Sunday, August 23, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Story About Scholarship
As I traveled the road from general Arminian, Charismatic Dispensationalism to old-school Calvinistic Presbyterianism, I learned discernment.
I realized that if my view of my own precious salvation was wrong, then my general view of the Bible was probably wrong...and it was.
I then concluded that if my general view of the Bible and what it taught was wrong, then maybe the teachers instructing me were wrong on other counts...and they were.
Yet I did not decide to distrust everyone, but to be more cautious. After all, those who were wrong were wrong mostly due to ignorance.
As I traveled the road from rudimentary knowledge of history and science to fuller knowledge, understanding and application through a combination of church mentoring and collegiate training, I learned scholarship.
I discovered that scholarship involved paying close attention to detail, perseverance of investigation and discernment of fact from fiction. I also learned the language of scholarship.
I first stumbled upon these lessons the hard way with a college speech course in which I was called upon to defend homeschooling. Gathering my resources from fellow Christians striving to interpret life by the Word of God, I thought myself fully furnished for the battle. But alas, I was not. To the extent I rested my weight upon the historicity given me to that extent I stumbled. Significant points of my presentation were wrong. Some of the famous men I thought were homeschooled were not.
My teacher was kind enough to tell me I was wrong.
It got worse. As I asked around about books on the history of homeschooling, I found there were none, but that there were one or two books that included a page or two. I found one such book covering a multitude of reasons to homeschool, with an entire chapter on its history. Combining the lessons of discernment and scholarship I discovered major errors.
How? by actually checking the sources. I was kind enough to mail the gentlemen the documented corrections.
Later, other claims came my way. So I checked the sources.
I concluded the research on homeschooling academic success has been blown out of proportion to the actual claims from the research itself. The famous Rudner study was read and read carefully. Rudner noted his studies limitation within the first paragraph.
Then someone else kindly pointed me to the scholarly work of Dr. Brain Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Being a well-trained man, his research was conscious of its own serious limitations from the start:
1. "The design of most research to date does not allow for the conclusion that homeschooling necessarily causes higher academic achievement or better social and emotional development than does public (or private) institutional schooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, Dr. Ray, online)
[Translation: Most studies are not even designed to prove the academic superiority of homeschooling]
2. "Some of these scholars have also, rightfully pointed out the limitations of their studies. For example, Ray (2000b) 'This is not a causal-comparative study….background variables in this ex post facto study are not controlled in such a way as to make possible conclusions about the causes of academic achievement test scores being higher (or lower) than those of students in conventional schools' and 'one should keep in mind the limitations of representativeness and generalizability' in this study (p. 81). ("A Homeschool Research Story," Homeschooling in Full View, Dr. Ray, p. 10)
[Translation: Even Dr. Ray's own study admits it does not prove homeschooling superiority]
3. "Despite the fact that scholars who have conducted the studies have not claimed that research shows homeschooling causes higher achievement (or healthier social and emotional development), others have attempted to use research to obliquely attack both researchers of and advocates of homeschooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, online)
[Translation: Dr. Ray and others have never claimed their studies proved that homeschooling caused higher test scores, but people still attack us personally]
What does all this tell us? It tells us that Dr. Ray carefully noted in his own research that his own studies do not and could not scientifically demonstrate that homeschooling caused better academic achievement than either public or private schooling. In fact, the studies could not and did not create any sort of across-the-board baseline to make such a comparison--one cannot compare apples with peaches. (This is partly so because the studies were voluntary; public school testing is not voluntary.)
At the end of the day, after my bad experience with so-called scholarship in theology and history, I find it refreshing that Christian men such as Dr. Ray state explicitly (although in scholarly language) the severe limitations of their own studies. I do not have to check their sources.
As I travel the road of the Christian life, my prayer is that more Christians will learn my story.
SDG
I realized that if my view of my own precious salvation was wrong, then my general view of the Bible was probably wrong...and it was.
I then concluded that if my general view of the Bible and what it taught was wrong, then maybe the teachers instructing me were wrong on other counts...and they were.
Yet I did not decide to distrust everyone, but to be more cautious. After all, those who were wrong were wrong mostly due to ignorance.
As I traveled the road from rudimentary knowledge of history and science to fuller knowledge, understanding and application through a combination of church mentoring and collegiate training, I learned scholarship.
I discovered that scholarship involved paying close attention to detail, perseverance of investigation and discernment of fact from fiction. I also learned the language of scholarship.
I first stumbled upon these lessons the hard way with a college speech course in which I was called upon to defend homeschooling. Gathering my resources from fellow Christians striving to interpret life by the Word of God, I thought myself fully furnished for the battle. But alas, I was not. To the extent I rested my weight upon the historicity given me to that extent I stumbled. Significant points of my presentation were wrong. Some of the famous men I thought were homeschooled were not.
My teacher was kind enough to tell me I was wrong.
It got worse. As I asked around about books on the history of homeschooling, I found there were none, but that there were one or two books that included a page or two. I found one such book covering a multitude of reasons to homeschool, with an entire chapter on its history. Combining the lessons of discernment and scholarship I discovered major errors.
How? by actually checking the sources. I was kind enough to mail the gentlemen the documented corrections.
Later, other claims came my way. So I checked the sources.
I concluded the research on homeschooling academic success has been blown out of proportion to the actual claims from the research itself. The famous Rudner study was read and read carefully. Rudner noted his studies limitation within the first paragraph.
Then someone else kindly pointed me to the scholarly work of Dr. Brain Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Being a well-trained man, his research was conscious of its own serious limitations from the start:
1. "The design of most research to date does not allow for the conclusion that homeschooling necessarily causes higher academic achievement or better social and emotional development than does public (or private) institutional schooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, Dr. Ray, online)
[Translation: Most studies are not even designed to prove the academic superiority of homeschooling]
2. "Some of these scholars have also, rightfully pointed out the limitations of their studies. For example, Ray (2000b) 'This is not a causal-comparative study….background variables in this ex post facto study are not controlled in such a way as to make possible conclusions about the causes of academic achievement test scores being higher (or lower) than those of students in conventional schools' and 'one should keep in mind the limitations of representativeness and generalizability' in this study (p. 81). ("A Homeschool Research Story," Homeschooling in Full View, Dr. Ray, p. 10)
[Translation: Even Dr. Ray's own study admits it does not prove homeschooling superiority]
3. "Despite the fact that scholars who have conducted the studies have not claimed that research shows homeschooling causes higher achievement (or healthier social and emotional development), others have attempted to use research to obliquely attack both researchers of and advocates of homeschooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, online)
[Translation: Dr. Ray and others have never claimed their studies proved that homeschooling caused higher test scores, but people still attack us personally]
What does all this tell us? It tells us that Dr. Ray carefully noted in his own research that his own studies do not and could not scientifically demonstrate that homeschooling caused better academic achievement than either public or private schooling. In fact, the studies could not and did not create any sort of across-the-board baseline to make such a comparison--one cannot compare apples with peaches. (This is partly so because the studies were voluntary; public school testing is not voluntary.)
At the end of the day, after my bad experience with so-called scholarship in theology and history, I find it refreshing that Christian men such as Dr. Ray state explicitly (although in scholarly language) the severe limitations of their own studies. I do not have to check their sources.
As I travel the road of the Christian life, my prayer is that more Christians will learn my story.
SDG
Friday, August 07, 2009
Year of Calvinism: America's First Black Preacher
Lemuel Haynes:
(1753-1833)
1) First black pastor ordained by a mainstream American Protestant church.
2) First black pastor for a white church.
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 Calvinism.
Yes, Calvinism. Later when the newer class of anti-slavery ministers arose, they would try to use his legacy but gave up since his Calvinism 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!
SDG
[More details:
Online biography: Sketches of... Rev. Lemuel Haynes.
Saillant, John. Black Puritan, Black Republican: The life and thought of Lemuel Haynes]
This is a Providence Points eNewsletter article--like it? Then join the email newsletter today!
(1753-1833)
1) First black pastor ordained by a mainstream American Protestant church.
2) First black pastor for a white church.
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 Calvinism.
Yes, Calvinism. Later when the newer class of anti-slavery ministers arose, they would try to use his legacy but gave up since his Calvinism 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!
SDG
[More details:
Online biography: Sketches of... Rev. Lemuel Haynes.
Saillant, John. Black Puritan, Black Republican: The life and thought of Lemuel Haynes]
This is a Providence Points eNewsletter article--like it? Then join the email newsletter today!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
America Uncovered
On the Today Show this morning the hosts interviewed two next generation Americans: a photographer who snapshots publicly naked women and a woman who likes to be exposed.
Apparently, the photographer asked women to take their tops off while he took snapshots of them in public locales. The women he picked off the street claimed to feel "liberated" and "free".
Christianity teaches that nakedness has at least a two-fold significance: intimacy and sin. Intimacy is within the context of marriage and pictures our closeness with Christ (Eph. 5:29-32). With these women running around naked amongst strangers, it is safe to say it was not an intimate moment. Rather, it was a wanton display of sin.
Our physical nakedness mirrors our spiritual nakedness. Blushing is an inbred reflex of that fact. And it is rooted in our depraved natures. Our consciences know we sin and we excuse or accuse each other accordingly (Rom. 2:15).
And the excuse these people used was "liberation". It felt wonderful to disregard what they know to be wrong. It felt "free" to vaunt their pride publicly. Public nakedness is but spiritual nakedness without shame.
This is nothing new. Our advertisements, movies and books have been filled with people baring themselves for a few decades; this is only the next logical step.
And it is only a symptom. America's true nakedness is her naked disregard for God's Law. And her insistence that she can disrobe herself before God's tribunal without fear of retribution. She has forgotten the God of her youth and seeks out other gods to satisfy her lusts. America is not ashamed of her willful sin against the Most High, basking bare before her Judge without the righteous robe of Christ Jesus to cover her.
May God strengthen his church in America to stand against such spiritual pride. May the church preach the Law to expose America's self-righteousness.
Apparently, the photographer asked women to take their tops off while he took snapshots of them in public locales. The women he picked off the street claimed to feel "liberated" and "free".
Christianity teaches that nakedness has at least a two-fold significance: intimacy and sin. Intimacy is within the context of marriage and pictures our closeness with Christ (Eph. 5:29-32). With these women running around naked amongst strangers, it is safe to say it was not an intimate moment. Rather, it was a wanton display of sin.
Our physical nakedness mirrors our spiritual nakedness. Blushing is an inbred reflex of that fact. And it is rooted in our depraved natures. Our consciences know we sin and we excuse or accuse each other accordingly (Rom. 2:15).
And the excuse these people used was "liberation". It felt wonderful to disregard what they know to be wrong. It felt "free" to vaunt their pride publicly. Public nakedness is but spiritual nakedness without shame.
This is nothing new. Our advertisements, movies and books have been filled with people baring themselves for a few decades; this is only the next logical step.
And it is only a symptom. America's true nakedness is her naked disregard for God's Law. And her insistence that she can disrobe herself before God's tribunal without fear of retribution. She has forgotten the God of her youth and seeks out other gods to satisfy her lusts. America is not ashamed of her willful sin against the Most High, basking bare before her Judge without the righteous robe of Christ Jesus to cover her.
May God strengthen his church in America to stand against such spiritual pride. May the church preach the Law to expose America's self-righteousness.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Money for Homeschooling Will Fix America
I received a letter begging for money. But the begging was couched in less beggarly-language than other letters. It painted a gloomy socio-political picture of America's woes. Clearly things are moving from bad to worse.
But (the letter continued) there is hope for such abysmal times as this!
Homeschooling!
That "Christ-centered education, one-on-one discipleship, and the liberating principle of individuality." Of which very "few political leaders, schools, media sources, or even churches that would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling."
Movements abound, draining time, money and energy for the small faithful churches that fall under their shadows. They don't get the same promotional power of homeschooling. And apparently very few churches would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling--and that is a good thing. They ought rather encourage something as transformational as the Gospel.
On the other hand, homeschooling is on the rise. Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon. It is now a cultural phenomenon. And it does change lives--but then so do many other things in life.
What will change the world for the better? What is a veritable reformation of life? What is the hope for the future?
The Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is found in faithful churches with uncompromising pastors and zealous members--whether they homeschool or not.
Want to change the world, to have a better place for your children, to contribute to something healthy, strong and growing?!
Then support the Gospel. Join a Reformed church. A Calvinist church. Give them your money. Pray. Fast. Use the means of grace in conscious realization of your unworthiness.
And pray the Lord of the Harvest to come with power and grace.
But (the letter continued) there is hope for such abysmal times as this!
Homeschooling!
That "Christ-centered education, one-on-one discipleship, and the liberating principle of individuality." Of which very "few political leaders, schools, media sources, or even churches that would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling."
Movements abound, draining time, money and energy for the small faithful churches that fall under their shadows. They don't get the same promotional power of homeschooling. And apparently very few churches would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling--and that is a good thing. They ought rather encourage something as transformational as the Gospel.
On the other hand, homeschooling is on the rise. Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon. It is now a cultural phenomenon. And it does change lives--but then so do many other things in life.
What will change the world for the better? What is a veritable reformation of life? What is the hope for the future?
The Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is found in faithful churches with uncompromising pastors and zealous members--whether they homeschool or not.
Want to change the world, to have a better place for your children, to contribute to something healthy, strong and growing?!
Then support the Gospel. Join a Reformed church. A Calvinist church. Give them your money. Pray. Fast. Use the means of grace in conscious realization of your unworthiness.
And pray the Lord of the Harvest to come with power and grace.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Year of Calvinism: America's Preachers
I recall fondly reading about George Whitefield as a teenager in the 80s. The small softback book (still on my shelf) brought to life the genuineness of this godly man. And his friendship with the Wesleys.
And yet it kept me in the historical dark for another seven years. In fact, many popular Christian "history" books kept me in the dark for years, never allowing me to dig too deep into what these famous men believed.
Weren't we all just Christians anyway...couldn't we just get along? Yeah...and Jefferson was a Christian...
No, seriously, I was taught that Jefferson was a Christian. When in fact--if our theological nearsightedness were only corrected with love of doctrinal truth--he and others were Deists.
Oh, and Whitefield was a Calvinist.
Somehow that little fact escaped the author. More likely he thought such doctrinal labels irrelevant.
Well, what motivates, excites and directs someone is not irrelevant unless, perhaps in the case of some historians, it is an inconvenience.
And it is not convenient for most of the conservative right-wing Evangelical leadership to admit that Calvinism played a large roll in early America. That is why reading secular historians can be helpful at times--they have no such qualms.
For instance, that famous excerpt you may have read in high school--Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God--was written by a Calvinist minister. Jonathan Edwards, considered by historians as one of the most brilliant men in early America, was a Calvinist.
A family of ministers, the Mathers--most notably Cotton--were Calvinists as well. In fact, the vast majority of Congregational and Presbyterian ministers from the early 1600s well into the 1700s were Calvinists. They publicly affirmed God's absolute sovereignty, man's total depravity and full and free justification through faith alone in Christ alone. They taught these truths. They sung these truths. They wrote about these truths. And they nursed generations of children on these truths.
Many conservatives pine for those great ol' days. But their wishes only exist in a vacuum. To return to the strength (in spite of their unique sins) of our forefathers, we will have to return to the truths they built America upon. To find new American preachers of such caliber as these men , Christians today will need to relearn the truths of Calvinism. And the Spirit is needed to create such god-fearing men.
LORD, may it be so.
And yet it kept me in the historical dark for another seven years. In fact, many popular Christian "history" books kept me in the dark for years, never allowing me to dig too deep into what these famous men believed.
Weren't we all just Christians anyway...couldn't we just get along? Yeah...and Jefferson was a Christian...
No, seriously, I was taught that Jefferson was a Christian. When in fact--if our theological nearsightedness were only corrected with love of doctrinal truth--he and others were Deists.
Oh, and Whitefield was a Calvinist.
Somehow that little fact escaped the author. More likely he thought such doctrinal labels irrelevant.
Well, what motivates, excites and directs someone is not irrelevant unless, perhaps in the case of some historians, it is an inconvenience.
And it is not convenient for most of the conservative right-wing Evangelical leadership to admit that Calvinism played a large roll in early America. That is why reading secular historians can be helpful at times--they have no such qualms.
For instance, that famous excerpt you may have read in high school--Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God--was written by a Calvinist minister. Jonathan Edwards, considered by historians as one of the most brilliant men in early America, was a Calvinist.
A family of ministers, the Mathers--most notably Cotton--were Calvinists as well. In fact, the vast majority of Congregational and Presbyterian ministers from the early 1600s well into the 1700s were Calvinists. They publicly affirmed God's absolute sovereignty, man's total depravity and full and free justification through faith alone in Christ alone. They taught these truths. They sung these truths. They wrote about these truths. And they nursed generations of children on these truths.
Many conservatives pine for those great ol' days. But their wishes only exist in a vacuum. To return to the strength (in spite of their unique sins) of our forefathers, we will have to return to the truths they built America upon. To find new American preachers of such caliber as these men , Christians today will need to relearn the truths of Calvinism. And the Spirit is needed to create such god-fearing men.
LORD, may it be so.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Prayer of our First Chief Justice
Most merciful Father! who desirest not the death of a sinner, but will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, give me grace so to draw nigh unto thee as that thou wilt condescend to draw nigh unto me ; and enable me to offer unto thee, through thy beloved Son, supplications and thanksgivings acceptably.
I thank thee for my creation, and for causing me to be born in a time and land blessed with the light of thy holy gospel. I thank thee for the excellent parents thou didst give me...I thank thee for my children—for thy kind providence over them—for their doing and promising to do well—and for the comforts which through them I receive from thy goodness.
Above all, I thank thee for thy mercy to our fallen race, as declared in thy holy gospel by thy beloved Son, "who gave himself a ransom for all." I thank thee for the gift of thy Holy Spirit, and for thy goodness in encouraging us all to ask it. I thank thee for the hope of remission of sins, of regeneration, and of life and happiness everlasting, through the merits and intercession of our Saviour. I thank thee for having admitted me into the covenant of this grace and mercy by baptism; for reminding me of its duties and privileges, and for the influences of thy Holy Spirit with which thou hast favoured me.
Enable me, merciful Father, to understand thy holy gospel aright, and to distinguish the doctrines thereof from erroneous expositions of them ; and bless me with that fear of offending thee, which is the beginning of wisdom...Wean me from undue and unseasonable attachments and attentions to the things of this transitory world, and raise my thoughts, desires, and affections continually unto thee, and to the blessings of the better and eternal world which is to succeed this.
Protect me from becoming a prey to temptations to evil, cause the new and spiritual life which of thy goodness thou hast begun in me, to increase daily in growth and strength...Establish my faith in that great atonement, and my gratitude for it...
Be pleased to impress my heart and mind with a deep and permanent sense and recollection of the manifold and unmerited blessings and mercies, spiritual and temporal, which throughout my life thou hast conferred upon me. Give me grace to love and obey and be thankful unto thee, with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength; and to worship and to serve thee in humility, in spirit, and in truth. Give me grace also to love my neighbour as myself, and wisely and diligently to do the duties incumbent upon me according to thy holy will, and because it is thy holy will, and not from worldly considerations.
Be pleased also to impress my heart and mind with a deep and unceasing sense and recollection of the evil of sin, and of my disobedience and ingratitude to thee...Give me grace, I humbly and earnestly beseech thee, to repent of my sins with such repentance as thy gospel requires ; and to loathe, and forsake, and detest all sin for ever...Let thy Holy Spirit lead and keep me in the way in which I should walk, and enable me to commit myself entirely to thy kind and gracious providence and protection as to all my spiritual and temporal concerns...
Be pleased to bless me and my family, my friends and enemies, and all for whom I ought to pray, in the manner and measure which thou, and thou only, knowest to be best for us. Create in us all clean, and contrite, and thankful hearts, and renew within us a right spirit.
I thank thee, the great Sovereign of the universe, for thy long-continued goodness to these countries, notwithstanding our ingratitude and disobedience to thee, our merciful deliverer and benefactor. Give us grace to turn unto thee with true repentance, and implore thy forgiveness...Be pleased to bless all nations with the knowledge of thy gospel,—and may thy holy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour..My gracious Saviour ! continue, I beseech thee, to look down with compassion and mercy upon me, and to intercede for me...
Without thee we can do nothing; condescend to abide in me, and enable me to abide in thee, as the branch in the vine. Let thy Holy Spirit purify, and cause it to produce fruit meet for repentance and amendment of life...
Give me grace to meditate with faith and gratitude on thy kind redeeming love all the days of my life. When thou shall call me hence, be with me in the hour of death, and bless me with a full assurance of faith and hope, that I may " fear no evil."
John Jay
I thank thee for my creation, and for causing me to be born in a time and land blessed with the light of thy holy gospel. I thank thee for the excellent parents thou didst give me...I thank thee for my children—for thy kind providence over them—for their doing and promising to do well—and for the comforts which through them I receive from thy goodness.
Above all, I thank thee for thy mercy to our fallen race, as declared in thy holy gospel by thy beloved Son, "who gave himself a ransom for all." I thank thee for the gift of thy Holy Spirit, and for thy goodness in encouraging us all to ask it. I thank thee for the hope of remission of sins, of regeneration, and of life and happiness everlasting, through the merits and intercession of our Saviour. I thank thee for having admitted me into the covenant of this grace and mercy by baptism; for reminding me of its duties and privileges, and for the influences of thy Holy Spirit with which thou hast favoured me.
Enable me, merciful Father, to understand thy holy gospel aright, and to distinguish the doctrines thereof from erroneous expositions of them ; and bless me with that fear of offending thee, which is the beginning of wisdom...Wean me from undue and unseasonable attachments and attentions to the things of this transitory world, and raise my thoughts, desires, and affections continually unto thee, and to the blessings of the better and eternal world which is to succeed this.
Protect me from becoming a prey to temptations to evil, cause the new and spiritual life which of thy goodness thou hast begun in me, to increase daily in growth and strength...Establish my faith in that great atonement, and my gratitude for it...
Be pleased to impress my heart and mind with a deep and permanent sense and recollection of the manifold and unmerited blessings and mercies, spiritual and temporal, which throughout my life thou hast conferred upon me. Give me grace to love and obey and be thankful unto thee, with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength; and to worship and to serve thee in humility, in spirit, and in truth. Give me grace also to love my neighbour as myself, and wisely and diligently to do the duties incumbent upon me according to thy holy will, and because it is thy holy will, and not from worldly considerations.
Be pleased also to impress my heart and mind with a deep and unceasing sense and recollection of the evil of sin, and of my disobedience and ingratitude to thee...Give me grace, I humbly and earnestly beseech thee, to repent of my sins with such repentance as thy gospel requires ; and to loathe, and forsake, and detest all sin for ever...Let thy Holy Spirit lead and keep me in the way in which I should walk, and enable me to commit myself entirely to thy kind and gracious providence and protection as to all my spiritual and temporal concerns...
Be pleased to bless me and my family, my friends and enemies, and all for whom I ought to pray, in the manner and measure which thou, and thou only, knowest to be best for us. Create in us all clean, and contrite, and thankful hearts, and renew within us a right spirit.
I thank thee, the great Sovereign of the universe, for thy long-continued goodness to these countries, notwithstanding our ingratitude and disobedience to thee, our merciful deliverer and benefactor. Give us grace to turn unto thee with true repentance, and implore thy forgiveness...Be pleased to bless all nations with the knowledge of thy gospel,—and may thy holy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour..My gracious Saviour ! continue, I beseech thee, to look down with compassion and mercy upon me, and to intercede for me...
Without thee we can do nothing; condescend to abide in me, and enable me to abide in thee, as the branch in the vine. Let thy Holy Spirit purify, and cause it to produce fruit meet for repentance and amendment of life...
Give me grace to meditate with faith and gratitude on thy kind redeeming love all the days of my life. When thou shall call me hence, be with me in the hour of death, and bless me with a full assurance of faith and hope, that I may " fear no evil."
John Jay
Friday, July 10, 2009
Calvin, Calvinists & Calvinism
I have a number of articles on Calvin and the Calvinists. Or more precisely one article on his life and the rest on his legacy. I think he would have preferred it that way.
For the Evangelicals, these articles are designed to challenge your thinking. For the Calvinists, these articles are designed to encourage your faith. More importantly, they are written to glorify God.
1. The year of Calvinism
2. The Year of Calvinism: Famous Calvinists in America
3. Second Reformation
4. Lessons from the Reformation
5. Calvinism, History & Homeschooling
6. Really, It's True: Calvinism Created America
For the Evangelicals, these articles are designed to challenge your thinking. For the Calvinists, these articles are designed to encourage your faith. More importantly, they are written to glorify God.
1. The year of Calvinism
2. The Year of Calvinism: Famous Calvinists in America
3. Second Reformation
4. Lessons from the Reformation
5. Calvinism, History & Homeschooling
6. Really, It's True: Calvinism Created America
Thursday, July 09, 2009
In Defense of Homeschooling
In my naivete, I thought only the secular school sponsors ranted against home education.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Fourth of July & Christianity
The practice of true and undefiled religion...is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.
America's collective ignorance about her religious past is cause for lament. It means that even as we knowingly celebrate our Fourth of July as a day of political freedom we ignorantly omit the religious roots of that freedom.
It is true that many conservatives and Christians wish to bring our nation back to the old paths, for "righteousness exalts a nation". Yet too many think that path of righteousness as a path of political effort and good-will divorced from serious religious effort. In contrast, the founders contended that America's freedoms were rooted in virtue. And for the colonial Christian that virtue was defined by the Word of God and promulgated in the churches. But today too many wish to recreate the fruits of our American heritage without its roots.
Such confusion can be remedied by recalling the true culture of American freedoms.
In our collective Christian past, our culture and politics were greatly influenced by Reformational thought: the Congregationalists of New England and the Presbyterians and Anglicans of the Middle and Southern colonies confessed similar creeds about God and man: God was sovereign (not man) and man was depraved (not good). Such fundamental beliefs, embedded in early American society, were the intellectual tools under-girding political involvement. For if only God has all power then dictators could not legitimately claim such. And if man was basically a sinner then any man-made institution could easily become corrupt and untrustworthy. This common Christian thought explains the preponderant usage of the word Providence and the struggle to form a government that would balance the power between the government and the people.
This also meant that these churches--especially the first two denominations--possessed a common theology of politics, what has been dubbed the Five Points of Political Calvinism. The most well-known element being the right to resist tyrants--both political and spiritual. Spiritual tyranny was one main reason for our spiritual forefather's fleeing to America in the 1600s. And spiritual tyranny reared its ugly head again shortly before the Revolution. John Adams asserted:
"The apprehension of Episcopacy contributed fifty years ago [1765], as much as any other cause...to close thinking on the constitutional authority of parliament over the colonies..."
If parliament could institute a spiritual lord (Bishop) then certainly they could institute political lords. One of the most well-known political cartoons of that time, "An Attempt to Land a Bishop in America," shows a crowd of colonists harrying a Bishop back to England, throwing books titled "Locke," "Sydney on Government" and "Calvin's Works," shouting "no lords spiritual or temporal" (1768, see picture).
John Adams even acknowledged the wide-spread influences of two 16th-century works, the French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power). Both works, with Biblical argumentation, defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants. Such theological roots of political resistance were expanded in the Scottish Presbyterian work, Lex Rex, and eventually transmitted into the works of Locke, the son of Puritans.
More importantly, the colonial culture was predominately religious. Many are aware of the religious language, public prayers and political declarations of Christian fasting and thanksgiving. Few know about the blasphemy and Sabbath laws or the State constitutions supporting or assuming Christianity. And fewer know that such a Christian culture of virtue grew from the power of the Bible through the preachers and the schools. New England boasted of her yearly election day sermons, Presbyterians taught the right to resist tyrants and the schools taught the Reformed catechisms. Ministers, considered the most trained, godly and intelligent element of society, preached twice on Sunday, lectured during the week, taught schools and catechized children. Their advise was liberally solicited. Their sermons nation-wide sellers. Their influence was tremendous. For generations, they faithfully taught the definition of a godly government and a holy electorate. And they uniformly instructed their listeners about the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man, applying those truths to the politics of their day.
While the super-minority upper-crust intellectuals (like Jefferson) abstracted and debated amongst themselves, the pastors in the pews laid the path to freedom by popularizing these truths. Unlike today the vast majority of colonists attended church, while many of their children were taught in Christian schools or by ministerial tutors. And they learned their lessons well.
In fact, on May 20, 1775, the Presbyterian Synod was the first religious body to send a public letter to their churches reminding them to respect the Crown even while they encouraged their readers to obey the Continental Congress and to prepare their lives and souls for war. Most of the Continental army were Presbyterian laymen even as most of the New England minutemen were Congregationalists. These ministers--defending the Revolution or even fighting in it--were dubbed the "Black Regiment". 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."
Many conservative Christians are becoming increasingly alarmed by the rise of American heathenism. They wish to bring back the good ol'e days but without the virtues that nurtured them, without the churches that sustained it. Yet if the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, then it must be a necessary institution in any Christian society (1 Tim. 3:15). And if the churches wish to be leaven in such a corrupt society, they must stand firm in the truth without being carried away by every wind of doctrine--they must be instructed by strong and faithful men of God, ministers who are called to help perfect the saints with Reformational truth (Eph. 4:12-14).
The Fourth is a great day to celebrate and an even greater day when the Christian roots are honored.
Further reading: October Revolution, Lessons from the Reformation, Revolution and Religion, Covenantal Politics in America
--John Witherspoon, Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, 1782
America's collective ignorance about her religious past is cause for lament. It means that even as we knowingly celebrate our Fourth of July as a day of political freedom we ignorantly omit the religious roots of that freedom.
It is true that many conservatives and Christians wish to bring our nation back to the old paths, for "righteousness exalts a nation". Yet too many think that path of righteousness as a path of political effort and good-will divorced from serious religious effort. In contrast, the founders contended that America's freedoms were rooted in virtue. And for the colonial Christian that virtue was defined by the Word of God and promulgated in the churches. But today too many wish to recreate the fruits of our American heritage without its roots.
Such confusion can be remedied by recalling the true culture of American freedoms.
In our collective Christian past, our culture and politics were greatly influenced by Reformational thought: the Congregationalists of New England and the Presbyterians and Anglicans of the Middle and Southern colonies confessed similar creeds about God and man: God was sovereign (not man) and man was depraved (not good). Such fundamental beliefs, embedded in early American society, were the intellectual tools under-girding political involvement. For if only God has all power then dictators could not legitimately claim such. And if man was basically a sinner then any man-made institution could easily become corrupt and untrustworthy. This common Christian thought explains the preponderant usage of the word Providence and the struggle to form a government that would balance the power between the government and the people.
This also meant that these churches--especially the first two denominations--possessed a common theology of politics, what has been dubbed the Five Points of Political Calvinism. The most well-known element being the right to resist tyrants--both political and spiritual. Spiritual tyranny was one main reason for our spiritual forefather's fleeing to America in the 1600s. And spiritual tyranny reared its ugly head again shortly before the Revolution. John Adams asserted:
"The apprehension of Episcopacy contributed fifty years ago [1765], as much as any other cause...to close thinking on the constitutional authority of parliament over the colonies..."
If parliament could institute a spiritual lord (Bishop) then certainly they could institute political lords. One of the most well-known political cartoons of that time, "An Attempt to Land a Bishop in America," shows a crowd of colonists harrying a Bishop back to England, throwing books titled "Locke," "Sydney on Government" and "Calvin's Works," shouting "no lords spiritual or temporal" (1768, see picture).
John Adams even acknowledged the wide-spread influences of two 16th-century works, the French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power). Both works, with Biblical argumentation, defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants. Such theological roots of political resistance were expanded in the Scottish Presbyterian work, Lex Rex, and eventually transmitted into the works of Locke, the son of Puritans.
More importantly, the colonial culture was predominately religious. Many are aware of the religious language, public prayers and political declarations of Christian fasting and thanksgiving. Few know about the blasphemy and Sabbath laws or the State constitutions supporting or assuming Christianity. And fewer know that such a Christian culture of virtue grew from the power of the Bible through the preachers and the schools. New England boasted of her yearly election day sermons, Presbyterians taught the right to resist tyrants and the schools taught the Reformed catechisms. Ministers, considered the most trained, godly and intelligent element of society, preached twice on Sunday, lectured during the week, taught schools and catechized children. Their advise was liberally solicited. Their sermons nation-wide sellers. Their influence was tremendous. For generations, they faithfully taught the definition of a godly government and a holy electorate. And they uniformly instructed their listeners about the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man, applying those truths to the politics of their day.
While the super-minority upper-crust intellectuals (like Jefferson) abstracted and debated amongst themselves, the pastors in the pews laid the path to freedom by popularizing these truths. Unlike today the vast majority of colonists attended church, while many of their children were taught in Christian schools or by ministerial tutors. And they learned their lessons well.
In fact, on May 20, 1775, the Presbyterian Synod was the first religious body to send a public letter to their churches reminding them to respect the Crown even while they encouraged their readers to obey the Continental Congress and to prepare their lives and souls for war. Most of the Continental army were Presbyterian laymen even as most of the New England minutemen were Congregationalists. These ministers--defending the Revolution or even fighting in it--were dubbed the "Black Regiment". 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."
Many conservative Christians are becoming increasingly alarmed by the rise of American heathenism. They wish to bring back the good ol'e days but without the virtues that nurtured them, without the churches that sustained it. Yet if the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, then it must be a necessary institution in any Christian society (1 Tim. 3:15). And if the churches wish to be leaven in such a corrupt society, they must stand firm in the truth without being carried away by every wind of doctrine--they must be instructed by strong and faithful men of God, ministers who are called to help perfect the saints with Reformational truth (Eph. 4:12-14).
The Fourth is a great day to celebrate and an even greater day when the Christian roots are honored.
Further reading: October Revolution, Lessons from the Reformation, Revolution and Religion, Covenantal Politics in America
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
An Obituary
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years.. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the
worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend
more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,
are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children.
It declined even further, when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could
not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by
his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son,
Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
has been with us for many years.. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the
worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend
more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,
are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children.
It declined even further, when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could
not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by
his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son,
Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Monday, June 29, 2009
I Was Homeschooled
Coming home, my mind swirled with a thousand and one questions. Questions about politics and Christianity. Evolution and science. God's will. Prayer in school.
I spent that night--as I had many a night for years--with my family. Focusing my thoughts like a laser-beam, I asked my parents one or two choice questions. We discussed them. We opened the Bible and examined it. Talked about it. And resolved the questions.
Of course, Friday night was not talk-about-life night because it was game night. Although my Dad was the least interested in the family, in love he consented on most Friday's to engage in a little fun. It did help that we had no TV.
When possible, as a family, we would walk with our lovable doberman (they are actually faithful family dogs). I dressed conservatively. I never dated. I never listened to rock 'n roll.
My sister did once. Some song longing for peace: "People are people, so why should it be that you and I get along so awfully." Reading the lyrics out loud, she laughed: "People don't get along because they are sinners!" I snickered.
With my father the local ecclesiastical black-sheep, I quickly learned some critical thinking. We attended Sunday worship: morning, evening and mid-week. I listened to radio preachers. Together we listened to Dobson at night.
We talked. And discussed. Or more precisely, my father fulfilled Deuteronomy 6 by taking impromptu opportunities to discuss life and God.
Yet our weak spot was action flicks. We saw them at the dollar theater. We never once used the concession stand. It cost way too much. I never knew it then, but I was poor. Not dirt poor just poor. And that poverty meant that we could not attend the new local Christian school. Or any private school for that matter.
Instead, I attended public school. My entire childhood.
And yet I was homeschooled.
In an interview with the online book service, Christianbook, a well-known homeschooling advocate notes that while he went to private and government schools growing up, "life was a constant homeschool program."
Just so: my life as a teenager was a "constant homeschool program".
It is just such an understanding of the Biblical mandate to train children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord that should unite Christians. In an age when America's foundations are crumbling around us, Christians--especially the Reformed--ought to focus on what is important and not spend large amounts of money, energy and rhetoric defending one specific educational method against others.
History and Christian liberty ought to instruct us otherwise. Among other things parental involvement, attitude and especially a Gospel-centered faith transforms a house into a home. This integrates the family from mere physical closeness to spiritual unity. This type of nurture will have our future children telling their children, "I was homeschooled--and you will be too."
I spent that night--as I had many a night for years--with my family. Focusing my thoughts like a laser-beam, I asked my parents one or two choice questions. We discussed them. We opened the Bible and examined it. Talked about it. And resolved the questions.
Of course, Friday night was not talk-about-life night because it was game night. Although my Dad was the least interested in the family, in love he consented on most Friday's to engage in a little fun. It did help that we had no TV.
When possible, as a family, we would walk with our lovable doberman (they are actually faithful family dogs). I dressed conservatively. I never dated. I never listened to rock 'n roll.
My sister did once. Some song longing for peace: "People are people, so why should it be that you and I get along so awfully." Reading the lyrics out loud, she laughed: "People don't get along because they are sinners!" I snickered.
With my father the local ecclesiastical black-sheep, I quickly learned some critical thinking. We attended Sunday worship: morning, evening and mid-week. I listened to radio preachers. Together we listened to Dobson at night.
We talked. And discussed. Or more precisely, my father fulfilled Deuteronomy 6 by taking impromptu opportunities to discuss life and God.
Yet our weak spot was action flicks. We saw them at the dollar theater. We never once used the concession stand. It cost way too much. I never knew it then, but I was poor. Not dirt poor just poor. And that poverty meant that we could not attend the new local Christian school. Or any private school for that matter.
Instead, I attended public school. My entire childhood.
And yet I was homeschooled.
In an interview with the online book service, Christianbook, a well-known homeschooling advocate notes that while he went to private and government schools growing up, "life was a constant homeschool program."
Just so: my life as a teenager was a "constant homeschool program".
It is just such an understanding of the Biblical mandate to train children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord that should unite Christians. In an age when America's foundations are crumbling around us, Christians--especially the Reformed--ought to focus on what is important and not spend large amounts of money, energy and rhetoric defending one specific educational method against others.
History and Christian liberty ought to instruct us otherwise. Among other things parental involvement, attitude and especially a Gospel-centered faith transforms a house into a home. This integrates the family from mere physical closeness to spiritual unity. This type of nurture will have our future children telling their children, "I was homeschooled--and you will be too."
Friday, June 26, 2009
Never Never Land
Michael Jackson was a gifted entertainer.
Gifted by God his Creator.
He entertained millions, sold records by the tens of millions, and generated billions of dollars. Money, talent and time dedicated to the entertainment of man. And that is what he'll be remembered as--an entertainer--until time erases our culture's puerile fascination with fun.
The Puritans of yesteryear are castigated by many Americans as unloving, dour and no fun at all. None of which are true. Yet there is a certain truth to the claims: in comparison with today's near-obsession with merrymaking and amusements the Puritans are no fun at all.
But then six-year-olds think adults are no fun at all either.
Michael Jackson was in many ways the symbol of too many American's fascination with play. And this symbol was epitomized by Jackson's Never Land. Named after the ever-youthful Peter Pan fairytale, the amusement park is the embodiment of play run amok. Or what used to be call tomfoolery. Much of Hollywood is but tomfoolery, packed with adults who never grew up.
But from whence comes the American emphasis on childish distractions? Romans 1:18-21 describes the unregenerate man as one in rebellion against God, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. He is in rebellion against his knowledge of God, for all those outside of Christ know God the Judge and their rightful condemnation to hell. From verses 23 and following Paul explains that the unbeliever suppresses this truth through false gods and false worship. To the extent that fun, play and amusement become gods to that extent they are creations of man's imagination, distracting him from his own guilt-ridden conscience.
Note how the media interviews and one-hour specials laud Jackson as a man who "touched millions" and whose music epitomized the soul man--language decidedly religious and spiritual. The mobs of fans showering flowers to their idol demonstrate their loyalty to not just a man but what he represented: a lifestyle free from responsibility, a way of life never to be touched by God's Law.
It certainly does not help that too much entertainment has penetrated the churches: from overt amusement-centered worship services to more subtle cult-of-personalities many professing Christians are more and more a product of their society. Mature reflection, somberness and thoughtful deliberation are less sought after while Americans and Christians alike seek easier and less disciplined avenues in life, like entertainment.
At this rate we will witness the growth of childishness and the regression of adulthood. Unless the Lord showers blessing upon our country she will never, never become a land of mature righteousness.
Gifted by God his Creator.
He entertained millions, sold records by the tens of millions, and generated billions of dollars. Money, talent and time dedicated to the entertainment of man. And that is what he'll be remembered as--an entertainer--until time erases our culture's puerile fascination with fun.
The Puritans of yesteryear are castigated by many Americans as unloving, dour and no fun at all. None of which are true. Yet there is a certain truth to the claims: in comparison with today's near-obsession with merrymaking and amusements the Puritans are no fun at all.
But then six-year-olds think adults are no fun at all either.
Michael Jackson was in many ways the symbol of too many American's fascination with play. And this symbol was epitomized by Jackson's Never Land. Named after the ever-youthful Peter Pan fairytale, the amusement park is the embodiment of play run amok. Or what used to be call tomfoolery. Much of Hollywood is but tomfoolery, packed with adults who never grew up.
But from whence comes the American emphasis on childish distractions? Romans 1:18-21 describes the unregenerate man as one in rebellion against God, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. He is in rebellion against his knowledge of God, for all those outside of Christ know God the Judge and their rightful condemnation to hell. From verses 23 and following Paul explains that the unbeliever suppresses this truth through false gods and false worship. To the extent that fun, play and amusement become gods to that extent they are creations of man's imagination, distracting him from his own guilt-ridden conscience.
Note how the media interviews and one-hour specials laud Jackson as a man who "touched millions" and whose music epitomized the soul man--language decidedly religious and spiritual. The mobs of fans showering flowers to their idol demonstrate their loyalty to not just a man but what he represented: a lifestyle free from responsibility, a way of life never to be touched by God's Law.
It certainly does not help that too much entertainment has penetrated the churches: from overt amusement-centered worship services to more subtle cult-of-personalities many professing Christians are more and more a product of their society. Mature reflection, somberness and thoughtful deliberation are less sought after while Americans and Christians alike seek easier and less disciplined avenues in life, like entertainment.
At this rate we will witness the growth of childishness and the regression of adulthood. Unless the Lord showers blessing upon our country she will never, never become a land of mature righteousness.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Controversy & Revival
"Again, men say that instead of engaging in controversy in the Church, we ought to pray to God for a revival; instead of polemics, we ought to have evangelism. Well, what kind of revival do you think that will be? What sort of evangelism is it that is indifferent to the question what evangel is it that is to be preached? Not a revival in the New Testament sense, not the evangelism that Paul meant when he said, 'Woe is be unto me, if I preach not the gospel.' No, my friends, there can be no true evangelism which makes common cause with the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Souls will hardly be saved unless the evangelists can say with Paul: "If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed!"
Every true revival is born in controversy, and leads to more controversy. That has been true ever since our Lord said that He came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword. And do you know what I think will happen when God sends a new Reformation upon the Church? We cannot tell when that blessed day will come. But when the blessed day does come, I think we can say at least one result that it will bring. We shall hear nothing on that day about the evils of controversy in the Church. All that will be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man who is on fire with a message never talks in that wretched, feeble way, but proclaims the truth joyously and fearlessly, in the presence of every high thing that is lifted up against the gospel of Christ."
J. Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship, p.10, pdf.
Every true revival is born in controversy, and leads to more controversy. That has been true ever since our Lord said that He came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword. And do you know what I think will happen when God sends a new Reformation upon the Church? We cannot tell when that blessed day will come. But when the blessed day does come, I think we can say at least one result that it will bring. We shall hear nothing on that day about the evils of controversy in the Church. All that will be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man who is on fire with a message never talks in that wretched, feeble way, but proclaims the truth joyously and fearlessly, in the presence of every high thing that is lifted up against the gospel of Christ."
J. Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship, p.10, pdf.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Year of Calvinism: America's First Judge
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
These wise words were uttered by the co-author of the Federalist Papers and first Chief US Supreme Court Justice, John Jay. Presiding over the American-British peace-treaty, he was also a New York governor, US ambassador and president of the Continental Congress. He was respected by all the founding Fathers.
He was a godly man. Born in a family descended from the Huguenots, he was reared in an Anglican home with "Calvinistic severity" (Stahr). But how much of the Anglican theological tradition rubbed off on him? Was he a Calvinist?
Consider first his theological state of mind, expressed in a letter to Professor Miller of Princeton:
"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds, but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible." (Pellew)
As a low-church Anglican in good standing, then, it can only be surmised with great assurance that Chief Justice Jay was a Calvinist (Jay, 463). After the war, necessarily, the Anglican parishes in America were cut off from their bishop in London. Accordingly, the American Anglicans became the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. And like their mother church in England, they adopted a Book of Common Prayer, which included a confession:
"Art. X. Of Free-will. The condition of man, after the fall of A Jam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God..."
"Art. 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..." (p.378ff., 1808 edition)
What Evangelical today would confess with our First Chief Justice such sublime doctrine?
His own letters are rife with allusions to Providence and God's control over all things. His biographer, Pellew, noted:
"...Jay found both inspiration and great comfort and happiness in religion. It was one of his favorite remarks, that if men would never forget that the world was under the guidance of a Providence which never erred, it would save much useless anxiety, and prevent a great many mistakes." (p.316)
Speaking to the Bible Society about the increase in knowledge and desire for more bibles: "there is reason to conclude that they have been produced by Him in whose hands are the hearts of all men." (p.506)
But it is his God-centered prayer of a self-conscious sinner that truly strikes a cord with devout Christians everywhere:
"Most merciful Father! who desirest not the death of a sinner, but will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, give me grace so to draw nigh unto thee as that thou wilt condescend to draw nigh unto me; and enable me to offer unto thee, through thy beloved Son, supplications and thanksgivings acceptably.
I thank thee for thy mercy to our fallen race, as declared in thy holy gospel by thy beloved Son...Enable me, merciful Father to understand thy holy gospel aright, and to distinguish the doctrines thereof from erroneous expositions of them...Let thy Holy Spirit purify and unite me to my Saviour for ever, and enable me to cleave unto him as unto my very life...Wean me from undue and unseasonable attachments and attentions to the things of this transitory world...
Protect me from becoming a prey to temptations to evil...Give me grace to love and obey and be thankful unto thee, with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength...Be pleased also to impress my heart and mind with a deep and unceasing sense and recollection of the evil of sin...Give me grace, I humbly and earnestly beseech thee, to repent of my sins...
I thank thee, the great Sovereign of the universe, for thy long-continued goodness to these countries, notwithstanding our ingratitude and disobedience to thee, our merciful deliverer and benefactor. Give us grace to turn unto thee with true repentance, and implore thy forgiveness.
Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour; unto whom, with thee, and the blessed Spirit, ever one God, be rendered all honour and glory, now and for ever."
AMEN.
These wise words were uttered by the co-author of the Federalist Papers and first Chief US Supreme Court Justice, John Jay. Presiding over the American-British peace-treaty, he was also a New York governor, US ambassador and president of the Continental Congress. He was respected by all the founding Fathers.
He was a godly man. Born in a family descended from the Huguenots, he was reared in an Anglican home with "Calvinistic severity" (Stahr). But how much of the Anglican theological tradition rubbed off on him? Was he a Calvinist?
Consider first his theological state of mind, expressed in a letter to Professor Miller of Princeton:
"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds, but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible." (Pellew)
As a low-church Anglican in good standing, then, it can only be surmised with great assurance that Chief Justice Jay was a Calvinist (Jay, 463). After the war, necessarily, the Anglican parishes in America were cut off from their bishop in London. Accordingly, the American Anglicans became the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. And like their mother church in England, they adopted a Book of Common Prayer, which included a confession:
"Art. X. Of Free-will. The condition of man, after the fall of A Jam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God..."
"Art. 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..." (p.378ff., 1808 edition)
What Evangelical today would confess with our First Chief Justice such sublime doctrine?
His own letters are rife with allusions to Providence and God's control over all things. His biographer, Pellew, noted:
"...Jay found both inspiration and great comfort and happiness in religion. It was one of his favorite remarks, that if men would never forget that the world was under the guidance of a Providence which never erred, it would save much useless anxiety, and prevent a great many mistakes." (p.316)
Speaking to the Bible Society about the increase in knowledge and desire for more bibles: "there is reason to conclude that they have been produced by Him in whose hands are the hearts of all men." (p.506)
But it is his God-centered prayer of a self-conscious sinner that truly strikes a cord with devout Christians everywhere:
"Most merciful Father! who desirest not the death of a sinner, but will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, give me grace so to draw nigh unto thee as that thou wilt condescend to draw nigh unto me; and enable me to offer unto thee, through thy beloved Son, supplications and thanksgivings acceptably.
I thank thee for thy mercy to our fallen race, as declared in thy holy gospel by thy beloved Son...Enable me, merciful Father to understand thy holy gospel aright, and to distinguish the doctrines thereof from erroneous expositions of them...Let thy Holy Spirit purify and unite me to my Saviour for ever, and enable me to cleave unto him as unto my very life...Wean me from undue and unseasonable attachments and attentions to the things of this transitory world...
Protect me from becoming a prey to temptations to evil...Give me grace to love and obey and be thankful unto thee, with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength...Be pleased also to impress my heart and mind with a deep and unceasing sense and recollection of the evil of sin...Give me grace, I humbly and earnestly beseech thee, to repent of my sins...
I thank thee, the great Sovereign of the universe, for thy long-continued goodness to these countries, notwithstanding our ingratitude and disobedience to thee, our merciful deliverer and benefactor. Give us grace to turn unto thee with true repentance, and implore thy forgiveness.
Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour; unto whom, with thee, and the blessed Spirit, ever one God, be rendered all honour and glory, now and for ever."
AMEN.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Revival of Rousseau
"But when mothers deign to nurse their own children, then morals will reform themselves, natural feeling will revive in every heart, the state will be repopulated"
"It is only in our father's home that we learn to love our own, and a woman whose mother did not educate her herself will not be willing to educate her own children."
"There is no more charming picture than that of family life..."
What do homeschooling and Rousseau have in common?
Much in may ways.
Rousseau endorsed homeschooling as the ideal system of education.
Read that line again.
The quotes above are from Rousseau himself--the infamous whipping boy of the Religious Right. Yet how could such statements flow from the pen of Rousseau? While we have been rightfully castigating him as the grandfather of socialism and like ills, we never slowed down to actually examine his entire system of thought--a system that has been revived again.
His worldview is based on the inborn (natural) innocence and free-will of man. It is nurture not nature that enslaves man's will and corrupts his innocence. And it is the institutions of man (especially the rich) that hold natural man back. He said as much in his little-known book on education, Emile.
In this idealistic work, the fictitious young boy, Emile, is trained at home in the countryside, far away from the evil influences of the mass of men. The mother is to nurse the child and the father is supposed to teach the son. But Rousseau allows, in this instance, for a tutor-father to replace the stereotypical father who laments his lack of ability and time.
Now, it is certain that many scholars connect Rousseau with Statism, but Rousseau was not always considered consistent with his own thought. If society is the problem and all men are born in society, then what? Either embrace (control) all of society or flee (escape) society. In fact, in a letter to a friend, he admits that Emile is "a philosophical work on this principle advanced by the author in other writings that man is naturally good." (M.h.siddiqui, 83). Emile is an ideal.
The contrast of nature and nurture arises yet again--of good nature and bad nurture. And therein lies the contemporary revival of Rousseau. Both the Left and the Right embrace elements of Rousseau. The left either through monopolistic public education or idealistic anarchy and unschooling and the Right...What of the Right? Although it is certainly the case that many Christian homeschoolers do not buy whole-hog the thinking of Rousseau, it may well be they embrace more of him than they realize.
Consider parents who fearfully isolate their children from society (and publicly state as much). Many are but echoing Rousseau:
"Watch over him from the moment he comes into the world. As soon as he is born take possession of him and do not leave him till he is a man; you will never succeed otherwise. Just as the real nurse is the mother, the real teacher is the father...He will be better educated by a sensible though limited father than by the cleverest teacher in the world" [book 1, paragraph 71].
Or consider Rousseau again:
"A young man is led astray in the first place neither by temperament nor by the senses, but by popular opinion..it is not nature that corrupts them but example...[so] I am dealing only with home training. Take a young man carefully educated in his father's country house, and examine him when he reaches Paris and makes his entrance into society; you will find him thinking clearly about honest matters, and you will find his will as wholesome as his reason. You will find scorn of vice and disgust for debauchery" (Emile, 242, emphasis added).
The educational claims trumpeted in some circles sound eerily Rousseauian. However, the most disturbing is the religious overlap of Rousseau and some Christians: both believe in original innocence and free will. That is, in Rousseau's language, "man is naturally good."
Here is the real culprit. It is not the similarity of methods as such but the fundamental beliefs that support the methods. As much as the public schools are scorned by many conservative Christians, such a system was once inundated with God-talk, prayer and Bible. Once those were taken out, many Christians fled. It was not schooling as such that was the culprit but that the method was shifted into a context of unbelief.
Many Christians--even Christian homeschoolers--in my experience endorse the innocence of babies and the free-will of man. Ask yourself: when a child dies in infancy why should he or she enter heaven? Many answer, "because they are innocent" but they answer wrongly. By birth--by nature--man is a sinner (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:2). Ask yourself: can man exercise his free-will and seek after God? Many answer, "yes!" but they answer wrongly. Man's will is bound in sin and iniquity and none seek after God (Rom. 3:11, 12).
Original sin is thrown out while free-will is retained.
In such a world, the Holy Spirit is not needed to regenerate man's mind and free his will. What is needed is a new environment, either of the home or of society. What is needed is a new method, for the churches or for the families.
That is the American religion. That is the revival of Rousseau.
"It is only in our father's home that we learn to love our own, and a woman whose mother did not educate her herself will not be willing to educate her own children."
"There is no more charming picture than that of family life..."
What do homeschooling and Rousseau have in common?
Much in may ways.
Rousseau endorsed homeschooling as the ideal system of education.
Read that line again.
The quotes above are from Rousseau himself--the infamous whipping boy of the Religious Right. Yet how could such statements flow from the pen of Rousseau? While we have been rightfully castigating him as the grandfather of socialism and like ills, we never slowed down to actually examine his entire system of thought--a system that has been revived again.
His worldview is based on the inborn (natural) innocence and free-will of man. It is nurture not nature that enslaves man's will and corrupts his innocence. And it is the institutions of man (especially the rich) that hold natural man back. He said as much in his little-known book on education, Emile.
In this idealistic work, the fictitious young boy, Emile, is trained at home in the countryside, far away from the evil influences of the mass of men. The mother is to nurse the child and the father is supposed to teach the son. But Rousseau allows, in this instance, for a tutor-father to replace the stereotypical father who laments his lack of ability and time.
Now, it is certain that many scholars connect Rousseau with Statism, but Rousseau was not always considered consistent with his own thought. If society is the problem and all men are born in society, then what? Either embrace (control) all of society or flee (escape) society. In fact, in a letter to a friend, he admits that Emile is "a philosophical work on this principle advanced by the author in other writings that man is naturally good." (M.h.siddiqui, 83). Emile is an ideal.
The contrast of nature and nurture arises yet again--of good nature and bad nurture. And therein lies the contemporary revival of Rousseau. Both the Left and the Right embrace elements of Rousseau. The left either through monopolistic public education or idealistic anarchy and unschooling and the Right...What of the Right? Although it is certainly the case that many Christian homeschoolers do not buy whole-hog the thinking of Rousseau, it may well be they embrace more of him than they realize.
Consider parents who fearfully isolate their children from society (and publicly state as much). Many are but echoing Rousseau:
"Watch over him from the moment he comes into the world. As soon as he is born take possession of him and do not leave him till he is a man; you will never succeed otherwise. Just as the real nurse is the mother, the real teacher is the father...He will be better educated by a sensible though limited father than by the cleverest teacher in the world" [book 1, paragraph 71].
Or consider Rousseau again:
"A young man is led astray in the first place neither by temperament nor by the senses, but by popular opinion..it is not nature that corrupts them but example...[so] I am dealing only with home training. Take a young man carefully educated in his father's country house, and examine him when he reaches Paris and makes his entrance into society; you will find him thinking clearly about honest matters, and you will find his will as wholesome as his reason. You will find scorn of vice and disgust for debauchery" (Emile, 242, emphasis added).
The educational claims trumpeted in some circles sound eerily Rousseauian. However, the most disturbing is the religious overlap of Rousseau and some Christians: both believe in original innocence and free will. That is, in Rousseau's language, "man is naturally good."
Here is the real culprit. It is not the similarity of methods as such but the fundamental beliefs that support the methods. As much as the public schools are scorned by many conservative Christians, such a system was once inundated with God-talk, prayer and Bible. Once those were taken out, many Christians fled. It was not schooling as such that was the culprit but that the method was shifted into a context of unbelief.
Many Christians--even Christian homeschoolers--in my experience endorse the innocence of babies and the free-will of man. Ask yourself: when a child dies in infancy why should he or she enter heaven? Many answer, "because they are innocent" but they answer wrongly. By birth--by nature--man is a sinner (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:2). Ask yourself: can man exercise his free-will and seek after God? Many answer, "yes!" but they answer wrongly. Man's will is bound in sin and iniquity and none seek after God (Rom. 3:11, 12).
Original sin is thrown out while free-will is retained.
In such a world, the Holy Spirit is not needed to regenerate man's mind and free his will. What is needed is a new environment, either of the home or of society. What is needed is a new method, for the churches or for the families.
That is the American religion. That is the revival of Rousseau.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Year of Calvinism: Antithesis
Calvinism is a worldview.
A worldview is a network of inter-dependent presuppositions about the most basic and fundamental components of life: reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology) and ethics (axiology). What is real? How can we know truth? What is right?
And Calvinism as a worldview is antithetical to all other approaches to life.
This Antithesis is not primarily external or through the overt actions of Calvinists--many non-Calvinist act and practice the same Ten Commandments. The Antithesis is not primarily expressed in a different art form or science (both which by God's common grace many unbelievers can be successful in).
No. The Antithesis is primarily spiritual or in principal. What Calvinists believe and confess stands them out from the crowd. Especially their view of salvation.
In fact, the Calvinistic worldview is rooted in its view of salvation as expounded in the Bible alone: justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. A salvation consistent in both Testaments. This worldview is more than a question of salvation, yet it is rooted in such truths about salvation.
Why? Because wherever man is the question of his individual standing before the Judge of the universe is forefront. How can I be saved? is the perennial question of the ages. Is salvation through law--mine, God's, the state's--or through faith? If the former, then wherever I am in life I turn that work or thought into an idol to save me. If the latter, then wherever I am in life I turn over to the Lord.
Or to look at it another way: if we have all of God's law (worldview) to cover all our questions but trust in our own self-effort what have we gained? That is why the cornerstone of the Calvinistic Worldview is the Gospel. A Gospel antithetical to all other 'gospels'.
Man is dead in trespasses and sins. Dead. He does not seek God. And he is more than dead, he is the living dead, actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Born speaking lies, he invariably matures in his wickedness until God restrains or transforms his soul (Eph. 1:1-3; Rom. 1:18; Ps. 58:3).
But God in His great love wherein He loves His own, sent Christ to become man, to identify with His people, to obey for His people, to die for His people. For the people He chose to save before the foundations of the world.
It is both the absolute sovereignty and over-ruling dominion of God Almighty and the utter and total depravity of man--in thought, word and deed--that makes Calvinism stand out. And ties its worldview together.
Without a sovereign God who has predestined all things there can be no intelligibility in any endeavor of life--all would be meaningless gibberish--worse, there would be no existence of anything. The Trinity is the precondition--the necessary universal Reality--for creation. Neither logic, science, politics or family life can exist in any coherent manner without the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and their all-encompassing plan for our lives.
And if Christians admit to God's sovereignty in everything but in man's salvation--if they deny that God elects whom He will--then all is lost. If God is not sovereign in your salvation then He is not sovereign anywhere. And if not sovereign anywhere, then all is lost.
The Antithesis is lost. And Humanism has swallowed whole the life of the Christian. In principle. So it should be clear that the great Antithesis is not really between generic Christianity and Darwinism, but Calvinism and Arminianism and any other -ism.
The dangerous worldview of Humanism, Evolutionism and the like is so appealing to American families and churches because they already believe in a key-component. To assert 'free-will' as defined today is to already believe in Humanism. The enemy is not ultimately "out there" against the churches, but "in here" amongst ourselves.
The Antithesis of Calvinism is most clearly portrayed in this perennial question of God's unconditional election of sinners unto salvation and man's bound will. And America--and especially the American churches--will not witness revival or reformation until such truths penetrates their calcifying hearts.
A worldview is a network of inter-dependent presuppositions about the most basic and fundamental components of life: reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology) and ethics (axiology). What is real? How can we know truth? What is right?
And Calvinism as a worldview is antithetical to all other approaches to life.
This Antithesis is not primarily external or through the overt actions of Calvinists--many non-Calvinist act and practice the same Ten Commandments. The Antithesis is not primarily expressed in a different art form or science (both which by God's common grace many unbelievers can be successful in).
No. The Antithesis is primarily spiritual or in principal. What Calvinists believe and confess stands them out from the crowd. Especially their view of salvation.
In fact, the Calvinistic worldview is rooted in its view of salvation as expounded in the Bible alone: justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. A salvation consistent in both Testaments. This worldview is more than a question of salvation, yet it is rooted in such truths about salvation.
Why? Because wherever man is the question of his individual standing before the Judge of the universe is forefront. How can I be saved? is the perennial question of the ages. Is salvation through law--mine, God's, the state's--or through faith? If the former, then wherever I am in life I turn that work or thought into an idol to save me. If the latter, then wherever I am in life I turn over to the Lord.
Or to look at it another way: if we have all of God's law (worldview) to cover all our questions but trust in our own self-effort what have we gained? That is why the cornerstone of the Calvinistic Worldview is the Gospel. A Gospel antithetical to all other 'gospels'.
Man is dead in trespasses and sins. Dead. He does not seek God. And he is more than dead, he is the living dead, actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Born speaking lies, he invariably matures in his wickedness until God restrains or transforms his soul (Eph. 1:1-3; Rom. 1:18; Ps. 58:3).
But God in His great love wherein He loves His own, sent Christ to become man, to identify with His people, to obey for His people, to die for His people. For the people He chose to save before the foundations of the world.
It is both the absolute sovereignty and over-ruling dominion of God Almighty and the utter and total depravity of man--in thought, word and deed--that makes Calvinism stand out. And ties its worldview together.
Without a sovereign God who has predestined all things there can be no intelligibility in any endeavor of life--all would be meaningless gibberish--worse, there would be no existence of anything. The Trinity is the precondition--the necessary universal Reality--for creation. Neither logic, science, politics or family life can exist in any coherent manner without the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and their all-encompassing plan for our lives.
And if Christians admit to God's sovereignty in everything but in man's salvation--if they deny that God elects whom He will--then all is lost. If God is not sovereign in your salvation then He is not sovereign anywhere. And if not sovereign anywhere, then all is lost.
The Antithesis is lost. And Humanism has swallowed whole the life of the Christian. In principle. So it should be clear that the great Antithesis is not really between generic Christianity and Darwinism, but Calvinism and Arminianism and any other -ism.
The dangerous worldview of Humanism, Evolutionism and the like is so appealing to American families and churches because they already believe in a key-component. To assert 'free-will' as defined today is to already believe in Humanism. The enemy is not ultimately "out there" against the churches, but "in here" amongst ourselves.
The Antithesis of Calvinism is most clearly portrayed in this perennial question of God's unconditional election of sinners unto salvation and man's bound will. And America--and especially the American churches--will not witness revival or reformation until such truths penetrates their calcifying hearts.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Year of Calvinism: Worldview
Calvinism has been maligned and misunderstood since it was first clearly formulated five-hundred years ago. It has been maligned because those who know it and hate it wish it to disappear. It has been misunderstood because many simply do not know what it is all about.
There are a number of ways to describe it. It is normally identified with the TULIP acronym: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.
And that is fine as far as the important question of salvation goes. And it goes far.
Yet, Calvinist leaders and laymen, from John Calvin to Jonathan Edwards, did not base their whole theology upon TULIP—it was rather a result and consequence of a deeper, fundamental principle: the glory of God.
The first question in John Calvin’s Geneva Catechism—a series of questions and answers for biblical instruction—set the tone for his approach to the Christian life:
Master. — What is the chief end of human life?
Scholar. — To know God by whom men were created.
Master.—What reason have you for saying so?
Scholar.—Because he created us and placed us in this world to be glorified in us. And it is indeed right that our life, of which himself is the beginning, should be devoted to his glory.
The glory of God was the chief goal of Calvin and the Calvinists. Over one-hundred years later, an august assembly of learned and godly men gathered in England at Westminster Abby to summarize a common confession of belief. They began the Westminster Shorter Catechism with the same premise as Calvin:
Question 1. What is the chief end of man?
Answer 1. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
The question references 1 Corinthians 10:31: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” This has ever been the hallmark of Calvinism in all its ecclesiastical forms. The exaltation, adoration and praise of the glorious Trinity have ever been our song. To glorify God Almighty is to give Him the preeminence in all things.
But how does a Calvinist move from God’s glory to the infamous TULIP? They start with the Bible alone—and the whole Bible. The Old Testament emphasizes God’s majesty and holiness:
“[Israel said] ‘Surely the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he still lives.’” (Deut. 5:24)
As the church of old stood in awe of Yahweh’s absolute moral purity, enormous might and majestic otherliness, so we fall before our covenant Lord. The sense—both intellectual and emotional—of God’s fearsome presence is believed by all orthodox Christians, but Calvinism in particular has a theology that best comports with such beliefs. Like Isaiah of old, we cry: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts." The penalty for not glorifying God is death (Acts 12:23). We sin by not glorifying God. We deserve death.
In general, many would agree with the description so far. The difference comes in the details of sin and salvation. The doctrine of original sin (Rom. 5:12ff.)—that even infants are by nature children of wrath (Ps. 51; Eph. 1:2)—is repellent to many Evangelicals these days. The outworking of that fact is described by Paul: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Sin is the act and condition of falling short of God’s moral perfection; therefore, it falls short of glorifying the Creator God. This sin is so much a part of fallen man’s nature that Paul contends, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God” (Rom. 3:10-11).
If man is born a sinner; if he sins only and continually; if man does not even seek after God, then where is hope? Who then can be saved?
Only those whom the Savior redeems can be saved. God must first seek men. This leads either to the salvation of all or the salvation of some. All orthodox Christians deny the former but many quibble over the latter. Calvinists embrace the latter most heartily because it is Biblical and fully sets forth God’s glory. God is the Alpha and Omega, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
God seeks and finds men in a three-fold way: by appointing, accomplishing and applying. The Father elects those whom He fore-loved (Rom. 9:14ff.); the Son finished redemption for His sheep by His perfect life and vicarious death, justifying through imputed righteousness (Rom. 5:12ff. Phil. 3:9); the Spirit applies the Son’s work, breathing new life and applying the gift of faith alone to the elect, sanctifying their hearts (John 3:8; Eph. 2:8). Salvation is God-centered.
If Christ’s death is truly a substitutionary death, then those whom He saved will be saved and cannot but be saved. They are saved unto good works, persevering therein by the Spirit’s preservation of their new mind, will and desire (Eph. 2:10). TULIP flows from the glory of God.
The worldview of Calvinism begins and ends with the preeminence of God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. And since all of creation was made by God and for God, the worldview of Calvinism embraces all of creation, in all its complexity. The upcoming series will illustrate the power of that worldview—the power and glory of God in history and through His church.
“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
(Romans 11:33-36)
There are a number of ways to describe it. It is normally identified with the TULIP acronym: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.
And that is fine as far as the important question of salvation goes. And it goes far.
Yet, Calvinist leaders and laymen, from John Calvin to Jonathan Edwards, did not base their whole theology upon TULIP—it was rather a result and consequence of a deeper, fundamental principle: the glory of God.
The first question in John Calvin’s Geneva Catechism—a series of questions and answers for biblical instruction—set the tone for his approach to the Christian life:
Master. — What is the chief end of human life?
Scholar. — To know God by whom men were created.
Master.—What reason have you for saying so?
Scholar.—Because he created us and placed us in this world to be glorified in us. And it is indeed right that our life, of which himself is the beginning, should be devoted to his glory.
The glory of God was the chief goal of Calvin and the Calvinists. Over one-hundred years later, an august assembly of learned and godly men gathered in England at Westminster Abby to summarize a common confession of belief. They began the Westminster Shorter Catechism with the same premise as Calvin:
Question 1. What is the chief end of man?
Answer 1. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
The question references 1 Corinthians 10:31: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” This has ever been the hallmark of Calvinism in all its ecclesiastical forms. The exaltation, adoration and praise of the glorious Trinity have ever been our song. To glorify God Almighty is to give Him the preeminence in all things.
But how does a Calvinist move from God’s glory to the infamous TULIP? They start with the Bible alone—and the whole Bible. The Old Testament emphasizes God’s majesty and holiness:
“[Israel said] ‘Surely the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he still lives.’” (Deut. 5:24)
As the church of old stood in awe of Yahweh’s absolute moral purity, enormous might and majestic otherliness, so we fall before our covenant Lord. The sense—both intellectual and emotional—of God’s fearsome presence is believed by all orthodox Christians, but Calvinism in particular has a theology that best comports with such beliefs. Like Isaiah of old, we cry: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts." The penalty for not glorifying God is death (Acts 12:23). We sin by not glorifying God. We deserve death.
In general, many would agree with the description so far. The difference comes in the details of sin and salvation. The doctrine of original sin (Rom. 5:12ff.)—that even infants are by nature children of wrath (Ps. 51; Eph. 1:2)—is repellent to many Evangelicals these days. The outworking of that fact is described by Paul: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Sin is the act and condition of falling short of God’s moral perfection; therefore, it falls short of glorifying the Creator God. This sin is so much a part of fallen man’s nature that Paul contends, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God” (Rom. 3:10-11).
If man is born a sinner; if he sins only and continually; if man does not even seek after God, then where is hope? Who then can be saved?
Only those whom the Savior redeems can be saved. God must first seek men. This leads either to the salvation of all or the salvation of some. All orthodox Christians deny the former but many quibble over the latter. Calvinists embrace the latter most heartily because it is Biblical and fully sets forth God’s glory. God is the Alpha and Omega, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
God seeks and finds men in a three-fold way: by appointing, accomplishing and applying. The Father elects those whom He fore-loved (Rom. 9:14ff.); the Son finished redemption for His sheep by His perfect life and vicarious death, justifying through imputed righteousness (Rom. 5:12ff. Phil. 3:9); the Spirit applies the Son’s work, breathing new life and applying the gift of faith alone to the elect, sanctifying their hearts (John 3:8; Eph. 2:8). Salvation is God-centered.
If Christ’s death is truly a substitutionary death, then those whom He saved will be saved and cannot but be saved. They are saved unto good works, persevering therein by the Spirit’s preservation of their new mind, will and desire (Eph. 2:10). TULIP flows from the glory of God.
The worldview of Calvinism begins and ends with the preeminence of God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. And since all of creation was made by God and for God, the worldview of Calvinism embraces all of creation, in all its complexity. The upcoming series will illustrate the power of that worldview—the power and glory of God in history and through His church.
“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
(Romans 11:33-36)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)