Mel's Misplaced Passion (1 of 3)

My wife fought an addiction after we were married. She struggled for months while I encouraged her and distracted her from this obsession. She would catch herself longing for this distraction, but slowly she learned to substitute this longing with reading—yes, she was having withdrawals from television. She hardly read growing up, and it was a shock to her system when in 1995 she married a 23-year-old man whose last memory of television was The World’s Greatest American Hero!

Visual Saturation

We live in a society saturated with images; from still photos and billboards to magazines and television to movies and Internet, Christians are bombarded with demands upon their time, energy and attention. Quiet (or even passionate) discourse and reflective thinking is not the excitement of the day: if there are no raging, emotional debates, then C-SPAN 2 is ignored for the easier-to-digest shallow one-minute sound-bytes on CBS. The visual medium lends itself readily to the exciting and exhilarating—as far as our eyes are concerned.

Adult Americans spend almost 4.5 hours a day watching television—this does not even count Internet or videos! Children watch even more television, not to mention video games. We are a society inundated with the visual. It can be very alluring. These mediums (TV, movie, art, etc.) are not evil per se, but they can be entrapments (and every age has its weaknesses) to a generation reared on the visual medium of stunning images and one-hour “documentaries.” It is not simply that society teaches us to follow temptation with our eyes; we ourselves know the allurement of images and the difficulty of reading words. It is hard to concentrate on a book. Images are more “real” to us than the abstract words on a page.

Indeed, these images are so real that people are more excited when they find themselves on TV than with the simple fact that they actually participated in the televised event. These images become an existential moment—a personal encounter that rises above (below?) rational discourse. It is so real and personal that words are lost. When watching a movie we tend to suspend reality to such an extent that we are moved to tears, rage or joy. That is the power of the image.

Even after being raised without a television from the age of ten, I could still feel the pull of the tube while in the military day room. Am I simply picking on this medium? Cannot the visual mediums be enjoyable? Yes, they can. Cannot these mediums be artistic? Yes, they can. Cannot these mediums be used for teaching? Yes…within limits. As a matter of fact, any of these legitimate goals can be corrupted when they supplant Christ and His Word. Even a book can be an idol.

The images of this world can be extremely alluring. I John 2:16 warns us against the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. Thus, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in our day and age. We must recall our Biblical roots. From the temptation of the fruit in Eden that was attractive to the eyes to the temptation of Christ with a vision of the world’s kingdoms, we know from the Bible the dangers of the eye-gate. On the flip side, there is a positive presentation of what should be done to combat this weakness in our flesh: the Word of God stresses the written or spoken, not the visual. Consider:

• “In the beginning was the Word….”
• The Bible gives little to no physically pictorial information about its heroes and villains, let alone about Christ.
• The Second Commandment emphasizes the dangers of images.
• From God’s stern reproach in the Garden to the audible chiding by Christ on the Damascus Road, God’s revelation of salvation is predominately through words.
• God chose the foolishness of preaching to raise the dead, Ezek. 37:1ff.
• The Bible itself is written—it is not a picture book for children.

“Them Fight’n Words”

One of the battles fought by the Reformers against the Roman Catholic Church was over the use of idols and images. Rome contended, “Images are the laymen’s books.” They also argued that these images would help stimulate “holy feelings.” The Reformers countered, “It is the read and preached Word of God that should inform our minds, stir our souls and motivate our wills to do His holy will.” This is the Reformed root of modern Evangelicals. But it appears that many in today’s Christian world would agree more with Calvin’s opponents than with Calvin himself.

In one sense these are ‘fight’n words’—but we seriously need to wake up from our long couch-potato slumber and fight the temptation to think less and watch more. Our children are becoming more illiterate, recognizing the name of Ben Affleck but staring blank-eyed over why preaching is important, “but it’s so boring….” That is the catchword. We crave entertainment. We are passionate for images. We wish to be sung softly to sleep by the siren calls of American Idol but are rudely turned-off (note how our own language has changed) when the pastor preaches and the congregation sings. There is little passion for the Word. This is one more fight against our flesh. This is one more battle that must be given to the Lord.

Now, the idea of image used here is not to be confused with symbol. Symbols represent people or ideas, usually in the abstract; images represent people or things through physical, visual correspondence. The triangle and three circles may symbolize the Trinity, but it does not claim to visually equate what they physically look like (for who can draw a spirit—God is a Spirit). The difference between these two is readily seen in the difference between the alphabet-words and pictographs. The word ‘house’ does not physically look like a house whereas the pictographs (such as hieroglyphics) seek to draw a house. Historically, the rise of the alphabet has advanced civilization through means of more readily communicating abstract thought.

Raising this issue of Word and image does not intend to undermine the legitimate use of our senses (especially our eyes, obviously we have to use them to read the Word!), but seeks to reaffirm a proper role of the Word for the ordained Church of Christ as a tool of teaching and worshiping. Which is the biblical method to evangelize and teach? Which is the biblical way to worship and appreciate Christ’s work? Thus, this issue affects every individual Christian: what is the role of Word and image in my life?

These questions will be explored through a short presentation of the prohibitions of Scripture followed by a positive evaluation of the role of the word in general and the Bible in particular. Hopefully, this presentation will motive us toward a passion for the Word.

How then should we live? What should dominate our thinking and living: Word or Image? Instinctively, many Christians already know the answer. But sometimes we need to be reminded of the biblical roots of the supremacy of the Word.

Part 2

Pizza with the Atheist Club

In typical college fashion, the pizzeria was crammed with people, food and loud music. I wormed my way to the back wall toward a booth with three young students. Surveying the young men arrayed in the small booth—one with his nose in a textbook, the other with a lopsided grin and the third with stereotypical long hair—I greeted each with a firm handshake.

Placing my pizza on the table, I started the meeting with proper appreciation: “I am glad you agreed to meet with me.”

“No prob man. We don’t do this with just anyone ya’ know,” drawled the grinner. “Our club v.p. here told us you were someone worth talking with---intelligent.”

“Well, I don’t claim mastery of logic or philosophy, but I have enough of a background that I was able to challenge your vice president here.” I grinned in reply.

Instead of reaching for the philosophical jugular, I decided to ask some personal questions: was he raised Christian? Did he have anything personal against Christianity? In short, he was raised a nominal Roman Catholic, yet had no related personal problems. He actually thanked me for asking him, as it was common for cross-examiners to assume the worse.

I then asked about their philosophical views: they were typical atheists (materialistic empiricists disagreeing over morals). However, they had one twist: they were mostly atheists—they were not willing to absolutely rule out the existence of God (as the older atheists would, ala Bertrand Russell).

Ignoring this idiosyncrasy, I spoke with the long-haired student for the next twenty-five minutes about his empiricist approach to morality. As with most empiricist, he was gung-ho for the morality bell-curve; that behavior in the curve was normal. Pointing out that using the bell-curve for the last fifty years on a global scale would lean “normal” morality toward totalitarianism, he replied that being an American he could not accept that. “Then you’ve changed the bell-curve referent,” I reminded him. He was silent. Then I noted that he did not have a large enough sample-size for human behavior over the last 10,000 years. This he conceded. After asking why the extremes of the curve should be ignored (like megalomaniac dictators), he partly conceded. Feeling the pressure he quietly replied: “Even if we cannot establish morality objectively, we can still live it intuitively as we all have human nature.”

“Do we?” I asked. “Materialism cannot speak of a human nature other than observable behavior—the bell-curve. Why does a dictator have to follow a hypothetical curve? What you have is pure subjectivism: every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”

He thoughtfully chewed on his pizza. He was none too happy.

But the day was not over yet.

SDG

Christian Black History Month: Lemuel Haynes

Lemuel Haynes:
(1753-1833)

1) First black pastor ordained by a mainstream American Protestant church.
2) First black pastor for a white church.
3) First in this series of politically incorrect black heroes.

He was born in Connecticut of a "a white woman of respectable ancestry" and an African father; he was abandoned by them. He grew up indentured until the age of 21. Although of limited education, he read voraciously, especially the Bible and theology books.

He became a Minuteman for the Revolutionary War. Then he was ordained amongst the Congregationalists (1780), serving three congregations until his death at the age of 80. He married. He wrote against slavery. And he was a vocal defender of the ancient ways: Republicanism and the Reformation.

Later when the newer class of anti-slavery ministers arose, they would try to use his legacy but gave up since his theology would not dovetail with their liberal theology. He publicly preached against the new (now old) theology of universal salvation.

Ironically, his anti-slavery position was one of racial integration instead of the then popular view (amongst even white anti-slavery proponents) of sending them to Africa (supposedly a land of freedom). The introduction of the new biography sums up the entire matter better than I:

“Like a number of other eighteenth-century black authors...Haynes accepted a Calvinist form of Christianity. Indeed, Calvinism seems to have corroborated the deepest structuring elements of the experience of such men and women as they matured from children living in slavery or servitude into adults desiring freedom, literacy, and membership in a fair society. From Calvinism, this generation of black authors drew a vision of God at work providentially in the lives of black people, directing their suffering yet promising the faithful among them a restoration to his favor and his presence. Not until around 1815 would African American authors, such as John Jea, explicitly declare themselves against Calvinism and for free-will religion. By the standard of many in the twenty-first century, this Calvinist vision may seem tainted, since it presented God’s hand in evil as well as in good. Moreover, this black Calvinism scorned Islam …Acknowledging the divine providence both of evil and of good, these black Calvinists insisted upon the human obligation to shun sin…and to further God’s benevolent design. More than any of his peers, black or white, Haynes found in Calvinism a tradition of exegesis that could be leveled against the slave trade and slavery...By 1830, a new abolitionist exegesis was undoing the ideal of interracial unity that Haynes and his peers had seen in the Bible.” (Sallant, 4, 6)

If we are to have politically correct history months, let us at least pick our own heroes!



[More details:
Online biography: Sketches of... Rev. Lemuel Haynes.
Saillant, John. Black Puritan, Black Republican: The life and thought of Lemuel Haynes]


Black History Month Series:
1. Lemuel Haynes
2. Jupiter Hammon 
3. Phillis Wheately

Elmo's Death Threats

I always suspected something was wrong with Elmo...MSN has the scoop.

Osteen a Heretic?

Here is part two of two-parts of a Sixty-Minutes piece on Joel Osteen.

Two things of note:

1. The interviewer had some astute observations (for an unbeliever).

2. The interviewer's questions and observations were more astute than some Christians.

This last point is sad. Sometimes unbelievers have more discernment than Christians--or at least so-called Christians.

Also, ask yourself this: how many professor of theology today would call a man a heretic?

It's a good interview: watch it, you will not regret it.

SDG.

The Culture of Life

Culture is religion externalized. It is the sum total of not only the institutions normally associated with the idea of society (family, church and state), but includes all the relational interplay of those institutions and the people that make up them. It is a less than tangible idea that integrates the little things in life with the issues of life: from how we greet one another to how weddings and funerals are administered.

Taking this simple premise, one can work backwards, as it were, from the elements of culture to the religion that lies behind them. Take for instance, the popular game of Life. As many of us played the game in childhood, we recall the relatively rigid path that always leads to
a counting of money: he who retires with the most money wins. In the last few years, the game morphed into a hydra-path spanning normal family life goals, living a single's life or trying to tour the world. Money is no longer the objective, or rather, money is only one legitimate path of life along side play, entertainment, family and anything else.

Most readers can quickly perceive how the original and the contemporary versions of Life reflect differing concepts of life and its goal. In fact, they reflect differing concepts of the Gospel. For games are a part of the larger culture that spawned them. Certainly games do not always and only directly reflect that culture, but certain games stand out more clearly than others. So, the original 50s game reflected the "he who dies with the most money wins" mentality; the newer version reflects the "he who dies with the most __ [fill in] wins" mentality. For in this multicultural universe every path is legitimate and every goal is valid.

Historically, the original game of life was not geared toward money but long and fruitful lives. Milton Bradley of the 1800s made the original, original game of life, but it had too much virtue to suit the 1950s company. In turn, Milton received his idea from another popular game in the early 1800s: The Mansion of Happiness. In this game, with sixty spaces spiraling toward the center of the board, the object is good works. Land on a spot of virtue and advance; land on a space of vice and move back. Break the Sabbath day and retreat six spaces.

Yes, the Sabbath day. One can perceive immediately how different was the culture of the early 1800s in contrast with today's culture--even with today's Christian culture. A Christian game I played as a child was Bible trivia pursuit. What analysis can one make of that? It is easy to read the questions in the game and see a Christianity that revels in ignoring the big issues of life that separate churches: baptism, predestination, free-will, the Sabbath. Not one doctrinal question of significant debate between honest Christians existed in that early game. The same can be said of many sermons these days as well.

The culture that many Christians wish to enjoin upon their fellow man is blasé and bleak. And the Gospel proclaimed is benign as well, challenging little and thinking only of man. The churches need to go back to yesteryear and proclaim the big issues of life instead of reveling in the trivial. Only then will there be a culture of life for the dead.

SDG

Books.google.com--The What & How

A good friend of mine has written a useful and well thought out series on GOOGLE BOOKS.
Google books is a must for all ministers and laymen researchers:

Part 1:
One of the most amazing resources on the web is books.google.com. Google is trying to get all of the books in the public domain on the web both downloadable and searchable. A few weeks ago, I went to the eye doctor and was amazed at some of the ways that technology is changing optometry. The woman asked, "How does technology affect your field as a pastor?"

I answered, "I don't know." But, then, I though about it, and I realized that it is changing the pastorate quite a bit. First, there are cell phones, which make a pastor easier to get a hold of. Second, there is the computer and all its usefulness for searching and studying the Scriptures. Now, there is google books. Basically, what google books does for us is to give the rural pastor or western pastors the ability to have as much access to pre-20th century books as anyone near Harvard or any of the best eastern libraries. In many ways, though, it is even better because we can download this material and print it off or search it.

I have told many people about this resource, and yet, I find that many people are not making the use of it that they should. Of course, old habits die hard. On the other hand, I think there is a bit of a learning curve. In these few posts, I want to try and break the learning curve and give some examples of how this resource can be used in the pastorate.

Part 2: Breaking the Learning Curve
Part 3: Latin Works
Part 4: Commentaries
Part 5: Presbyterian Polity
Part 6: Conclusion

Morality and Housing

A recent U.S. News and World Report is illuminating about the basics of economics (Dec. 24, 2007).

"We should have walked away sooner and quit selling to some of them," one president of a large home building company admitted.

And what an admission that is!

There is concern about the housing industry (especially out West here). And there are many answers to the question "why?"

Of course, it is easy to read the above quote and say, "hey, there is the answer: greedy builders!" But the builders' greed can only make an impact if the buyers are greedy.

The article notes: "Approved for 100 percent financing by Richmond American's mortgage arm, the 27-year-old didn't even have a job at the time." Why did she apply if she had no ability to pay?

All within one article, the relation of morality (greed) to economics (low house prices) is complete. Hopefully, this article will be read by more Americans and their education will then be complete.

SDG

A Short Review 11: The Duties of Parents

The Duties of Parents, J. C. Ryle

Do not let the size of this pamphlet fool you. Although it may be small of stature, it is weighty in the things of the Lord. The godly and copious writings of J. C. Ryle have encouraged and strengthened believers for years, and this work is no exception.

There is no stone left unturned, no ally-way of thought left unexplored, while Ryle examines, exhorts and entreats parents to follow the will of the Lord. Covering twenty-seven topics, the author reminds parents to train up the child in the way he should go (Prov. 22:6). This means, amongst other things, the educational, spiritual and disciplinary training of the child. However, it is not merely another mainstream “how-to” book that divorces Christ from doctrine and life by creating a 1-2-3 step program after the fashion of Oprah Winphrey, but an earnest plea to apply the truths of the Word—man’s inborn depravity, Christ’s atonement, and God’s mean’s of grace—to the life of one’s child.

Even as doctrine and life are woven into the fiber of the book, and the dangers of negligence and over-indulgence are forcibly presented through Puritan-like illustration, Ryle lovingly reminds parents of the promise of God (Prov. 22:6). The Proverbial promise, he reminds us, is through the means established by God, even as the dispensing of God’s gifts are within His holy sovereignty.

Powerfully arguing for old-fashioned discipline and training based upon the Word and the Love of Christ, The Duties of Parents is a must for young and old parents alike.

SDG

Top Ten For This Year, & Last Year, &...

People like top ten lists. I like top ten lists. I've read a few over the years ranging from the top Christian music and sermons to more ambitious top best things happening in Christiandom.
This list will be in the latter category. But with a twist...

Top Ten Christian People & Organizations

Big Names:

1) Banner of Truth: The work of this organization has not been praised enough. They brought me to the Reformed faith through their book, The Forgotten Spurgeon. Their magazine and books are found wherever there are thoughtful Christians seeking Reformation of their doctrine and lives.

2) Founders Ministry: Although I am not intimately knowledgeable of this organization, I do know they are trying to infuse the gospel of free grace back into the Southern Baptist Convention--that is inestimable.

3) White Horse Inn: Another group that helped me along my path to Reformation. They have dialogue with a Reformed baptist and a Lutheran, but always in the context of self-conscience confessionalism, while not downplaying their differences. A must in this day of public compromise. The Gospel of free justification is already transforming the lives of general Evangelicals.

4) Ligonier Ministries: Although mostly associated with R. C. Sproul, Sr., this ministry should last beyond him. His winsome style and uncompromising public stand for the Reformed faith in all its offensive glory has influenced many souls toward a revival of doctrine and manners.

5) Reformed Worldview Thinking: The Reformed denominations, OPC, RCUS, etc., are officially dedicated to thinking God's thoughts after Him. These sister denominations, even with their differences, are a small but strong witness in the face of the withering Protestant branch known as Evangelicalism. Their churches are small but their hearts are big. Determined to stand for the truth in love, I pray the Lord to use them in a mighty Second Reformation.

Little Names:

6) Reformed Presence: Both locally and internationally, through the radio and internet, in publishing and lectures, schools and seminaries, the Reformed doctrine and practice is surely spreading. It includes not simply the big names but, in many ways more importantly, the little names. We easily forget, that although Luther was the straw that broke the Roman Catholic back, he was not alone.

7) Faithful People: The leaders of faithful churches depend upon the prayers and support of faithful members. No man is an island and no pastor is an island. The people need to faithfully attend the means of grace, seeking God's will in the Commandments. It is in the pews, amongst the laymen, that the Gospel of our Sovereign Lord is propagated among the masses through private luncheons, email debates, neighborhood picnics and everyday witnessing.

8) Everyday Pastors: It is easy to hitch the wagon of revival to the big, noticeable names because they draw the crowds. But in reality God's revivals of yesteryear spread simultaneously amongst faithful preaching of the Good News. Such pastors stand unswervingly upon the Truths of the Reformation, in public and private. They counseled with one another, admonished one another, and reinforced each other's ministries. Oh, that the Lord of the Harvest would bring unity amongst the leaders to preach and teach all of God's counsel, especially against the reigning heresies of this day.

9) Faithful Churches: It is not enough to have individual piety, or church piety, there must be collective sanctification as well. When the churches work in harmony (both publicly and privately), casting out hate and suspicion in their hearts by the power of the Spirit, there God is working mightily. Corporate prayer and church cooperation is imperative: God is not pleased with a divided Church any more than with the divided Israel of old.

10) Faithful Understanding of Reformation: This last point is about the sum total of what Reformation entails--it is the organizational and organic, individual and collective, doctrinal and moral revival on a larger scale. It is returning to the Word without shame and a clear trumpet call. It is preaching, teaching, writing and admonishing, through all mediums possible, the truth of man's total depravity and God's total sovereignty. It is radically returning the church to her roots in the free righteousness of Christ. The church in America today does not need more "does" and "don'ts"--it just needs the Ten Commandments as a means of convicting them of their sins and need of a Savior. The church needs the Gospel crystal clear.

Reformation is not reformulating old truths, refocusing on doing, or revamping the family. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord, so reformation will begin in the house of the Lord. As Elijah the prophet was to bring the hearts of the family together, so the preachers of today must preach Christ and Him crucified to bring the heart of the church together.

SDG

The Other Side of Christmas

Even the pagans know a little about the Incarnation. Songs are sung about it this time of year. Christmas cartoons and musicals allude to it. The nativity, showing Mary, Joseph and the Baby Jesus, implies such a condescending act by God.

But even if unbelievers can mechanically explain the Incarnation, the proper understanding of it and the implications thereof completely elude them. Like watching a play without a background and underlying plot, many unbelievers observe the nativity with a vague sense of something missing. "What's the big deal?" they ask.


Unfortunately, this question is asked because the message of Christmas is disappearing--not only due to the obvious chaos of narcissistic materialism, but also because of the increasing silence of the Church herself. To the extent that the proper background of the Incarnation is poorly explained, grasped or believed by the American Evangelical church, to that extent she is silent and unhelpful. She becomes a mime, acting out a story without a context.


And what is that context? Sin.


Not only was the Coming of the God-man a marvelous act of a Sovereign King dwelling among infinitely lesser beings, it was more. It was the merciful and forgiving act of a maligned Judge. A Judge and Ruler who was given no grounds for mercy. A Judge, Ruler and Avenger who did,
would and will cast the final sentence against unbelieving rebellion: eternal damnation.


This is not a popular message. Unbelief would rather watch the miming of the church than hear the thundering of the Law. It would embrace the psuedo-gospel of "God-loves-everyone-hoping-to-send-them-all-to- heaven" instead of hearing that God actually intends on sending insurgents to their rightful
place.


Yet, this other side of Christmas is crucial. And it makes sense. Human judges will dispense justice according to the rule of law. How much more will the Great All-Seeing Judge of the Universe dispense justice? And so, Adam was judged, as were all mankind, you and me included. But that is not what unbelievers want to hear during this season of joy.


However, it is exactly what they need to hear. And it is what we need to hear as well. The Incarnation is intelligible only in a Christian framework that takes sin seriously and rebellion as deserving of death. There was nothing in mankind to bring amnesty from God the judge. There was everything in mankind to repel Him. This is the reason why the coming of the Son of God is amazing: we deserved eternal damnation instead of life.


With the truth of the other side of Christmas, the Church can stop miming and start singing aloud with joy the clear message of why the Messiah became a man. And then the world will know what the "big deal" is all about.

The Gospel of Action-Figures

I grew up with action figures. I spent many an afternoon imagining great military battles and ingenious military tactics with my action figures, vehicles and equipment. And although I did join the military, I never experienced a “blood lust” because of these toys.

These toys simply represented a relaxation time in which my imagination could be utilized for things other than short story essays in my fifth-grade class. Yet, it also represented a value-system that accepted military might and lauded military prowess. It capitalized on such moral virtues as bravery, shrewdness, and perseverance. Within a pagan culture, these virtues are ends in themselves, without reference to God or His Law. Thus, they are the roots of militarism and a military state.

Within a Christian context these virtues are not ends in themselves but attributes defined by the Law of God. Within this context, these toys, specifically, the virtues they highlighted, were used for God’s glory because they reinforced God’s Word. The Bible lauds such character traits as bravery, shrewdness and perseverance—remember Christ exhorted the disciples to be as cunning as serpents. However, God does not smile upon the use of stupid bravery, sinful cunning, and prideful perseverance. So, already, one sees how a toy reflects a culture behind it and thus a gospel. For cultures are religions externalized.

Now, what can one make of the new Jesus Christ action figure? (Yes, you read that correctly!)

For starters, is one even allowed to make action figures of Christ? At least, that is the first question our Puritan forefathers would have asked. Remember those men we easily laud as great founders of America—we’d like to have their moral superiority but not their morals. And one of their morals was the Second Commandment: not to make any image of God. Christ is God. Therefore, no image of Christ is allowed.

Secondly, one could write a plethora of pages on the obvious religious-cultural implication involved in a Jesus “action-figure” (I hate even writing that word). We create gods in our own image…need I say more!?

This so-called god of modern commercialism readily fits into the Humanistic god of Americana: he is pliable to the whims of his creator. As the child manipulates the figurine into “action poses” (like dying on the cross?), he merely mimics the theology of his nurturing: a passive god who tries to appease the desires of mankind. Whether this obvious critique maps to the Christmas demigod, Santa, or to the god of the average Christian in America, it does not matter. The metaphor is powerful and ripe, ready to for any energetic pastor to pick and throw at the nearest lackadaisical Christian’s heart.

My toys imbibed on action and heroism. This toy imbibes on pure paganism: man’s sovereignty over God. Instead of imbibing this refuse, try giving your children something more uplifting, like a G.I. Joe or a Book…with Exodus 20:4 earmarked.

SDG

Providence Points e-Newsletter

Verbal Vomit & Golden Apples

After, providentially, finding a blog through Christianity Today, I nearly dropped my computer. The posting outlined an amazing event at a church in Denver--Scum of the Earth. The pastor was in a bit of a quandary: you see, the church celebrated Christmas through a service that included poetry readings. And the woman they asked to compose a poem included the f-word—not once or twice, but multiple times. At the end of the day, after much consulting, it was decided to let her read a modified version for the Christmas Eve service—including “only four expletives” and those as quotes from another character in the poem.

How thoughtful.

Naturally, there were strong reactions from the audience.

Such verbal vomit reflects more than a desire of a pastor to “connect” with a sub-culture. It displays a basic misapprehension of what the third commandment entails. Although clearly sinful, it is a barometer of the level of rebellion found in churches today. A wandering mass of vagabonds seeking any means to stretch the limits of credulity, some in the wasteland of American Christianity (whether in the mainline churches or not) have no sense of shame.

At first blush readers may condemn my language as harsh. Please bear with me: I acknowledge that churches have a zeal for evangelism—but more often than not, it is not according to knowledge.

I have not the time to elucidate the breadth and depth of this commandment; nor explain the differences between false swearing, oath taking and cursing; nor expound how using God’s handiworks—creation—in a flippant and coarse manner demeans God Himself; nor explicate the psychology of how sinful men verbally vomit on others as a form of emotional expiation for their anger, guilt, self-righteousness and the like.

Language is neither private (God is everywhere) nor unlimited and infinitely pliable (only God is unlimited). Thus, individuals or even a group of individuals do not have the right to do anything with language. In other words, language, although conventional, still expresses cultural values—and since all cultures are rooted in religion, that language expresses one’s religion. And all religions have standards of right and wrong, which, again are reflected in language. So, when a sub-culture wishes to express its rebellion against the larger cultural mores it turns toward those things that are taboo, obscene or shocking. Shame is the first thing to go.

Besides the obvious fact that we should offend people with the Gospel (Christ preached more about sin and hell than grace) and not our speech, it is patently clear that Christians should avoid coarse, filthy speech (Col. 4:6, Eph. 4:29). “Filth” in the Greek means “foul speaking, low and obscene speech” [Thayer]—the Greek background points not to blasphemy per se (language against God) but coarse or crass words.

Followers of Christ do not need to act out their old ways to bring shock to their audience. Imagine: instead of reading a poem about sinful acts, one acted it out instead—that by voyeuristic proxy the reader of the play gestured as well as cursed?

One cannot have speech be a free-for-all without denying absolute truth. If this were so, what words would express rebellion, dissatisfaction or dishonor? One could say anything with moral impunity.

Although most of this posting is related directly to abuse of language, the third commandment involves false doctrine as well as false speech. So, even though many Christians would be offended at verbally transforming the marriage bed into a crass cursing, they should be more offended at doctrinally filthy mouths. Besides the obvious pragmatism of the situation, with its disregard for the third commandment and apparent therapeutic usage of filthy words, the last installment on the blog made a passing remark that was shocking in its simplicity and amazing in the fact that no one commented on it:

“Most non-Christians I know do not hate God; they think that God and the church hate them because they are considered vile. We want to reverse that deception…” ---Mike Sares

Really!? Romans one through three clearly declares that man is self-deceived, loving sin and hating God: to love the world is to hate God (John 15:18ff.). Thus says the Lord:

The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. –John 7:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. –Romans 8:7

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
being filled with all unrighteousness…backbiters, haters of God—Romans 1

Since this false doctrinal stance is maintained, false speech is allowed. It is that simple. The sub-culture under question is not assumed to be in rebellion against God through its language; thus, it is acceptable to use such language to communicate to them. Since they "do not hate God" then the language they use does not express hate; therefore such language is proper to use.

It is too bad the entire situation is setup as an either/or fallacy in which that church is supposedly taking a stand for people perceived as “vile”—I do not perceive them that way and my church welcomes them. The real fact is that many of them do not want our churches because we make them uncomfortable (or should!) with the Law and the Gospel.

James reminds us that our tongue is a powerful member: we must choose—through His power—between breathing sweet truth or vomiting lies. Between ingesting golden apples or digesting garbage.

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver. Proverbs
25:11

SDG

Regeneration "Christmas" Style

TV shows can be easy blog fodder. But why?

The simple reason resides in the fact that many shows manifest the cultural icons and beliefs of the populace at large--the religion of society.

This truth especially struck me with the 1970 stop motion TV special, Santa Claus is Comin' to Town. I passed by it surfing. Stopped. And I watched the regeneration sequence--the one when the Winter Warlock's heart melted. After being born-again from the reception of a toy, the Warlock asked Kris Kringle how he could continue being born-again. Or more precisely, he lamented to Kris that his heart was so bad that he did not know how to be good.

"It's easy," Kris replied. Then he (as with all musicals) broke out in spontaneous song:

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' 'cross the flo-o-or
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' out the door.
...If I want to change the reflection
I see in the mirror each morn
Oh, you do?!
You mean that it's just my election
Just that!
To vote for a chance to be reborn.

I don't think I need to exegete this. This song is about self-regeneration. The American religion. And what is worse, it is--with many--the Evangelical American Religion.

Try telling your Christian co-worker, neighbor or friend that he did not "vote for a chance to be reborn" but that God chose him first (Rom. 9:18). That Biblical rebirth comes from above, from the Spirit who moves as He wishes. Or if you want to be subtler, ask him his opinion about the song.

This song is just one part of the larger piece of Americana. If the churches cannot differentiate themselves from the religion of this song, there is no hope for America. If the church members cannot differentiate themselves from this song, there is little hope for American churches.

But God has promised to work His will through us (Phil. 2:13). And that begins with teaching and living the truth of God's sovereign grace.

Then one day, Lord willing, there will be new songs and new TV specials that reflect Holy Spirit regeneration instead of self-regeneration.

SDG

Best Blogs and Best Bloggers

I started blogging because it was an opportunity to hone my writing skills.

I think it has. I hope it will. Of course, it is hard to tell since feedback is minimal, especially on the Internet (I write a weekly e-newsletter that receives feedback on Sunday..."you wrote that??" :-)

Be that as it may (or will be), being the holiday season it is time to use old postings. (Don't I get a vacation too?)

So, if you have any postings you liked tell me and I'll post 'em. (Note: in English 'you' can be singular or plural; I use the singular). Or I'll just pick 'em.

Enjoy your vacation time, dear reader, and above all, enjoy your salvation in Christ Jesus the Lord.

SDG

Calvin & Michael Jackson

I always thought some modern songs dovetailed with Calvinism so well...like here!

Humble Leadership A Rarity

Recently, I was again reminded of the necessity of a humble church leadership.

In this age of American independence, it is quite common for men to assign themselves as leaders, especially in the church. Men, by force of arrogance, arrogate to themselves the office of minister. In turn, these erstwhile pastors start new congregations on the power of their personality, preaching or popularity.

But it does not stop there. Some pastors (even legitimate ones) take accolades upon themselves, asserting an air of authority in some specialized field before anyone has legitimately recognized them as experts. They readily assume supposed leadership upon the supposition that popularity implies authority (a common American error). To be a leader amongst leaders is always a temptation.

Yet, what if one were popular? What if accolades and leadership and the public limelight were offered? How should it be approached?

Again, history (within a biblical framework) yields fruitful advice. In this case, a very similar scenario arose in the early 1800s at the then famous St. Andrews college. Thomas Chalmers (a Scottish Presbyterian) was making great spiritual progress within that area. He quietly started a children's Sabbath-school, which in turned quickly grew in popularity amongst the families (Christian and non-Christian alike). This in turn, spawned more such schools and increased his popularity.

He was popular enough (through his engaging teaching and preaching ministry) that Christian societies wanted his face on their boards:

"Soon after he came to St. Andrews Dr. Chalmers was invited to become President of a Missionary Society, composed of Christians of difierent denominations."

Surely, he prayed; surely he sought advise. Yet, he did more:

"He would not accept this office till it had been offered to and declined by others whose [senior] official position entitled them to that mark of respect." [Memoirs, 198]

How many pastors today would take such an approach? Such self-effacement is rare today. Such high respect for those with more experience is refreshing.

The senior professors turned down the job and Chalmers' humility was rewarded. He greatly influenced the cause of missions through the legacy of his students, the St. Andrews Seven.

The rest is history.

SDG

A National Christian Thanksgiving to GOD

Each year from 1777 to 1783 inclusive, we find Congress appointing days for national thanksgiving and prayer, which were duly observed. On motion of John Randolph, in 1781, October 24th, it was " Resolved, That Congress will, at 2 P. M., this day, go in procession to the Dutch Lutheran church, and return thanks to Almighty God, for"—&c.

In the proclamation for a day of thanksgiving, we find sentiments of piety expressed in the following and similar language:

That all the people assemble on that day to offer fervent supplications to the God of all grace, that he would incline our hearts, for the future, to keep all his laws, and that he would cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the earth" —"above all, to praise him that he hath continued to us the light of the blessed gospel, and to supplicate him, that he would cause pure religion and virtue to flourish."

It would seem that the wise and patriotic men of those times believed that the "blessed gospel," not the Koran, nor the Shaster, but the Christian system, was better adapted to the wants of men than any other system; and their conduct shows that they did not entertain views congenial to the feelings of infidels and deists of our day. Had both lived at the same time, they would have been antipodes in sentiment and action. We see no lack of proof that the framers of our Constitution, and the men who first administered it, were not anti-christian, as our objectors would have us believe. It is perfectly evident that these men were not ashamed to own their accountability to God, and their dependence on him: nor were they ashamed or afraid to recognize the Christian religion, in their national capacity. They had discernment, fidelity, piety, and patriotism enough to prompt them to make a wise choice, when they laid down the Christian religion as the foundation of this government, instead of the Jewish, Mohammedan, pagan, infidel, or deistical religion. God be praised for the noble deed.

But it appears that many of the members of Congress, for the last twelve or fifteen years, have been ashamed to acknowledge God; and infidels have united with them to prove that we have no Sabbath, and that this nation knows no religion. She may, in her riches and pride, have forgotten her religion; but she once had a religion, and that was the Christian. She ought to
have it still.

Infidels would have us believe that the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the pagan, have as much claim to legislation in favor of their religion, as Christians have a right to expect that Congress will not legislate against theirs. But these pleas are all false—a mere subterfuge to rid themselves of all accountability to the laws of God and man.

When was this succinct and potent piece written?...................1968?


No, rather.....1841 AD

[p.105, The Sabbath: A Brief History of Laws, Harmon Kingsbury]

The Other Side of the History of Jamestown

Here is a nice summary of one side of Jamestown.

It is filled with much detail, tracing the crucial years of its establishment in 1607 until, by God's all-encompassing providence, it reached critical mass, destined to be a part of America's great religious past.

Well, more precisely America's Protestant religious past. They certainly were not Roman Catholics.

In fact they were Anglicans. The Anglican church's 39 Articles (in the Book of Common Prayer) describe a theology foreign to most Christians.

The Articles affirm the bondage of the will:

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

They affirm predestination:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

Lastly, the Articles teach baptism of infants:

XXVII. Of Baptism.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

They honored the Christian Sabbath: morning and evening worship with catechism time as well. They even catechized.

Furthermore, these colonists used the Geneva Bible, which included Calvinistic notes.

Dear reader, this is not written to be as offensive as possible. I write this because it is true. In fact, I was reminded of this problem while studying the history of homeschooling. The leading homeschoolers remind their detractors that the schools are using outdated history books that not only lie through commission (making stuff up) but, more insidiously, the books lie through omission. Think about how much the public schools teach about the Christian origins of America? the Founders? the Constitution? Exactly. You get the point.

So, we ought not omit these important truths of the pre-Revolutionary American culture. There were theological difference, yet from Jamestown to Boston, from English Anglicans to French Huguenots, from laymen to clergy, the culture was substantially Reformed.

That is what is missing in many Christians' history lessons.
That is the other side of Jamestown.

SDG

Why Do I Harp On Calvin, Covenant & The Constitution?

Because modern scholarship is doing the same thing.

My interest in the theological and ideological roots of the American Constitution stem from a college paper a decade ago. I wrote a short ten-page thesis on Christianity and the formation of the Constitution...only to change my thesis half-way through my research: it was not just generic Christianity that substantially influenced America, but Calvinism.

In the last two years (with no college schedule to drive my time), I have had more opportunity to discover more non-Christian scholarly work on this subject. Now, I can write five times as much on this topic using secular sources alone.

Well, enough about me; here is a review of a relevant book I would gladly like for Christmas...it's only 98$ :-)

What is fascinating about the review is the critique: the lack of contemporaneousness of the book. It's about twenty years old (it took a while to get the essays published). Yet, from a non-post-modern viewpoint this is not a problem at all: if truth has historical manifestations amongst large aggregates of mankind (think nations), then the truth of Calvinism and Covenantalism for the continual maintenance of this American Republic is quite contemporary.

Can't get more relevant than finding the roots of our freedoms and returning to them! Of course, if mere "covenant" is recaptured without the Covenant of Grace in the hearts of Americans, then we are simply back (and are already there in many ways) to the Covenant of Works.

My prayer, especially for contemporary American Christianity is that she would return to her Calvinistic-Covenantal roots.

And that first begins with acknowledging the truths of history.

SDG

Really, It's True: Calvinism Created America

As a Presbyterian minister, if I claimed that Calvinism, and Presbyterianism in particular, was key to the creation of America, people would laugh at me. But what if I nonchalantly
quoted some secular source stating the same fact? People might actually listen....

"He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty"

The above sentiment appears arrogant. When the public schools ardently claim that generic "Christian" Deists and unbelieving Enlightenment thinkers founded America, Christians decry this farce, pointing to historical facts that our founders were specifically conservative Christians (cp. Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution). Yet, how many conservative Christians know that it was not a generic conservative Christianity that substantially created America but rather Calvinism? Lutheran minister Eidsmoe acknowledges it (p.19). Hopefully, more people will.

In a letter dated Oct, 31, 1776, Rev. Inglis, rector of Trinity Church, New York, wrote to fellow Anglican leaders:

"I have it from good authority that the Presbyterian ministers, at a synod where most of them in the middle colonies were collected, passed a resolve to support the continental congress in all their measures. This and this only can account for the uniformity of their conduct;for I do not know one of them, nor have I been able, after strict inquiry, to hear of any, who did not, by preaching and every effort in their power, promote all the measures of the congress, however extravagant."

American historian and founder of Annapolis, Bancroft, asserts:

"The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty; and, in the moral war fare for freedom, his creed was his most faithful counselor and his never-failing support. The Puritans... planted... the undying principles of democratic liberty. [He further claimed]:...Calvin infused enduring elements into the institutions of Geneva, and made it for the modern world, the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the fertile seed-plot of democracy. We boast of our common schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free schools. We are proud of the free States that fringe the Atlantic. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France. William Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots; the ships from Holland that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled with Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty." [A History of the United States, p.464; Literary and Historical Miscellanies, p.405]

Yale history professor, George Fisher, who thought the similarities between Roman Catholics and Protestants greater than their differences, wrote:

"How is it, then, that Calvinism is acknowledged, even by foes, to have promoted powerfully the cause of civil liberty? The reason lies in the boundary line which it drew between church and State. Calvinism would not surrender the peculiar notions of the Church to the civil authority. Whether the church, or the Government, should regulate the administration the Sacrament, and admit or reject the communicants, was the question which Calvin fought out with the authorities at Geneva, in this feature, Calvinism differed from the relation of the civil leaders to the Church, as established under the auspices of Zwingli, well as of Luther, and from the Anglican system which originated under Henry VIII....A second reason why Calvinism has been
favorable to civil liberty is found in the republican character of its church organization. Laymen shared power with ministers... Men who were accustomed to rule themselves in the Church would claim the same privilege in the commonwealth ...Another source of the influence of Calvinism, in advancing the cause of civil liberty, has been derived from its theology. The sense of the exaltation of the Almighty Ruler, and of his intimate connection with the minutest incidents and obligations of human life, which is fostered by this theology, dwarfs all earthly potentates. An intense spirituality, a consciousness that this life is but an infinitesimal fraction of human existence, dissipates the feeling of personal homage for men, however high their station, and dulls the luster of all earthly grandeur. Calvinism and Romanism are the antipodes of each other." [The Reformation, p. 07]

A modern Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics summarizes thusly:

"In general it may be claimed for Calvinism that its influence has been an elevating and invigorating one. Abasing man before God, but exalting him again in the consciousness of a newborn liberty in Christ, teaching him his slavery through sin, yet restoring his freedom to him through grace, and leading him to regard all things in the light of eternity, it contributed to form a grave but very noble and elevated type of character, and reared a race not afraid to lift up the head before kings." [Hastings, 153]

Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, an Austrian Roman Catholic aristocrat intellectual and National Review contributor asserts:

"If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather...the prevailing spirit of Americans before and after the War of Independence was essentially Calvinistic in both its brighter and uglier aspects." ["The Western Dilemma: Calvin or Rousseau?" Modern Age, 1971, 5]

Historian James G. Leyburn, of Washington & Lee University, wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish and summarized it in an essay in the American Heritage Magazine:

...Scottish Presbyterianism was unique in its intensity, even in those religious days...A Hessian captain wrote in 1778, 'Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scotch Irish Presbyterian rebellion.' King George was reported to have characterized the Revolution as 'a Presbyterian war,' and Horace Walpole told Parliament that 'there is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.'...Such testimony to enthusiasm for the American cause was not given to any other group of immigrants." ["Scotch-Irish: The Melting Pot" online]

On May 20, 1775, the Presbyterian Synod was the first religious body to send a public letter to the churches encouraging general submission to the deceived Crown and specific submission to the Continental Congress and to prepare their lives and souls for war.

Daniel Elazer, a member of presidential committees and of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, eloquently summarizes:

"A majority of the delegates to the Convention were affiliated with covenant-based churches...The Presbyterians, however, were already moving toward full-scale federalism. As Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., noted: "More than either [the Congregationalists or Anglicans] the Presbyterians in their reliance on federalist and representative institutions anticipated the political makeup of the future United States." Indeed, as the first government came into office under the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the Presbyterians held their first nationwide General Assembly. In the Presbyterian system, congregations in a local area formed a presbytery; several presbyteries in a region formed a synod; and then came the General Assembly. As a result, the system of federal democracy established by the U.S. Constitution has often been referred to as Presbyterianism writ large for civil society..." [The Covenant Tradition in Politics, pt.3, p.77]

More can be written. But this should be enough to challenge the modern stereotypes and misconceptions. If we want Reformation again, we have to go to the roots.

SDG

Deep Thought for Evangelicals on Their Birthday

October 31st, 1517

This is Protestantism's birthday, and conservative Evangelical's supposed birthday as well--at least nominally...

Well, I'll let others make my point, since they are more eloquent:

“With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before ui what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of teaching from our pulpits a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms, each having his own contribution to make to man’s salvation and each depending on the dutiful cooperation of the other for the attainment of that end? As if God exists for man’s convenience, rather than man for God’s glory?”

Packer and Johnston’s Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, p. 59

Celebrating October Holy-Days

Rocktober I get: the Rockies are stomping the competition.

Holloween makes sense from a pagan perspective.

Oktober Fest I can understand as well. It’s a cultural celebration; it has morphed into an America community get-together.

Harvest Festivals of rural yesteryear hijacked into Evangelical mega-church revival meetings, I can comprehend.

But for a LUTHERAN CHURCH to celebrate Oktober Fest?!?

It’s true: I drove by such a church with a banner inviting the neighborhood to such an event. That I don’t get!

Wouldn’t they celebrate REFORMATION DAY?!?

Remember?…Luther?….95 Theses?

That transformation of Western Civilization from the Medieval Ages into the era of capitalism, democracy and religious freedom?

How quickly I forget: American Evangelicals have collective amnesia. Or rather many practice historical hubris: the past is irrelevant, the now is superior.

Well, I for one will shout from the roof-tops the glories of the sovereign grace of God Almighty, preaching in the shadows of our great spiritual leaders—Luther, Knox, Calvin—who gave their livelihood, sweat and tears for the propagation of Christ’s sweet mercies and awesome judgments.

In contrast, a vast host of well-meaning Christians will pass through October 31 in blissful ignorance, repeating the errors of old Israel: “my power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth”—material, political, economical, and spiritual (Deut. 8:17).

When we do not properly honor our spiritual fathers, we violate the Fifth Commandment. When we imitate their worse instead of their best, we violate the Fifth Commandment.

Reformation Day is soon arriving. It is not a holy-day as the pagans celebrate or the Roman Catholics worship. But it is a time, like Purim of old, to celebrate our deliverance from spiritual death—to recall our fathers’ sacrifices and our own commitments.

What is Reformation Day?

Dear reader, read on!

October Revolution!

How About Those DiamondBacks in the Fourth? :-)

Atheists Taking Notes

This summer during bring-out-the-tables-and-grab-more-members drive at the local colleges, I wandered through the labyrinth of chaos: banks luring students, clubs attracting members, and fast food restaurants claiming the dream job. And then as I turned my head to fight off the beating sun, my eye caught the following:

THE BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE

“Matthew 12:31 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Speak into this video and verbally denounce the Spirit: secure your place in hell!”

If there was ever a time to preach Christ, this was it! Casually approaching the bench, I prayed a quick prayer to the Spirit, and innocently asked the black-clad individual behind the table why he used this verse.

He stared at me for a few seconds. “We are using this verse to show the absurdity of Christians who take the Bible literally.”

Wanting to avoid a quibble over details—to reach deeper issues—I responded, “Not all Christians have such a naïve approach to the Bible. I could point out the larger context or other Bible verses, but you do not take the Bible as your standard of reality anyway.”

I paused and plunged onward: “The bigger question is: What do you believe? Where are you coming from?”

“I’m an atheist and I’m an empiricist,” he cautiously replied.

“Interesting, so truth is only that which is verified by the senses…how do you find justice or love in a test tube?” I asked.

Thus the debate began—or rather, the one-sided critique of empiricism. Trying to “answer a fool according to his folly,” I focused on the hopelessness and philosophical suicide incipient in atheism. Near the end of the conversation, I pointed out how he shuffled between pragmatism and empiricism in finding truth-claims. The internal contradiction was becoming clear to the atheist. Before saying a word, he reached down to grab a notepad and pen.

With a level of comfortable rapport already established, my curiosity piqued: “Excuse me, what are you doing?”

Scribbling on the notepad, he looked up at me with mild surprise, "Oh, you were pointing out some inconsistencies in my thinking: I'm taking notes."

soli deo gloria!

Get Into My Head

The heat was palpable. Feeling the sun beat upon my head, I quickly surveyed my surrounding in the middle of the campus. Trees dotted the landscape, but concrete structures dominated the scenery. All the pathways encouraged the reflection of sun, increasing the heat about me, distracting me as I struggled to listen:

“But I cannot accept a God who would send people to hell just because they don’t agree
with him,” she persisted. Sitting on the curb near the center of the square, she stared at me intently, trying to grasp an ethereal idea as foreign to her as living the life of an earthworm.

“I understand your point, but I think it is misdirected,” I cautiously replied. Handling the Bible in my hand, seeking out the book of Romans while attempting eye contact, I fumbled when another loud riding-lawn mower passed by in the background—the third in so many minutes.

As a dutiful soldier, I marched on: “Try to get into my head; try to understand where Christianity is coming from. We believe that all mankind fell in Adam: when he sinned we all sinned. So everyone is born a sinner, acting out their rebellious nature. When a Christian says that those who reject Christ are going to hell, we say that because they deserve hell.”

“OK,” she slowly replied.

“It is like our own culture: if someone were a murderer or a traitor, they would be punished. There is no talk of ‘fairness’ and the like: they get what they deserve: death. So all mankind, as Romans 1:18ff. states, already deserve death. God, their Judge, is under no obligation to save anyone.”

Knowing the importance of the Word, I proceeded to read that section of Romans, slowly and deliberately, adding short explanatory statements as needed.

“Interesting: men are without excuse. So God sends missionaries to tell the unbelievers about the possibility of salvation in Christ; He does not just let them be,” she mused out loud.

“Yes—so you see from the Christian worldview, it is not merely men not “agreeing” with God, it is rebellious terrorists rejecting the rule of Law and the Law’s Judge.”

A new look entered her eyes: thoughtfulness. “That makes sense. Let me think about that…you certainly have a different approach than simply smashing my head in with the Bible. You tried to understand my position as well.”

I allowed her into my world, my head. Now I pray the Spirit to enter her heart.

Original Sin vs. Science?

A friend of mine discovered some news you won't find in the mainstream.

A Short Review 10: The Ten Points of Calvinism

Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism, Dr. Coppes

There seem to be a multitude of books and pamphlets on Calvinism. However, even though many of these treatments are useful and convincing, they do not reach the level of integration between simplicity and depth that characterizes this book.

Calvinism is not an isolated debate over how one is saved, but is part and parcel of a larger understanding—a worldview—of the Bible and God’s creation. Our understanding of the Church, worship, evangelism, the Law and all other aspects of the Christian life are integrated in the Reformed community. Put into this context, the reader is invited to explore this fresh introduction to the Reformed faith.

Recommended by Loraine Boettner and Professor George Knight (of Greenville Seminary), this book is highly praised by respected men of the Reformed world. The book contends that Calvinism, properly understood, involves all of life. Creating ten chapters (each a summary treatment of the major themes of Calvinism), the author ends each section with review questions and a list of helpful readings and advance study books. It is eminently readable, while challenging the reader to interact with the copious assortment of Bible verses and Biblical thought.

These characteristics of the book alone make it a valuable addition to those wanting to learn the Reformed faith or for those wishing to refresh their understanding.

OPC GA Update

Here is a running update from the OPC GA at Dordt College.

PCA GA News

See here for developments on Federal Vision.

Thoughts on Weekly Communion...Controversy

Dear readers,

I am surprised and disturbed.

I am surprised because of the quick responses to this posting. It caught me off guard. Shortly after posting I wanted to tweak the post but assumed (you know what that does!) I would not have many readers. Well, lesson learned! I went ahead after the comments occurred. Just as in my book, I differentiated the radical quotes from others not associated with them. I also qualified the universal statement about the Reformed practice--Strassburg practiced weekly Communion for a little while. Perhaps if someone can document otherwise, then I could modify that statement. As it is, I studied and searched through dozens and dozens of books on this relatively obscure issue. Thus, I can say through my own study that this practice was very rare in the Reformed faith. The famous Calvin quote is analyzed in my book along with other quotes of his that point away from weekly Communion (apparently missing in the works I critique). I would strongly suggest that those quick to debate these summary posts (obviously used to goad the readers to my book :-) should read my book first.

I also clarified my "conservative" position. It does not mean tradition is right; it means the burden of proof is on those against it. One cannot study every practice & doctrine in-depth; thus, many have accepted a few good arguments from well-trained men and left it at that...for now. Frankly, I am surprised anyone who knows me would think otherwise.

I am also disturbed. To think that I misquoted someone has kept my mind running all morning! I purposefully asked ministers with years of experience and godliness to read the manuscript. I even sought out those with differing views (with little to no response).

Perhaps the unintended connection between the author and the other radical quotes caused concern; perhaps the starkness of the quote was shocking; perhaps it was assumed that I had other questionable reasons for the quote. Upon further reflection, it could be that someone would take the third quote as a rationalization for weak sermons. That is not the case.

The context of the quote is the explanation of some benefits of weekly Communion (again, reflected in my paper: "The following quotes, although cautious, also challenge the church to take seriously the benefits and rationales for weekly Communion.") So, some benefits are used to argue for weekly Communion. This is clarified as well in the original post.

Since it was the author himself who pointed this out, I would humbly petition him to check the clarification and lend his opinion. At the end of the day, it is his original intent that I seek.

Peace.

SDG

Thoughts on Weekly Communion...So What?

Why bother talking about the frequency of Communion at all? Here are a few reasons:

"Without the word, the sacrament is merely an empty sign. Without the sacrament, the word is not properly sealed and does not have its full, intended effect. [emphasis added]…neither the preaching of the word nor the observance of the sacrament is superfluous or optional in regular Christian worship (cf. Acts 2:42). Biblical worship includes both."[1]

"Or is Communion more like a meal, a frequent event that is special because of its necessity?…What will we say when our Lord asks us why we deliberately neglected a primary means of grace in most Lord’s Day worship services?…Is it truly good stewardship to hide the Communion cup more Sundays than we use it?"[2]


Other writers do not make such bold claims, but offer their ideas, suggesting some benefits (that are not used to excuse weak sermons):

"On the other hand, even if I fall short and preach do’s and don’ts rather than the gospel, the Lord’s Supper helps to remind the congregation of the gospel basics…"
"...it [weekly Supper] might even contribute toward revival and reformation in lives, families, and in congregations."[3]

Some have used weekly Communion to degrade Communion preparation (LCQ 171ff.)
"Since we have weekly communion, we don't need to warn people about approaching the table in an unworthy manner. It would be awkward and repetitive."

Do you, dear reader, agree with these assertions? If so, why? If not, why? The issue is more involved than simply quoting verses or making theological assertions. That's what I found out when I studied the issue: hard work. My opinion shifted through this in-depth study. And at the end of it all I created a book, Words of Life: The Bible & Weekly Communion.

I urge people to read it. Many who have formulated opinions on the matter (especially those in favor of weekly practice) have taken little time to read up on the issue. In fact, being a conservative Presbyterian my starting position is the historical practice of the church. Thus, the burden of proof is on those against such practices. Weekly Communion has not been universally practiced in the Reformed faith. Period. Those acting on it should do so in dialogue with history not out of some private research that can easily miss illuminating arguments and perspectives.

This is only installment one.
Read on, dear reader.

---

[1] Ibid, 270. These statements were given in a short section on the relation of the Word and Sacrament. At best this is unclear language.

[2] Grover E. Gunn, III, “Weekly Communion,” The Counsel of Chalcedon, December 1986, 20.

[3] Larry Wilson, “On Weekly Communion—Some Pastoral Reflections”, Ordained Servant 14, no. 1, (March 2005): 17, 20 , he continues: "I shouldn’t gloss over this, as if weekly communion somehow excuses failure to preach Christ."

---