
Lost Christianities (only because it came with the previous book and still counted as one selection)
The Rise of Evangelicalism, Volume 1: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)
John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founding Father

Total number of books: 28. Total price: less than $20 (plus shipping, which is always overcharged on these things), and my brother and sister in law will be helping with that (since they're getting books too). Total obligation: 3 more books over the next two years (two of which will be the final two in the Lemony Snicket series). And the best part is, no stupid monthly cards to send back; it can all be done online. (Of course, I'm going to stop right there. No more book clubs after these, 'cause it'd be defeating the point about not spending money)

An excellent deal, overall.

wright, spurgeon, and auburn avenue

2005-01-08T07:42:00.000-05:00

Since I heard about this year's Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference, which involved a discussion on Pauline theology between N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, and Richard Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary (PA), I knew that it would be great, and that I wouldn't be able to go.

So since it ended recently, I've been trying to find reviews from blogdom by people who went there (see Team Redd, where Gaines and Allison have left posts of their own as well as links to others). I'm not anywhere near as familiar as I'd like to be with the issues at stake here. My study in the New Perspective two years ago was limited to Dunn and Sanders, and I did not get much into N.T. Wright. My work in the realm of historical theology over the past two years has sort of kept me from delving into more recent theological issues.

I know that much of the Reformed community is in a bit of an uproar over Wright, and though my limited reading of him has not produced any shocked reactions in my own mind, I have not read anywhere near enough to know why people like Dr. Gaffin are opposed. I also know that many see Wright as the savior of theology, the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that maybe, just maybe, he could turn water into wine if he really tried. So, being a Reformed Baptist at the very beginning of studying these issues, I was delighted to come across this statement from Douglas Wilson in his Auburn 2005 review:

Related to this is Wright's acceptance of women's ordination. How someone who knows Paul the way Wright knows Paul can process this is simply beyond me. But because Wright generally is so masterful in things Pauline, I think something like this is a good reminder for us. We should be extremely grateful for Wright, but not so dazzled that we allow him to slip something in that is manifestly not true (and in this case, something that is at odds with Wright's larger project). The whole thing reminds me of the old joke told about Charles Spurgeon (by a Presbyterian). God gave so many gifts to Spurgeon that He knew we would be tempted to idolize him . . . so He made him a Baptist.

welcome back, mr. newdow

2005-01-06T14:36:00.000-05:00

Everyone knew that when Michael Newdow had his case against the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance thrown out last year that he would return. Now he's back, and rather than tackling just one issue, he's getting geared up for two: the Pledge, and inauguration prayers.

Check out my column, "One Nation...," at College Conservative for response to issue number one, which specifically addresses the pledge issue and lays some groundwork for the prayer issue. Let me make just a note or two on the inaugural day prayer issue.

Several people took issue with the last inauguration of President Bush when prayers were offered in Jesus' name. "A breach of the separation of church and state!" they cried. Some called for "general religious prayers," while Mr. Newdow calls for an end to public prayers altogether. He says that hearing a prayer at a presidential inauguration makes him feel like a "second class citizen," being an atheist.

The problem I see here is that if he wins this argument, his belief trumps mine. To tell you the truth, I might be rather upset if my God, who claims that a "nation whose God is Yahweh" is "blessed," and that "righteousness exalts a nation," were entirely left out of the inauguration of our leader. If the God of the universe and Lord of all nations were not called upon to bless the next four years of leadership under whomever became president (even Bill Clinton's inauguration included prayers in Jesus' Name), I'd be a bit worried. It could very well be just as much an insult to a Christian when the Most Important Person in the Universe is left out of the most important ceremony in our nation.

The truth is, a prayer offered in Jesus' Name at the ceremony in a few weeks is not going to threaten anyone's freedoms, nor will it result in Congress passing a law that establishes any specific religion.

Let's make a deal, Mr. Newdow. If there's a prayer offered, how 'bout you just relax and quit wasting time in the courts trying to make atheism our national belief system? And if prayer gets overlooked this time around, I'll relax, and I'll pray hard for my nation and president right here at home. Sound good to you?

Excellent.

the God we hide

2005-01-06T08:59:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about evangelism quite a bit lately. Now that I've recovered from the trappings of the "Wretched Urgency" of modern evangelicalism, an appropriate theology of evangelism is in order. What is terribly missing from most evangelism today is confidence in God. It seems to me that letting God be God and letting God do what He will do is not enough for us. We need to persuade and convince. We need on the spot "decisions for Christ," a term I've come to loathe. And in order to get on the spot decisions, we need a clear, concise way of presenting the gospel. This has contributed to our hiding the aspects of God that will get in the way of a quick decision.

For example, who ever warned anyone they were "witnessing" to that Jesus is more important than family, and that one's love for Christ should be so much higher than one's love for family, that love for family looks more like "hating" them (Luke 14:25-27)? This very text is indeed an "evangelistic" passage. People have "come to Christ," and He issues that very statement.

The heart of this, of course, is the question about the value (if you will) of Christ. Those coming to Christ must see Him as the "pearl of great price," for which they are willing to sell all. One who comes to Christ has changed her or his affections (or rather, had them changed) to value Christ above all.

Now, piling up "evidence that demands a verdict" may have its place. Christianity has such a vast amount of evidence in its favor, and it must be defended intelligently against the likes of the Jesus Seminar. But evidence is not enough. That's made clear by the fact that those opposed to Christianity keep recycling old, debunked arguments like, "Christianity borrowed all its beliefs from pagan and mystery religions." That's rubbish, and it has been proved to be so over and over, but it still surfaces again and again, especially ever since the Nag Hammadi library was discovered.

Nevertheless, it is God and God alone who can transform a person's perception and desire. One must desire Christ to come to Him, and no one desires Christ without the intervention of God John 6:44. Therefore, what people most need is not evidence in favor of the Word of God, but the Word of God itself. Learn it, live it, and teach it. See the world from its radical perspective. Only the God of the Bible is worth our love and adoration, and no one will be drawn to God if we hide the aspects of His character that most offend us. We must tell them entirely about the God we love and adore. We either draw people to God as He is, or we tell them about an idol. An idol will bring no salvation. Jesus Christ, as He is portrayed in the gospels, will save to the uttermost.

Eavesdropping Can be Fun

2005-01-03T15:01:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting conversation I just overhead in my workplace:

Worker #1: "I don't know what I'm going to do now that football is over [for the Bills]. There's no hockey, and I don't do basketball."

Worker #2: "No hockey?"

Worker #1: Because of the salary cap issue."

Worker #2: "I think these players, especially some of these guys in baseball, should have salary caps. It makes me sick that they make so much. They should go talk to someone on the street in the city who has nowhere to live. I have absolutely no sympathy for these players, none at all."

Worker #3, who has been at the computer: "Hey guys, come on over, I'm on the Kaufmann's website!"

Worker #2: "Oh good, I want some new furniture."

Recovering Pharisee Confession #2

2005-01-01T10:20:00.000-05:00

A Bad Interpretation

I remember at a very early age being told (by other Pharisees, of course) that the Bible commands us to abstain from even the appearance of evil. If it is even possible that someone watching me might mistakenly interpret something I'm doing as evil, I should not do it. This is why we weren't allowed to go to movie theaters. The church we belonged to used this reasoning:

If you're going into a Movie 6 cinema, even to see a G rated movie, but on the other screens were playing a couple of R rated movies, and someone from church or a co-worker happened to see you walking into the theater, they wouldn't know if you were going to see the G movie or the R movie, and so you wouldn't be abstaining from the appearance of evil.

I'm not joking.

Now, my family knew the absurdity of this particular example well enough, but the principle stuck with me until just recently. This argument got applied to anything and everything. Let's apply the principle to Jesus Himself, shall we?

Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding celebration. Jesus ate and drank with His disciples, and it would have included wine. Apparently, this was not "abstaining from even the appearance of evil," since Jesus noted in Matthew 11:19 that people accused Him of being a drunkard. Looks like Jesus himself didn't do a very good job of avoiding what others might interpret as sin.

The root of this problem is a bad interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22, which says in a more modern translation (ESV):

16Rejoice always, 17pray without ceasing, 18give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22Abstain from every form of evil.

Of course, the old KJV said "appearance," which led to this whole misguided concept. There was nothing particularly wrong with that word being used; it was the way it was being read that caused the mistake. The verse, properly understood, would mean something to the effect of "every time evil appears (shows up), abstain from it." Furthermore, the context is the judging of prophecies. The idea applied to our current church situation would be this:

"Don't hate preaching, but always test the preaching. If it's good, hold onto it. If it's bad, avoid it."

You see then how much different that is from "avoiding doing anything that someone oddball from your workplace or Pharisee from our church might wrongly interpret as sin."

God and Tsunami

2004-12-31T14:30:00.000-05:00

John Piper has put into good words a biblical answer to the many questions being asked about God's involvement in the tsunami in a recent "Fresh Words" article: Tsunami, Sovereignty, and Mercy. Here is point 2, probably one of the most difficult for many of us to accept:

God claims power over tsunamis in Job 38:8 when he asks Job rhetorically, “Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb . . . and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?” Psalm 89:8-9 says, “O Lord . . . you rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.” And Jesus himself has the same control today as he once did over the deadly threats of waves: “He . . . rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm” (Luke 8:24). In other words, even if Satan caused the earthquake, God could have stopped the waves.

It seems to me that if tsunamis are outside of the control of God, we are more hopeless, for then Satan, or even creation itself, is able to act in such an awful way, and God does not care to stop it. To whom will you attribute this disaster, if not to God? Surely no "free will" explanation will do. Satan? Even he must receive permission from God to act. We must be careful not to make definitive statements about things God has not stated clearly. Many ask, "Is this a judgment from God?" I don't know. He hasn't told me or anyone else. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, but I will not presume to speak for God when He has not spoken for Himself. Piper's answer seems to be the best we can come up with for now:

This is true of all calamities. They mingle judgment and mercy. They are both punishment and purification. Suffering, and even death, can be both judgment and mercy at the same time.