October Revolution 4: Science

Lewis. W. Spitz, (The Renaissance & Reformation Movements, Vol. II, Concordia Publishing House, 1971, revised 1986). This well-educated non-Calvinist scholar noted the obvious connection between Calvinism and science.

During the rise of science in the 1600s, there were six times as many Protestant scientists as Romish; and of those, they were mostly Calvinists, the Lutherans only having Johannes Kepler (d. 1630) as their last great scientist (581).

The learned historian continues: “Reformation theology contributed to certain essential presuppositions important to natural science in its incipient stages.” The Creator-creation distinction and the fact that God created all things out of nothing both contributed to the intellectual ascendancy of science. This meant that man and creation were not part of God and, thus, observable without taboos (583). Today, many Greenies (environmentalists) wish not to follow the creation mandate that man should subdue the earth. To them, earth, Gaia, is virtually divine; hence, there is a strict taboo on exploration and utility of this creation.

Furthermore, the development of the doctrine of the image of God in man contributed much to science. It meant that, although totally depraved in all the faculties of the soul, man still has those faculties in distinction from the animals and still uses them to discover the world and interact with it in an intelligent manner. Depravity simply means that he uses them for his own glory, in his own ways and for his own purposes. Everything sinful man does is morally unacceptable before God’s tribunal. However, through God’s common benevolence (the fact that man still lives and breaths when he deserves immediate death), unbelievers can still operate in science along side believers.
For the believer redeemed in Christ, being renewed in the image of Christ, it means that he must use the faculties of his renewed spiritual life in God’s kingdom, fulfilling the creation mandates.

This leads naturally into the next doctrine: the kingdom of God. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Reformers accepted the earthly mundane—such as marriage—as part of God’s kingdom instead of a necessary evil of sorts. The rise of monasticism and monkery mostly arose from their view of salvation, which involved separating oneself from the this world’s cares instead of redeeming them. If salvation is found only in the church, her priests and her sacraments, then all things come under the authority (directly or indirectly) of the church. Those serious about saving themselves will give themselves wholly to the church. For the Reformed man, on the other hand, salvation is immediately from God and all of creation is being redeemed insofar as the Christian brings his passions and abilities to bear for God’s glory. He is freed from sin to obey (however inconsistently) God’s law, to discipline himself and his environment, to learn and advance in the sciences with a heart of gratitude.

Another Reformed doctrine, that God predestined all things, necessarily means that science can operate. If all were chance—or even if some things were purely chance—would mean that they could not be rationally observed and understood. Chance, by definition, is non-rational. The fact that empiricism (the use of the senses and repeatability of experiments) can even function in the form of science arises from a Christian, specifically Reformed, metaphysic. The senses are reliable and consistent because of God. Cause and effect have meaning and consistency in a rational universe designed by an all-knowing God. In fact, for any datum to make sense in human experience, the ontological Trinity (God in-himself) must be presupposed.

Science was free.

[Next: finally...Religion & Politics!]

October Revolution 3: Economics

The famous German economist, Max Weber, proposed the connection between Christianity and Free Market labor almost one-hundred years ago in The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism. In particular, he noted the industriousness of the Puritans (Calvinists one and all) as a psychological incentive that helped fuel Capitalism. Their sense of Christian vocation for any lawful endeavor in life coupled with their sobriety, thrift, stewardship and high ethics contributed greatly. Twenty years later, R. H. Tawney argued similarly in his Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.

Furthermore, the Reformers allowed the proper use of interest for money (contrary to Romish practice) and the accumulation of wealth for families and their children’s children. This further stimulated capitalism.

“Without question, the doctrine of Calvin, in so far as it concerns lending at interest, ran counter to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. This was because Calvin did not believe in barriers between the spiritual and the temporal: he considered work and the serious exercise of a profession as praiseworthy, and therefore accepted the acquisition of riches as legitimate…” (39, Modern Capitalism: Its Origin and Evolution, By Henri Eugène Sée, Ayer Publishing, 1968.)

Again, since the kingdom of God was wherever the Christian’s vocation in life was, those lawful activities of work and recreation were sanctified unto God. It was not sinful per se to accumulate wealth nor seek after prosperity. Although, given no biblical guarantee of prosperity (see Job), the believer knew that the biblical ideals of hard work and thrift generally lead to plenitude. They were following biblical precept by observing the industrious ant.

And in the spirit of true mercy, the office of deacon flourished in the Reformed churches as well, helping those in economical need. Mercy and money could coexist.

Historian, Lewis Spitz (The Renaissance & Reformation Movements, Vol. II, p. 557) summarized thusly:

“…by instilling into the laboring classes a view of life that raises work from drudgery to a source of self-respect, Protestantism and especially Calvinism helped to build up a group of productive and reliable people, a solid base for a capitalistic society.”

The believer was economically free.

October Revolution 2: Religious

Calvinism has been given a bad name in the modern and postmodern eras. As some of the students at the college ministry observed, in the classes that mentioned Calvinism, they always explained it as an obscure glad-its-gone doctrine of a bygone age. It is purportedly a “rigid” system of doctrine; it breeds “dour” people; and it had that “horrible” belief of predestination. As Voltaire spoke of Calvin himself, so many think of his doctrines: “He was acquainted with Latin and Greek, and the bad philosophy of his time. He wrote better than Luther, and spoke worse; both were laborious and austere, but hard and violent…” (Schaff, Vol. 8, 277).

In the following posts, the tremendous impact of Reformation theology will be presented. It was not the only source of influence, but it was of great significance in the economics, sciences and politics of yesteryear and the roots of modern prosperity. Of course, history is not accomplished in a vacuum, the Reformers always insisted that they were only following doctrines already existing in the church but not fully understood or consistently carried out. What I hope to accomplish is a greater appreciation of the results of the Reformation; results, to be sure, that were not necessarily consciously pursued—a not uncommon activity among humans—but logically flowed from the biblical ideals of Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, and their fellow Reformers.



Church

In the first installment, I summarized the core doctrinal effect of Luther’s 95 Theses, justification by faith alone. Human mediation was removed. Thus, the hierarchy of Rome was rejected. This lead to the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer: each Christian had immediate access to God through Christ alone by faith alone. No human instruments (sacraments, saints, or priest) came between the believer and Christ. This liberated the individual.

Luther also translated the Bible into German instead of following the tradition of Rome which only used the Latin Vulgate and that only by trained experts. Since Rome believed that salvation was found in the church (through her accumulated merit) and church tradition was on par with the bible, it followed that the church would control the bible. Again, the priesthood of the believer gave immediate access to the bible since it was there that Christ was found. Literacy abounded.

The priesthood of the believers also affected the church directly. Since the ministers were not priests in the strict sense of the word, but ministers (servants) for the church and for that salvation immediately obtainable to the individual, then hierarchicalism was greatly hampered. In the Reformed churches of Calvin & Zwingli, this top-down structure was abolished. Congregational songs, voting and discipline was revived accordingly.

The priesthood of the believer also gave rise to liberty of conscience. A man with a clear conscience is a man with liberty. The freedom to believe and worship God according to the Bible was a strong impetus in France, Holland and Scotland, leading to societal changes in those countries. Although, as with most revivals, there was not a perfect implementation of this idea, it still shook nations.

The priesthood of the believer arose directly from Luther’s view of salvation. Since justification (our right standing before God’s law court) was only through faith and only on account of Christ’s righteousness alone, then no mediating person or institution was needed. Society’s structures (home, school, guilds, etc) were no longer playing second fiddle to the Romish church. Monkery was rejected and a full marriage life was embraced. Holy days were abolished and time was freed. In other words, the Kingdom of God was no longer limited to the pope and his church. It was a broader kingdom, embracing all of life sanctified to God.

Christians are priest, so they are to dedicate all endeavors to God. Christians are prophets, so they are to declare the truth in all endeavors of life. Christians are princes, so they are to dominate all endeavors for God’s glory.

Justification by faith alone changed everything.

------------

Naturally, many reading this series of articles may think it rather prideful, arrogant and self-serving. So, to prove my point I have attempted to cite secular, non-Christian if not non-Calvinist sources to prove my point. The rest of the proof is in the logic presented.
[Next: Economics 101]

October Revolution: Luther vs. Halloween

What is the difference between Martin Luther & Halloween? Only one of them changed Western Civilization. This special edition is given out of a desire to fan the flames of Reformation in our hearts and lives. Today it is easy for Christians to lose sight of the power of the Gospel by dwelling on the politics, economics and wars of today. Hopefully, we can turn our eyes on Christ. And one way to do that is to recall the great acts of our spiritual fathers and demonstrate the breadth of impact that they made by the power of the Spirit.

----------------------
Happy Reformation Day

What is the significance of Luther’s break with Rome? Many Christians would readily acknowledge that Luther brought back free Gospel grace and freedom from the tyranny of Rome. But what exactly does that mean? Did Luther’s rediscovery of the Gospel only affect individuals? How did it change the world? Hopefully, this short series will open your eyes to the greatness of God’s work over 480 years ago.

On October 31, 1517, the eve of All Saints’ Day, an Augustinian monk, hammered 95 theses—short propositions—on the Wittenberg door in Germany. He was protesting the indulgences of Tetzel, who, purportedly announced: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” This system of indulgences was part of the larger system of baptism and penance and the Mass. Each a step in the works-salvation method of Rome. If a shrewd Christian could find the right confessor and some money, he could cover most sins while living like the Devil. In fact, even civil punishment could be avoided this way (Works of B. B. Warfield, Vol. IX, Studies in Theology, “The Nintey-Five Theses In Their Theological Significance”, p.497).

Hammering the thesis was a public declaration. An advertisement of sorts.

But it was more. It was a formal declaration against the Papal and Romish supremacy in matters of faith and life. The various theses fundamentally attacked the Romish church’s authority over the matter of salvation. It dismantled the churchly machine of Sacerdotalism—that mechanical view of redemption integrated into the church. It was claimed that salvation was found only in the Romish church through the Romish priests and the Romish sacraments. Good works were instrumentally necessary for salvation. In short, it was a works-salvation system. And although Christ was formally part of the process, He was not part and parcel to the entire schema.

In contrast, Luther wrote: “Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.” (Thesis 36). That is, Christians can have full remission of sin without Romish interference (“letters of pardon”). The believer had direct access to God. He needed no other mediator than Christ. Warfield explain the antithesis thusly:

“The fundamental difference between the two doctrines [Luther & Tetzel] is the fundamental difference between evangelicalism and sacerdotalism. Evangelicalism casts man back on God and God only; the faith that it asks of him is faith in God’s saving grace in Christ alone. Sacerdotalism throws him into the hands of the Church and asks him to put his confidence in it—or, in the indulgences, very specifically the Pope.” (ibid, 499).

This view was summarized by Luther: justification through faith alone, by grace alone on account of Christ alone. It was a view that was earlier discovered by Luther’s study of the book of Romans (about 1515 AD). And it is the view underlining the 95 Theses:

“What he here attacks is just the sacerdotal principle in one of its most portentous embodiments—the teaching that men are to look to the Church as the institute of salvation for all their souls’ welfare, and to derive from the Church all their confidence in life and in death. What he sets over against this sacerdotalism is the evangelical principle that man is dependent for his salvation on God and on God alone—on God directly, apart from all human intermediation—and is to look to God for and to derive from God immediately all that makes for his soul’s welfare. In these Theses Luther brought out of the academic circle in which he had hitherto moved, and cast into the arena of the wide world’s conflicts, under circumstances which attracted and held the attention of men, his newly found evangelical principle, thrown out into sharp contrast with the established sacerdotalism. It is this that made the posting of the Theses the first act of the Reformation, and has rightly made October Thirty-first the birthday of the Reformation.” (ibid, 511).

[Next: The churchly and societal impact of the Reformation]
(entire series here)

----------------------
“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.” Phil. 3:7-9

SDG

Christian Tribalism IV: Remedied

1 Corinthians 1:12 speaks directly to this issue of Christian tribalism:

For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions [divisions] among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (11-13).

Thus, there was tribalism—“exaltation of the tribe [shared interests] above other groups”—an emphasis on distinctions implying an attitude of superiority—in the church at Corinth. Paul reprimanded this radicalization of distinctions. Unity and harmony should be the goal and activity of any church (local or regional) (Eph. 4:1-3). Men should not be the center of group-focus, rather the group should look to the base commonalities with the larger community in which it relates.


Not only should undue separation in doctrine and deed be avoided, mutual submission should be practiced (cp.1 Pet. 5:5).

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor 1:10)

In this passage we have the opposite of church-tribalism: internal and external unity. Internally we should be of the “same mind”—the same thought patterns, goals and ideals. Hence, the church is an organism. Externally, we should speak the “same thing”—the same confession, not merely in creed but also in deed. Hence, the church is an organization.


What this means is that as a member of the church, we should strive to submit to the greater unity of that church (locally or regionally). What this does not mean is a lost of identity in function or personality (1 Cor. 12). There is diversity within the unity. We will have differences (raising children, political practices, apologetic techniques, etc.), and even shibboleths (raising children, political practices, etc) but unless they are clearly in the Word and rise to the occasion of separation, they ought not to become issues. They ought not create a tribal-mentality in which that group of people and its goals, intents or ideals becomes greater than the whole of the church.

Is This Not Obvious?

It is not.


It takes much prayer. It takes discipline. It take humility. A ready admittance that "my way" is not always the best way. And even if it is the best way--so what?


Let us not forget Paul's admonition to the Romans:

"Receive on who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things...Therefore let up pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another..." Rom. 14:1,19

Unity is little practiced in America. Even in Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Even within the same denomination! It seems at times that each church lives its own life in isolation from others. If this is unhealthy for individuals and families, then why not for churches? No church is an island.


We have to think outside our own selves, families and churches. We have to strive toward the unity that Christ bled and prayed for. We have to begin with humility and repentance from egotistical isolationism.


To defeat tribalism and to avoid being another illustration for blogger fodder, we must change our ways. And love one another, esteeming others higher than ourselves.


Pray that the Spirit would be pleased to do just that.


SDG

Christian Tribalism III: Illustrated

Proof is in the Pudding

We find some tribalism in the state. The state obviously manifests this infestation through the increase of special interest groups, compartmentalized bureaucracy, and fragmented visions of unity amongst the political parties (conservative Republicans, Reagan Republicans, Rhinos, neocons, etc.). Parties preach to the choir or yell at each other. There is no true dialogue. Our American system was purposefully built to be institutionally fragmented (three branches of government, bicameral legislation, etc.), but with the understanding of a common ideological underpinning. The former still exists, yet the latter exists is quickly fading. The center will eventually collapse with tyranny or anarchy as the result.

We find tribalism in the family. Whenever a family is suspicious of other families because they are not quite in line with their approach to life—whether in thought, word or deed—it may be tribal infestation. Whenever a family moves from church to church because they are “uncomfortable” with this or that of the church, it may be nomadic tribalism. Whenever a family teaches it own—verbally or non-verbally—that they themselves are virtually self-sufficient from other individuals, families or churches (even of society as a whole), it may be tribalistic egotism. It becomes family against family. A form of shunning may arise or gossip may be perpetuated to further reinforce group-think. They withdraw into themselves and only associate with those of the same core convictions—convictions not intrinsic to the Gospel of Christ. Rather, they are convictions rooted in legalistic shibboleths and antinomian idiosyncrasies. Eventually, it may mutate into a home-church: spurring any and all ecclesiastical bodies save itself.

We find tribalism in the church. Doctrinally (ideologically), people—even officers—have variations of beliefs and depending how tight they hold these beliefs they may be susceptible to tribalism. Differences usually do not surface until there are practical consequences. And differences usually begin in teaching hobby-horses and magnifying secondary and tertiary doctrines and practices. Communication between other churches is minimal because suspicion already exists, begetting less communication. Such emphases create homogenous churches (witness the church-growth movement). Does a church isolate itself collectively and familialy from other sister-churches? Does it not participate in other church's activities? Does a church unduly emphasize a person or position? Does a church preach unique views that result in pride and segregation? Does a church remain ignorant of its identity and relationship with others? If so, then there may be a bad version of tribalism afoot.

[Next: Remedy]

Christian Tribalism II: Defined

To understand this fragmentation and balkanization, tribalism must be defined. Webster summarizes thusly: “exaltation of the tribe above other groups” [or “strong in-group loyalty,” Webster, 11ed.]. In its more extreme forms, tribalism results in not only practical isolationism, but formal separation from the larger body. Now separation is a natural characteristic; many sub-groups, cultures, clubs and the like exist in America and have always existed.

Naturally, the church exercises a type of separation, but in a biblical manner. The church exalts Christ above all. It should have “strong in-group loyalty”—loyalty to Christ and to each other. Thus, in this sense the church is tribal with respect to the world, the flesh and the devil. The church is to be theologically isolated and cultural different (but not isolated completely). It draws its membership from the tribes of the world to be one (Rev. 5:9).

Tribalism in a negative sense means that prideful adulation of the sub-group over and against the larger group in which it exists. It thinks “we are better”; it says “we have a better approach”; it does its own thing in spite of the concern of the larger group. It is collective self-centeredness. It is rude and unkind to the very body which gave birth to it. It thinks of itself first and foremost and may consider others, if convenient.

Since the church-militant struggles with sin this side of eternity, there are many tribes within her—differing denominations. This is to be expected. And mature members and churches will handle such differences in love and rectitude. Such differences cannot be avoided, but they are aggravated when those groups or churches within a denomination begin to unduly exalt their groups interests, goals or ideals. Shibboleths arise; idiosyncrasies predominate; ecclesiastical isolationism ensues.

From this definition, the extent of tribalism may be more appreciated; it infects the political realm, the churches and even families. Clearly, any bible-believing Christian knows that pride—whether individual or collective—is wrong. Pride is more obvious in group situations because the number of prideful individuals is multiplied, creating a greater negative impact on others. However, it is harder to extinguish as well. The old saying that “birds of a feather flock together” has much merit and such a fact reinforces the group-mentality of tribalism: isn’t everyone else in my group on the same page? But the real question becomes instead: is this same page biblical? Should I or my family or my church make such a stand as to virtually place this page above the larger book of commonality found with other belivers?

[next: What it looks like]

Christian Tribalism I: Resurgence

I recently perused the latest edition of Wired. The article, “The Rise and Fall of the Hit”, caught my attention. It was an intelligent digest of how technology has recently mutated our relatively unified cultured (via the industrial revolution) into a niche market—a market more readily designed for organization around shared interests. Technology was decentralizing the culture.

In Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves To Death, he worried that the television would be the great unifier and sustainer of mass pop culture—a culture driven by the fragmented and disjointed running images of the boob-tube instead of a culture rooted in the coherent and rationale realm of the written word. His concern was that our culture was becoming more insipid and lackadaisical in its thinking processes, being fed instead with inane sound-bytes and drowning in a sea of amusement.

Neil is correct about the sea of amusement. What Neil had not realized (at least through that book) was the coming tribalization of America--a hi-tech tribalism. Technology further facilitated rising multiculturalism and fragmentation. Age-groups dominate the social scene with the Gen Xers emailing over vast distances while their Boomer parents complain about Gen Yers who text-message. Groups geographically isolated now connected through individual and mass media to further their agendas. People no longer are American or Anglican, they are Asian-American or Green-Anglican, creating new categories of differentiation that accelerate the sub-group’s distinctions from the larger community in which it dwells.

Another name for this effect is Postmodernism. With no epistemic-center in the system of many contemporary philosophers (otherwise known as post-structuralism), and especially the lack of self-reflective thought in most Americans, balkanization in American ideology and theology was sure to follow. Technology further enhanced such an approach through the individualization of tastes: don’t like what’s on the tube? Watch your own streaming video. Finding the radio to boring? Listen to your MP3 player instead. Is the local church too humdrum? Choose your pastor on cable or online.

Thus, technology has connected people who would have otherwise been separated geographically and economically. We can talk for pennies on the dollar with those we’ve never seen and we can disseminate our views with wider audiences via blogs. Hobby-horses connect world-wide with sympathetic ears; church members follow sly blogged innuendoes instead of their own church leaders; families withdraw from local friends as they connect with those far away; ministers grow distant with their own presbyteries while bonding with outsiders. In short, we begin to fragment and tribalize.

And this modern balkanization has wormed its way into the various God-ordained spheres of life: family, church and state. It has existed in small forms over the centuries (compare Anabaptists & some Fundamentalists) and, through the help of current technology, is in resurgence today—albeit in more subtle forms.

[Next: What it Is]

A Short Review 8: Ready to Restore

Ready to Restore: The Layman’s Guide to Christian Counseling, Jay Adams

The subtitle says it all: this is an immanently useful and practical book for anyone desiring to grow as a Christian. Why do I say that?—Because we are all commanded to admonish one another in the Lord and to bare one another’s burdens (Col. 3:16; Gal. 6:1-2). This, of course, is what every good and faithful friend desires. And Adams supplies the guidelines and principles straight from the Bible for every believer’s use.

With the relatively large number of chapters and small font, this book may intimidate some and turn away others, yet Jay Adam’s irenic and simple style is conducive for a quick read—especially on a chapter-by-chapter basis. The author first starts out with the basic questions about who should counsel and what counseling actually entails (chapter 1-3); he then encourages the reader that he can and should learn to counsel (4). Chapters 5-14 are the heart of the book, expounding and explaining the details of a biblical and practical approach to counseling. The remaining chapters focus on the counselor’s own growth and any typical questions and problems one may face in a counseling situation.

Amongst the many useful aspects of this book are the twenty-five basic counseling principles (p.32), the analysis of ‘self-esteem’ and the Biblical corrective (p.55) and the simple two-fold solution to problems: helping someone out of a problem and keeping them out of the problem (p.57).

Ready to Restore is an excellent book for every believer in Christendom. In trying to teach yourself Biblical and Reformed counseling, you not only help other through their difficulties you learn to grow in Christ as well.

Man is Evil—Lessons From Katrina Part 3

Homosexuals throw a street party while thousands suffer.
Corrupt politicians ignored the levy problems for decades.
Now they promise to help those whom they destroyed.
Looting occurred almost instantly.
Rescuers were being attacked and harassed.

There are one million and one examples of the wickedness of man. The refuges are angry, bitter and irate. As they lash out at the local, state and federal governments, they rage not against man but against God. God is in control. And the government is not God. No matter how prepared they could have been God’s will would have been accomplished.

Seeing the awesome might of Almighty God brush the Gulf Coast away as a sun eradicates a moth, they acknowledge Him not but flee to man for refuge. Such an event is to show God’s wrath and man’s sinfulness. It has done both. But the church also has a job to proclaim these truths. Instead, as the American churches are wont, they send monetary help without Gospel help. They shy from uttering dark pronouncements lest they appear “negative”. They shirk their prophetic responsibility being uncomfortable with the prophets of old:"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9).

According to the buoyant proclamations of the likes of Sean Hannity (a Roman Catholic), these devastations were to bring the “best out of the American people.” But if one examines a little closer with the eyeglasses of the Bible, one rather finds the manifestations of evil: men and women shaking their fists at God while helping their fellows rebuild their engines of destruction against the Kingdom of God.

If the churches in America would be true to their calling, then as servants of God they must, “in humility [correct] those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (2 Tim. 2:24ff.).

They will not feel sorrow over their rebellion if they believe there is nothing wrong.
They will not cling to Christ if they believe themselves good.
There are one million and one reasons why men should repent. The obvious and easiest reason is the first one: man is evil.

SDG

The Government Is God?--Lessons From Katrina, Pt.2

Sometimes how people react to problems shows who or what their God is. When trouble comes, where do people go for help? Help not only for psychological and spiritual issues but also physical help.

So, where did thousands turn when Katrina hit? Did they take their saving and fly out of the city? Did they hitch a ride with friends and family? Did they stock up on food and water to sustain themselves for days?

The answer is obvious: when trouble came, many people turned to the government for help. They turned to governmental monies as their savior.

But the help did not come in time. That is why they are angry and frustrated: their god did not come through for them.

From another angle one can find out who or what god is followed by the amount of responsibility given. In God’s Word, He has separated the authorities of life into three main spheres: family, church and state. Whenever one institution usurps or expands its authority, it is claiming autonomy instead of submission to God. It’s just like Adam who desired to follow his own ways instead of God’s Law.

It is interesting to note that an ABC news report with Dan Harris (reporting, 9-6-05) stated that the city had a plan, but implemented it too late (it specified offering free transportation out of the area, but people were sent to the Dome instead); at the state level the governor is supposed to specifically ask for help from the Feds—but she did not. And of course, FEMA had its problems. The mayor blames, the State and Feds; the governor blames the Feds and the Feds will gladly take more responsibility from these institutions! The president did take responsibility; the mayor and the governor have not. And of course many people took little to no responsibility about their welfare.

(As of this date, more fraud in FEMA has been discovered as well: "through February 2006, FEMA made about $1 billion in improper and potentially fraudulent payments." Well, every god has his tithe...)

Now, billions will be poured into an area where insurance companies do not cover floods and hurricanes (why would they—they’d go broke!) and people will become more dependent upon the government.

In America, for many people the Government is god. So, the next time a large-scale devastation occurs, the Feds will sure to be there, comforting their flock.And taking more responsibility.

The churches must be faithful & warn people about this danger. Let's pray that many will learn, repent and turn to Christ. The Lord He is God and not the government.

SDG

Blame It On God—Lessons From Katrina, Pt. 1

In the one year anniverary of Katrina, the great gurus and thinkers of America rattle off many and sundry lessons learned from that terrible time. Movies and documentaries (I use the word loosly) are being shown as well. blaming the government, the infrastructure or that long-standing incipient evil in the hearts of everyone else but the accuser: racism. I suppose, knowing Americans, that some church somewhere is also preaching on this topic. I republisih this three part-series in the hope that others will find the real reason for this disaster.
----------------------

Thousands are presumed dead in the Gulf Coast area.
Hundreds of thousands are stranded in New Orleans.
Millions, if not billions, of damage wrought in one storm.

And people are asking, “Where is God?”
Anger bubbles from deep within the souls of thousands of angry people: “What kind of God allows this!” They are blaming God for the disaster.

And they should. He did it. He controls all things in creation.

But why?

Some talk show hosts try to calm people down by reversing the question: “Why has God blessed America all these years?” Or they wish not to speculate at all, glibly replying, “We need to help one another and bring the best out of the American people.”

However, Christians know that all things work for their good and for God’s glory (Rom. 8:32; Rom. 11:36). Furthermore, we know that since there are no longer prophets today, we must be careful in our evaluations.

But this is not all: Christ informs us of at least one reason why bad things happen:“Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4, 5).


When such disaster strikes—contrary to some misguided caller to the Medved show—its not because New Orleans was more wicked than San Francisco; one reason for disasters is to bring a wake up call to mankind: the world is full of sin and sinners; we no longer live in paradise.


Americans like to think that God is far away and irrelevant in life. Any prosperity gained is credited to ourselves; any advancements in life is honored to lady luck. Yet when things go bad and calamity knocks on our door—suddenly, it’s God’s fault.

In reality, as Jesus points out, everyone sins—all rebel and hate God, seeking their own desires and following their own lusts (Roms. 1:24ff.). The tower did not fall on some because they were more sinful—it fell because they were sinful. Period.

This is a wake up call. Americans better repent or they will perish.
And they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

God's Smuggler & A Cranky Calvinist

Bemused

My wife recieved an unexpected surprise last weekend. Cheap books. She likes to peruse the dime-priced, used books at the local library--a favorite pastime of those with Scots-Irish frugality rushing through their veins.

It turns out that one of the books was a biography of a bible smuggler during the Cold War of the 1950s. At first I did not recognize the book. So my wife bought it.

And she read it, explaining to me the interesting history of this man named "Brother Andrew". He was raised Dutch; survived WW II; and abandoned his upbringing.

Then the book got interesting: after a bitter experience in the Dutch army resulting in a foot-injury, he began to seek God. He was healed, decided to seek the ministry outside the Reformed tradition he was reared in and ignored the advise of a sweet Dutch girl concerned with his new mystical direction in life.

And then the novel went down hill from there--as far as my wife was concerned it went absolutely weird. Charismatic weird, that is.

For you see my wife was raised Reformed most of her childhood. I, on the other hand, was reared Charismatic--speaking-in-tongues, slain-in-the-Spirit, lay-the-'ol-fleece-before-God, die-in-the-wool, Charismatic.

Old memories rushed into my soul, recalling the confusion and struggles of my childhood religion. Accordingly, I suggested to my wife: "Dear, if you can read this book, then you will sufficiently be inculcated into that gestalt known as 'Charismatic'--you'll better understand them" (or some such gentle endorsement).

Cranky

Well, as the days progressed, my wife grew increasingly aggitated, exclaiming, "incredible"; "no way!"; "did that really happen?!". All the while, as she grew more incredulous with every reading of the progressively disturbing Charistmaic antics of yesteryear--random, and
irrational acts: traveling without money; participating in foreign worship without knowing the language; laying the illegal bible right on the front seat at check-points; trying to sell a perfectly good house while having four children and no job--I gave her that knowing smile: "Been there; done that!"

She muttered and grew cranky with the book. Never having met, let alone heard, someone with such improbable events, she did not know how to digest the book. Calming down (and against sound advise), she, with morbid fascination slipped into the twilight zone: interacting with a bizarro world where every good, common, providential sense was defenestrated, she plowed through the rest of the novel. She discovered little of Christ and more sensationalism.

Heartless

Naturally, those inclined toward reading these books and thinking in those terms will find this posting rather rude, if not insulting. Surely I must be one of those hard-nose, cranky, heartless Calvinsits!

Indeed I am. A Calvinist that is. I do take exception to being verbally attacked so, but I'll get over it. I do love my brethren outside the Reformed faith. That is why I try to woo them to a better path.

With the vast majority of Charismatics (sometimes called Pentecostals) denying God's providential control of all things, they naturally gravitate toward the miraculous. The mundane just won't do; God is not in the details of life. Besides, to think in a common-sense way was almost to succumb to the "flesh".

If God does not predestinate the means as well as the ends, then He must be found in other ways. He must "miraculously" intervene in our lives. Faith was against understanding. Using the ordinary means of life was, at times, almost anathama. At least in the books I read and the circles I travelled.

Having no supernatural, monergistic regeneration in my doctrine of salvation while a Charismatic, I, living in the shadow of classical Protestantism, desired the supernatural in my life. Separating God's work of grace into two-stages, I was not taught to integrate my life with the bland, the bromidic, and the banal.

Preaching was not enough; the ordinary means of grace--from the Sacraments and public worship to Bible studies and fellowship--were submerged in a confused world of hyper-supernaturalism, almost a Christanized Paganism wherein I strived to find God's will in my life and debated whether or not houses or Christians could be demon possessed or if the OT prohibition on owls had some continuing demonic referent (Lev. 11:13).

I was not taught to think. Charismatics virtually have no systematic theology book to claim. If God's revelation is still ongoing outside the finished Word, then anything written could change in a moment of spiritual frenzy.

I claim no heartlessness, but a love of Christ. It is true, that to have all the truth in the world but not to be animated by love is to have heartless doctrine. It is also true that to have all the love in the world but to be sustained in error is to have a lying heart.

We must remember that the saints of old followed the most ordinary precautions, trusting that they would be sufficient because God sustains all things by the power of His Word, while recognizing that God was not limited to such means. Joshua spied out the land (as "Brother Andrew" recognized); Nehemiah set up security while rebuilding the wall (Neh. 4:18); Christ preached when he could have used miracles. The entire Bible is rational discourse and understandable stories.

This is true faith: using that which God commands and promises. He commands common-sense use of our renewed mind (Rom. 12:2); He promises to sustain that very mind for His glory:

"Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain." (Ps. 127:1)

You see, my dear friend, you need shelter, but it won't be built out of thin air. You need God's will, but you must seek it only in His Bible.

SDG

Mathis Manor 3: Peer Pressure

Yes, through friends and family, I've been pressured to upload more pix. Even though not much more has happened.

But that's ok! Enjoy:

Kitchen from living room perspective.

Here is the living room itself with the never-to-be-used gas fireplace (unless it becomes cheaper!).

Well, eventually someone had to see the bathroom. It was that or another picture of the kitchen.

The time is short and the Lord is great!

Let's Vacation in Iraq While Indiana is Safe

I'm always looking for the silver lining. I don't want to be considered some drab and dour-faced Calvinists and hard-nosed pre-WWII Conservative without a funny-bone in his body. Thus, I am happy to present the following:


Here is some good news from Iraq: The Other Iraq

Here is some good news from American Homeland Security: Why Indiana is Terror Free

See? I feel better already!

(Brought to you by the reliable news network, The Daily Show).

Books Critiquing Federal Vision

I recently perused several book related to Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd. Specifically, I glanced through two (with my hard-fought speed-reading abilities from high school) and read carefully through two others. I would like to summarize them so as to get the right books for the right audiences. (For the record, I have read articles and heard lectures by FV proponents as well.)

There is much out there (especially on the net) and many pastors, let alone laymen, have little time to read all of it. I hope this is helpful (with unwitting help from Dr. Coppes who read the first two books and verbally summarized them to me):

1. The Justification Controversy, O. P. Robertson.
The very same author that brought us the popular "The Christ of the Covenants." If you want to read a book on the history of the controversy surrounding Norman Shepherd, than look no further than from a man who was right in the "thick of it." If you can make it through the historical detail and chronology (most of the book), you will find the summary of Shepherd's thinking most enlightening. This is only for those really wishing to find the history behind FV (who invited Shepherd to their Auburn conference).

2. Danger in the Camp, John Otis. This hard hitting book leaves no punches pulled. Using "no holds barred" approach to FV, Otis lays out in this thick tome a host of relevant full-length quotes (we're talking 1 full-page at times) from both FV proponants and confessional standards and authors of yesteryear. This is the type of book that will set the teeth of FVers and those sympathetic on edge.

3. Auburn Avenue Theology, Brian Schwertely. Originally Brian wrote several
articles about FV. This book is apparently a collection of those, but one would not know this given its seamless nature. Although not as strong in his language as Otis, Schwertely deals directly with the key problems of FV. The book gives good, strong and extensive critiques of FV on covenant and justification as well as good, strong and extensive defenses of the orthodox views. His extensive treatment of the theological and exegetical necessity of the active obedience of Christ is worth the price by itself. This book is recommended for all laymen and pastors. He is to the point without being exasperating or strident in his analysis and critiques.

4. The Federal Vision & Covenant Theology, Guy Waters.
This is a companion volume to Waters' previous work, Justification and the New Perspectives in Paul. This is the book recommended by all the scholars. It is written for scholars (although he tries to write for laymen) and it is for scholars. That is, he is not as "straight up" (i.e the difference between saying "that's wrong" and "that is incompatible with our belief system") as say Otis nor as direct as Schwertely, but he makes up for that in his steady momentum throughout the book. It has the largest bibliography, especially garnering resources off the net, showing some incredible quotes not found in the other books (Dr. Coppes has not seen them there either). This book supplements Schwertely by supplying more nuanced analysis and useful quotes and observations. It is recommended for those really wanting to "cover all the bases."

In short order, Lord willing, I will collect the more useful information out of Waters' book (especially since I can link them from the net) for everyone out there. And hopefully a useful introduction to the FV will be forthcoming. The issue is surprising complex for many a laymen. As an educated layman queried professor Strange at our conference: "how can they have losable baptismal regeneration and believe in eternal election at the same time?" He, being well trained by his pastors over the years, could not conceive of such a hodgepodge theology. Indeed, many in the pew could not have either. But, then, these views did not arise from the bottom-up, but rolled down hill from the pulpits.

SDG

Picking on My Friends

I recently preached on church unity and how we should consider the church of God our family and we as parts of that Body supplying each other's needs (Eph. 4:16). And although blood may be thicker than water, faith is thicker than blood.

As a family, of course, we have immediate relations and remote relations. I used an illustration of a friend from Boise (he knows who he is). He was a friend of a friend, but the fact that we are in the same national church (denomination) makes him a relative---kinda like a cousin. But with more commonality than I would have with any cousin in my family!

I used his name in the sermon, referencing his unique facial arrangment (you can see him in the latest New Horizon). I hope he doesn't mind. I even put in a good name for him.

I like to pick on my friends because they can handle it. And Hobart has large shoulders.

SDG

What Up Wit' Dat?

If we can shred the English language, if we can ignore basic logic, if we can feel good about theology (whatever its truth), if we can entertain people into heaven, if we can ignore God's commandments, if we can meet people's felt needs......................

Then why not drop little annoyances in the church?

Like that stumbling block,

Baptism.

We don't need baptism for church membership, right?

Then, in good ol' fashion American thinking, we should put it up for a vote!

Baptism as Requirment for Membership Set for Vote !!!

Now, what up wit' dat?

FV Critique Commended by General Assembly of OPC

As many are already aware, the General Assembly commended the critique of the Federal Vision written by her committee.

But what does that mean? Let the Prefatory Statement speak for itself:

"In commending the report for study, the Assembly approved the content and reasoning of the report. The Assembly did not take any action to endorse every word of the document or make the report itself a part of our constitution (which would have to be approved by the General Assembly and presbyteries in the manner provided in the Form of Government for the amendment of the constitution); nor was the document written with that purpose in mind."

I know some in other sister-churches and those symphatic to the OPC may wish a different approach but this is how such issues are normally tackled here. This report is commended to the Presbyteries. It was requested that the sesssions, churches and Presbyteries be "proactive" in dealing with this issue. Some have already been doing just that (Providence OPC, Denver).

If there are those in disagreement with the Bible and the Standards on such a serious manner as justification (and like related issues as rightfully noted in the report), they ought to change their minds or leave. If some are found out of accord, then they will be gently admonished to change their views in line with the Word of God. If they do not, charges may follow.

As I understand the GA and the report (as I was at GA), we are basically rejecting this new paradigm. And we are warning everyone accordingly.

This is no little matter. Some are saying that our justification depends upon our faithfulness instead of faith alone. Others are saying that those truly sanctified, forgiven, etc. can lose their salvation. (More will be said latter; see here for more info and critiques).

May God protect our small and weak Church.
May she depend upon Christ and His righteousness alone. Amen.

[Here is the OPC report access; here is the actual PDF report].

Cingular-ly Confused

That's right. I've never had a cell phone.
Why should I ever had one? It would mean talking more and doing less. But I digress.

I finally did buy one after much consernation and confusion. Should I buy a monthly plan or pre-paid? Should I go for many hours or less? A fancy phone or a simple one? Special weekend minutes or nightly minutes? Which company? Cingular? Jump Mobile? T-Mobile? Verizon? Sprint? Virginmobile? Net10? ??!!?!

So many choices!! I was truly confused.

I finally realized that the cell phone is a tool and not a toy (but it could be). So, what did I truly (and not in my own depraved imagination) needed it for?

For starters, being between homes, I had no phone! I also plan on getting a land-line at my new house. So, I need something temporary (maybe) and on the side (after my main land-line usage). Thus, contrary to all my friends protestations ("hey, you pay how much?!?!") I got a pre-paid/pay-as-you-go phone.

Here it is:

Well, almost, mine has the white face. But, as my wife would say, its a "cute" phone (very small).

It is attached to Net10. Which means 10 cents a minute, anytime, anywhere, no roaming and easy refill. I got 300 minutes with it over a 60 day period.

Yes, you'll go through the roof and say "you could've got X, for Y cents a minute!" But you have to understand the function of the phone for me. I rarely used my land line as it was (except for the internet!). So, why buy more than I'll ever use.

Besides it's less confusing then figuring out if its 7pm for evening rates or if I'm roaming. I don't like confusion. Our technology helps too much in that direction as it is.

I'm happy for now...just don't talk to me on my cell for too long. I have to pay 10 cents a minute.