SDG

On Personal Relationship

2009-09-13T21:21:00.003-06:00

Recently, some friends and I were discussing faith and "personal relationship" over Facebook when I was reminded of a similar conversation in which I was a participant some months ago. I've included portions of the earlier correspondence below to help clarify some of my thoughts (obviously drawn from others) on faith and our right relationship with the Creator. More on this topic to follow...

...When the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks "What is the chief end of man?" - the answer (drawn from Scripture), "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever." alludes to a personal relationship with God through the exhortation to "enjoy Him forever". Such a relationship is both corporate and personal with the object of focus being extraspective or outward (on Christ) instead of introspective or self-examining. I submit that every person - atheist and Christian alike - is in relationship with God (Rm 1:21). If you accept this proposition, the nature of that relationship must be questioned; is God near in wrath or forgiveness? Because of Christ's work on the cross, Christians alone are able to proclaim that God comes near to them in forgiveness - having been declared righteous by their Savior. Such is the good news of the Gospel! Our right relationship with God is reinforced every Sunday when God draws near to us in forgiveness through His Word and Sacraments; ink, wine, and bread. This is where our certainty, our belongingness is strengthened and confirmed. If we are truly His sheep, God draws near to us in forgiveness whilst reserving His judgment for the unbeliever. Speaking of God's relational nearness to the unbeliever, R.C. Sproul dismisses the popular notion of hell as the place where sinners are cast away from the presence of God. Instead, Sproul argues that God is very much present in hell and directly in relationship with its citizens...in judgment. Hell, according to Sproul, is where God's wrath is manifested through His drawing near in judgment.

Which leads me to my next thought; our relationship with God is more a matter of justification (God drawing near in forgiveness) and faith than of sanctification. Princeton theologian, John Gresham Machen, makes a similar case in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" in which he contends that relationships are functions of trust. Trust, in turn, requires - depends upon - knowledge of the person at the other end of the relationship.

"It is vain, then, to speak of reposing trust in the Person without believing the message. For trust involves a personal relationship between the one who trusts and him in whom the trust is reposed. And in this case the personal relation is set by the blessed theology of the cross...The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus’ person, as being possible without acceptance of the message of his death and resurrection, they do not really mean trust at all. What they designate as trust is really admiration and reverence."

Put another way, "You can't rely on someone about whom you've determined to know nothing" (Kim Riddlebarger). Our right relationship with God necessitates our knowledge of and assent to, the doctrinal truths of the Bible - in addition to our trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Without such an understanding, Christ is easily demoted to the "embodiment of the good man, the one who lives for others, the one who is ultimately to be admired and, if possible, emulated" (Carl Trueman, Christianity, Liberalism and the New Evangelicalism). A right understanding of faith necessarily links knowledge with trust - instead of pitting them against each other as is so often the case in American evangelicalism ("not head knowledge, but heart knowledge", or as D.L Moody famously quipped: "My theology! I didn't know I had any"). In his article, "Check the Credentials!", Michael Horton comments upon the ignorant state of American evangelicalism:

"Because we do not have the resevoir [sic] of knowledge from which to draw concerning God's attributes, Christ's person and work, the events of saving history--in other words, the objective, cognitive content of the Scriptures--we lack confidence in God. And so, lacking that knowledge and confidence, we simply will ourselves to believe, in spite of our ignorance. This is why foreign observers have remarked that "faith in faith is a characteristically American heresy...."

He closes with the provocative line: "Your faith will grow only in proportion to your growth in knowledge." (Phil 1:9) Knowledge as used here should not be confused with the empty pursuit of scholarly minutiae obtained to better one's standing amongst peers - but rather to mean knowledge of God obtained through meditating on (out loud - to hagah!), chewing on His Word (Prov. 1:7, 1:29, 15:4, etc..., Hos 4:6, Rom 1:28, 10:2). Scripture reading (listening), memorization and the fruits of that labor. It is from His Word that we are able to know more of His attributes and on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Because we did not meet Jesus, shaking hands with him as did the apostles; our relational experience with God must - must - come from Scripture alone. Calvin puts it thus:

"Many foolishly invent for themselves a faith confused and without any understanding of the Gospel. No word is more commonplace among the Papists than 'believe,' but it is said without the knowledge of Christ gained from hearing and understanding the Gospel."

In sum, I concur with the original question; it is "possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)". However, I would add that a right relationship with God is impossible without knowledge of Him.

----- Original Message -----

...Is it possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)? Is it possible that a person has been in church every Sunday for 20 years and has yet to be known by the One who loves them most and best? Is it possible that there is no relationship at all?

Passover Season

2009-03-30T22:37:00.002-06:00

There is so much depth to the Passover season! I hope to post a bit more than usual during this time in a (feeble) attempt at unpacking some of its riches. I thought it best to start first with the ordination of (Pesach) Passover as a feast to be remembered forever. I plan to build on this text in later posts...

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. "Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt. "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you. And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever. In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread."
-- Exodus 12:1-20

Email Archives: Christocentric Theology

2009-03-30T22:18:00.005-06:00

Occasionally I run across emails that I've written or which have been sent to me which make for good blog material. As I find and post these, I'll add the "Email Archives" label to them. Google Desktop helped me find this one - sent in early 2008 to a group of believers who used to meet each week to discuss theology:

I've been reading (and listening) a lot lately to several theologians who are unpacking "Christocentric theology". For me, this is simply an outgrowth of covenant theology - but it also bears strong Lutheran (and others) influence. In short, Christocentric theology teaches that Christ is at the center of the entire Bible - Genesis to maps. All Scripture points - either forward or backward - to Jesus as Messiah. As an example - beginning immediately after the fall in (Genesis 3:14,15) God promises Eve an offspring (Messiah) who will crush the head of the serpent:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

From this account onward, Scripture is filled with prophesies, types, and shadows - all pointing to Christ. The most complex and amazing plotline ever developed. Moses served as a "type" of Christ; as did Joshua, David, Elijah, etc... Thus, I tend to react negatively when a Biblical figure such as Joshua is taught as an example of leadership - or when we’re charged to emulate star qualities ("dare to be a Daniel") of a particular character in redemptive history. Yes, Joshua was a leader, and yes, Daniel was courageous - but more importantly - they foreshadowed Christ - serving as role players in the story of Jesus. An understanding of Christ’s roles as prophet, priest, and king are of vital import. Thus, when I read Scripture I don’t see a character study - but rather a series of Messianic prophesies and their fulfillment. Building on the theme, Christ’s exemplary life is of secondary importance to the work that He performed on the cross for our sins. Christ’s substitutionary atonement is the "good news" that we are to proclaim. The Gospel message (theology of the cross) should never be confused with "you too can become a better person" (theology of glory). Muslims who respect Jesus as a prophet would do well to try to emulate His life (even lifestyle) - and they would probably admit as much. Ghandi did when he quipped:

"I like your Christ, but not your Christians"

Who doesn't find the popular characterization of Christ as appealing across culture boundaries? Everyone would do well to emulate Christ (where possible; His most important acts cannot be followed!). The snag comes with the "offense" (scandal) of the cross. This is where the Muslims draw the line; they don’t want any part of Christ as Messiah. His character traits - sure. His redemptive role as prophet, priest, and king? No way. This sacrifice and its implications are distinctly Christian. The atonement is at the front and center of Christianity; all else pales in comparison. Which is why I insist on hearing Christ and His atoning work preached *every* Sunday. This is not to say that the story of the cross is weekly repeated - but rather, the week’s passages interpreted as they point to Christ and His work on the cross. Christocentric preaching. Whether we’re studying Lamentations or Revelations - the focus of the service should be on Christ and his atoning work. Towards this point, I'm reminded of the scorn with which one of my Lutheran friends views sermon titles; in his words, every sermon should be titled "Christ and His Atoning Work" - as if anything else warrants mention. Christocentric theology in action!

God With Us

2009-02-17T08:11:00.005-07:00

C.S. Lewis’ book, The Horse and His Boy, provides the reader numerous parallels with Moses and the Exodus story. Of these, several are easily identifiable (for example, Lewis’ protagonist was found as a baby floating alone in a boat) – while others remain somewhat “suppositional”. Because I’ve been working with my dad on his current study of the Exodus, I wanted to highlight one of the more suppositional parallels corresponding to his most recent post on the Desert as God’s Teacher. My dad’s allegorical focus on the desert as representative of life’s difficult times fits neatly with Lewis’ chapter “The Unwelcome Fellow Traveller”. In this chapter, Shasta, the book’s main character, is in the midst of an urgent cross-country journey to warn Archenland and Narnia of an impending attack by the Calormenes. The journey is lonely, arduous and perilous; food is scarce, the pace swift, and on numerous occasions, Shasta (and his companions) is attacked by lions. One night, alone and hungry, Shasta begins to feel sorry for himself:

"I do think," said Shasta, "that I must be the most unfortunate boy that ever lived in the whole world. Everything goes right for everyone except me…”

And being very tired and having nothing inside him, he felt so sorry for himself that the tears rolled down his cheeks.

Suddenly, Shasta is frightened by the awareness that something - or someone - was walking beside him; someone who “seemed to breathe on a very large scale”. Unable to see who or what is near him, Shasta begins a frightened, whispered dialogue with the Presence.

“Who are you?”
“Are you a giant?”
“You’re not – not something dead are you?”

Assuring Shasta that he is not a ghost, the Thing breathes on Shasta’s hand and face:

“…that was not the breath of a ghost. Tell me your sorrows."
"Shasta was a little reassured by the breath: so he told how he had never known his real father or mother and had been brought up sternly by the fisherman. And then he told the story of his escape and how they were chased by lions and forced to swim for their lives; and of all their dangers in Tashbaan and about his night among the tombs and how the beasts howled at him out of the desert. And he told about the heat and thirst of their desert journey and how they were almost at their goal when another lion chased them and wounded Aravis. And also, how very long it was since he had had anything to eat."
"I do not call you unfortunate," said the Large Voice.
"Don’t you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?" said Shasta.
"There was only one lion," said the Voice.
"What on earth do you mean? I’ve just told you there were at least two the first night, and---"
"There was only one: but he was swift of foot."
"How do you know?"
"I was the lion"--

"I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of far for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you." †

In recounting his travails through the desert, Shasta remembers only those times where he was imperiled; inwardly focused in a way only confessed sinners understand. In stark contrast, the lion Aslan, focuses on the myriad instances in which Shasta was unknowingly comforted, prodded, or saved. It was Aslan that brought Shasta through the desert – despite Shasta’s ignorance and bumbling. Faced with this realization, Shasta reacts in the only way he knows how:

“…after one glance at the Lion’s face he slipped out of the saddle and fell at its feet. He couldn’t say anything, and he knew he needn’t say anything.”

Like the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sin, at Rephidim, Meribah, and elsewhere, Shasta complains about his circumstances; longing for the comforts of “home” (Egypt). In every instance, Aslan (YHWH) provided. As if begging his readers to connect the dots with the Exodus story, Lewis employs a final “supposition”, reminiscent of His providing water from the rock at Horeb. In closing the chapter, Lewis pens Shasta as quenching his agonizing thirst by drinking from the water collected in the giant footprint of a lion…

The story of the Exodus, as echoed in The Horse and His Boy, reminds us that God intercedes on our behalf – even (especially) in the difficult times. In our sinful ignorance of this fact, we are no better than the Israelites of the Exodus - headstrong and complaining. Christians are called “to glory through a journey of suffering”. Bless God for His constant intercession in your life!

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
-- James 1:2-4. (See also: 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2 Corinthians 4:17, 2 Timothy 2:12)

†Reminiscent of the historical prologue of the Sinaitic covenant “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” – Ex 20:2

The "Golden Rule"

2008-10-28T21:02:00.004-06:00

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Mattityahu 7:9-12

Anywhere from 2-8 centuries before Jesus, the Apocryphal book of Tobit posited wisdom similar to Jesus' quote in Mt. 7: "What you hate, do to no one" (Tobit 4:15). This from a book written about the time that Romans were first experimenting with concrete and when the Hasmoneans were restoring autonomy to Judea. Similarly, in drawing a comparison between Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai, the Jewish Talmud provides this illustration:

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' Shabbat 31a

Which lends an interesting historical narrative to Jesus' words in Mattityahu 22:34-39 (also Mark 12:28-34):

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The greatest commandment comes from the Shema - Deut 6:5; the second directly quotes Leviticus 19:18 (while paraphrasing Tobit, and summarizing Hillel's position as illustrated in the Talmud). As evidenced throughout the New Testament, Jesus masterfully uses the Text to interpret the Text. "Hillel or Shammai?" the man was asking; Jesus answers with the Text.

Sola Scriptura.

The Antichrist Revealed!

2008-10-24T14:20:00.005-06:00

At least once a week I receive an email from a fellow Christian urging me to reject Obama as a presidential candidate on the grounds that he has been identified by the "Book of Revelations" as the antichrist. About once a week I mutter aloud in shock horror at the possibility or electing the antichrist president! A few samplings:

>> According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The
>> anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who
>> will Deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a
>> MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people
>> will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world
>> peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it
>> OBAMA??

> > According to The Book of Revelations:
> >
> > The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent,
> > who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have
> > a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people
> > will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
> > and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
> >
> > And Now:
> > For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People
> > of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the
> > face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of
> > America .. A Male of Muslim descent who is the most
> > extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an
> > extremist) and in his 40's.

A few brief items of note before delving deeper into the subject:

The Bible does not contain a book of Revelations. It is Revelation. Singular.
The book of Revelation (singular) does not explicitly mention "antichrist". Go ahead and search; it's not there. Apocalyptic foreshadowing (the beast, the dragon, etc..) to be sure; the word "antichrist" - not to be found.
While you're at it, search for "Muslim" and "Obama" in the text. Cogitate at length on the results.
Not to be a nitpicker (haha), but seriously - if you're going to forward an email - remove the ">>>>" signs before so doing. Seriously!

Moving right along, is Obama really *the* Antichrist (capital A)? Are there more than one? Should we be spending time trying to determine AC's identity by matching the events of the Revelation with current events? The answer to the last question at least is a resounding "No"! In my reading for this posting, I came across several excellent articles from Monergism.com worth sharing. In a piece (oddly) titled "Prophecy makes strange bedfellows: On the history of identifying the antichrist", Stephen J. Nicholas writes this concerning the word "antichrist":

"Only John in his epistles employs the term, four times in the singular (1 John 2:18; 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John 7) and once in the plural (1 John 2:18)"

From this, Nicholas outlines the importance of the word's plurality; "antichrists" - in addition to making the case that John was referring to "a spirit of antichrist already present in the world"

"Further, John identifies antichrist for the reader as the ones who denies the deity of Christ. Thus [1 John] 2:22 reads, "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist the one who denies the father and the son." In 4:3 John adds that every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God: "this is the spirit of antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world." 2 John 7 states the matter directly: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." John provides a singular criterion for identifying antichrists: a heretical Christology." [emphasis added]

Even the "leaky dispensationalist", John MacArthur cedes this point:

"But even though the concept is, in the Bible, that this is one man, still the word "Antichrist" is much broader than any one man. Antichrist is not so much a person, a man, as it is a principle. And it is the principle of evil which is hostile to and actually opposed to God. It is the principle of anti-God, of anti-Christ. And it can be incarnated in men. And there have been such men in every generation who have been open and blatant and wicked opponents of God and Christ, or they have been subtly trying to replace the truth of God, trying to replace the Christ of God with their own deceit."

Nichols article continues with an interesting survey of the antichrist in history; various popes (indeed all of Romanism), King George, "Mussolini, Hitler, Ronald Wilson Reagan (whose name contains three words of six letters each and who almost moved to a 666 street address), Elvis, JFK, FDR, Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev (who has an uncanny birthmark on his forehead), Moshe Dayan, Anwar el-Sadat, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and Saddam Hussein" have all been identified as the antichrist.

Plurality indeed!

Nichols concludes with this telling line:

"Naming the antichrist probably reveals more about the person naming than anything. In some instances naming reveals a person's interpretation of texts or theology. In others, the naming has more to do with one's sociological or political views. Was Gorbachev, for instance, an enemy of orthodox Christology as much as he was a threat to Americanism? One might rightly query as to the theological motivations behind naming Henry Kissinger, JFK, and FDR. Robert Fuller observes the tendency to demonize one's enemy and, as his study reveals, the label of antichrist becomes quite a convenient tool."

In the frenzy leading to the elections, American Christians would do well to heed Polycarp's (John's disciple) words:

"For whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word that has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation."

Amen.

All Dogs Go to Heaven

2008-10-06T14:20:00.003-06:00

Signs from two churches which face each other across a street...

Navel Gazing

2008-09-02T21:35:00.003-06:00

Perusing the current (Sept/Oct 2008) issue of Biblical Archeology Review (BAR) on a recent afternoon, I ran across an obscure controversy which made me laugh and think at the same time; namely, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Were they left with "unnecessary" umbilical evidence? (Did they have appendixes for that matter???) Evidently this debate was quite the controversy during the Renaissance - with prominent artists (ala Michaelangelo) on either side of the issue; some painted the navel, others would not. Others still would merely cover the area with branches, leaves, or "other artistic devices". Good stuff!

Proud Papa

2008-06-18T15:00:00.003-06:00

Joshua Ryan Dodson

Born 10.Jun.2008, 1:27AM. 6lbs, 15oz; 20.5 inches

Words can't describe how happy we are to be parents! Such an amazing experience which has forever changed our lives. Little Joshua is perfectly healthy - an answer to prayer!

"...The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." -- Acts 2:39

More Kingdom Thoughts

2008-06-18T13:45:00.003-06:00

Reading a Michael Horton article this afternoon I ran across an interesting reference to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. One of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics, the Epistle to Diognetus provides a fascinating description of early Christians; well worth the full read. A snippet from chapter 5 describing Christians:

For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life. Nor again do they possess any invention discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some are. But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation. They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like all other men and they beget children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They have their meals in common, but not their wives. They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they live not after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in their own lives. They love all men, and they are persecuted by all. They are ignored, and yet they are condemned. They are put to death, and yet they are endued with life. They are in beggary, and yet they make many rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they abound in all things. They are dishonoured, and yet they are glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of, and yet they are vindicated. They are reviled, and they bless; they are insulted, and they respect. Doing good they are punished as evil-doers; being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby quickened by life. War is waged against them as aliens by the Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their hostility.

In his articled titled "How the Kingdom Comes", Horton distinguishes the church from Christian culture. Using the above description of the early Christian community Horton writes:

So Christians are not called to make holy apparel, speak an odd dialect of spiritual jargon, or transform their workplace, neighborhood, or nation into the kingdom of Christ. Rather, they are called to belong to a holy commonwealth that is distinct from the regimes of this age (Phil. 3:20-21) and to contribute as citizens and neighbors in temporal affairs. "For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come" (Heb. 13:14)

Overall, the Horton article shared many commonalities with Ray VanderLaan's understanding of community, Kingdom, and the counter-cultural Christian. Excellent read!

'Christianity And'

2008-05-12T21:31:00.003-06:00

My dear Wormwood,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in, is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity And'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing.

-- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, p. 135

Practicing Spirituality with Jesus

2008-05-07T13:35:00.003-06:00

Recently came across an interesting course offering: Practicing Spirituality with Jesus. For a mere $15 (cc accepted), you:

...will receive 40 emails, each opening with a quotation about Jesus gathered from our reading of contemporary spiritual teachers, theologians, preachers, and poets. We will then give you a suggestion, based upon something in the quote, for how you can practice spirituality with Jesus during the day

For Christians — and for many people of other traditions as well — Jesus is a revelation of what God is like.

Jesus is a revelation of what God is like? Like? Call me silly nitpicking twit, but it would seem a proper understanding of the Triune God involves Jesus *as* God? I also find it interesting that even those of a non-Christian tradition might find it proper to be like Jesus - especially as a prescription for improving their lives. As if good advice could fill for the Good News.

Kingdom of God Defined

2008-04-29T21:05:00.004-06:00

Question 212 of Luther's Small Catechism (with Explanation) defines the KOG as having three parts. For me this made perfect sense - and correctly categorized / demarcated the various Kingdom components. In Luther's definition, the church is rightfully put at the center of the earthly Kingdom - but there's more to God's Kingdom than what we can see or comprehend:

What is the Kingdom of God?
The kingdom of God is His ruling as king over the whole universe (kingdom of power), the church on earth (kingdom of grace), and the church and angels in heaven (kingdom of glory). Ref. Ps. 103.19, Jn. 3:5, 2 Tim. 4:18

In my previous post I wrote that I believed the visible church and the Kingdom of God to be roughly equated (see quote on right from Westminster Confession Ch. 25) - but I felt that there was more to it than "just" the church. Luther's definition has expanded my thoughts on the matter...

Ecclesiology & the Kingdom of God

2008-04-16T11:34:00.003-06:00

A recent discussion with a group of Christian friends prompted my posting of a presentation I first gave in December of '06 and then again in May of '07. My friends and I were discussing the early church and the examples - both good and bad - that the historical church provides Christians today. Was Constantine good for the church - or bad (new poll to follow)? Additionally, I argued my position that the Kingdom of God (on Earth) is found through the Church; in my view - outlined in the presentation - the two are related and roughly equated. I say "roughly equated" because this is still an idea in progress for me and I'm not yet bold enough to state the KOG is the Church...

In any case, the presentation is available online either as an HTML presentation (IE recommended) or for download (.ppt | ~= 2MB). My notes explain the talking points for each slide. Feedback welcome!

Double the Fun

2008-04-09T17:14:00.003-06:00

This post is actually overdue - but I thought it wise to mention that there are now two contributors to this blog...fjohan and myself (rhp997). Dual authorship as opposed to schizophrenia. Fjohan is a self-proclaimed non-genius and amateur theologian whose influence is decidedly Lutheran. I entertain a nascent understanding of Reformed theology and proffer no contrast to fjohan in either understanding or experience...essentially two chumps with internet connections and an overabundance of free time. Anywayz, now you know.

Religion Survey, Part 2...

2008-03-20T14:06:00.016-06:00

We will continue with the article concerning the religion survey done by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Once again here is the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

Now, dear friends, we will begin this post with paragraphs 4-7.

Paragraph 4-7:

"The American religious economy is like a marketplace -- very dynamic, very competitive," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. "Everyone is losing, everyone is gaining. There are net winners and losers, but no one can stand still. Those groups that are losing significant numbers have to recoup them to stay vibrant."

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey estimates the United States is 78 percent Christian and about to lose its status as a majority Protestant nation, at 51 percent and slipping.

More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent.

One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.

Here we go again. Not only is religion (more specifically Christianity) described as a marketplace (again), now it is spoken of as an economy and is described as “very dynamic” (not just dynamic) with the additional description of “very competitive” as well! (Don’t even get me started on the use of the word vibrant, my head may actually explode!) I must admit, I’m losing respect for the Pew Forum with every passing paragraph. To say there are “winners” and “losers” in the “American religious economy” is shocking. Church membership is not a competition (even if some denominations knowingly or unknowingly look at it that way). It isn’t some basketball game where each church is pitted against the other, all the while keeping score with their opponents (in this case the church down the street) by counting the number of new members, comparing perceived results and then interpreting those results all in the name of God (while overlooking clear scriptural passages to the contrary).

I am proud to say that I am included in the 19% of American adults that have left my childhood denomination for another. No, I am not some sick individual that has a vendetta against my parents or my family. I am proud because I genuinely love the doctrine of my church. I, like many others, am the exception to the rule. Whereas, many move from a confessional church (Lutheran, PCA, Roman) to a non-confessional church (non-denom, etc.), I moved from a non-confessional church to a confessional church. I thank my parents whenever the opportunity arises for them raising me in the Church, and teaching me the best they knew how, but that doesn’t mean I don’t disagree with much of what I was taught as a child. I do. I don’t blame my parents. I don’t blame the church I attended. I truly believe what I learned as a child and adolescent is indispensable to me (considering where God has lead me today). There is no shame in being proud of one’s church body. In fact, I have more respect for individuals who are proud of their church than for the indifferent and purposely uneducated. While doctrinal ignorance is very real, it is no excuse. Far too often we put ourselves in our own little “Christian Bubble” and we do not get out. What do I mean by “Christian Bubble”? I mean we put ourselves in a figurative bubble, a comfortable surrounding, where we believe what we believe with no real understanding as to why, and in doing so we form fit God and His Word into what we want it to be. Consequently, we blatantly ignore clear teachings of scripture that “interfere” with our beliefs, and in turn follow the path of least resistance (which more often than not is ignorance). Instead of having our beliefs challenged, we just stay distant and detached from the entire scope of doctrinal theology. It is hard to be challenged if we do not become learned enough to be challenged. We use the old line “I believe and follow what the Bible says,” with no real explanation as to what teaching that pertains and to what that actually means.

Paragraphs 8-12

"In the past, certain religions had a real holding power, where people from one generation to the next would stay," said Penn State University sociologist Roger Finke, who consulted in the survey planning. "Right now, there is a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms."

Lugo said the 44 percent figure is "a very conservative estimate," and more research is planned to determine the causes.

"It does seem in keeping with the high tolerance among Americans for change," Lugo said. "People move a lot, people change jobs a lot. It's a very fluid society."
The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin.

The majority of the unaffiliated -- 12 percent of the overall population -- describe their religion as "nothing in particular," and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.

Let me start with a question. Why do you suppose at this point in time, in our history “there is a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms?” Why is that? I’m sure there are various social, cultural, and political reasons behind this shift but I want to focus on one aspect in this post. It’s very familiar to us. We live in it and we are born in it. It’s a little thing called sin. Why is “there a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms?” That’s easy…SIN! We don’t need to do more research to figure that out. Look no further than Scripture to find perfect examples of individuals, societies, and nations turning from God. Take Adam and Eve. They were given one simple rule to follow:

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16, 17)

I don’t know about you but that sounds pretty simple to me. But what happened? Well, a few things happened. We see the following in Genesis 3:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1-7)

Some very interesting and important notes can be made about Genesis 3:1-7. First we see the temptation from the serpent, “Did God actually say…” That one phrase and variations like it can get a Christian into more trouble than any other. “Does the Bible really say…” could be called the serpent’s line of temptation for the 21st century. Does the Bible really say woman should not be pastors? Does the Bible really say we are saved by grace through faith without any works/decision on our part? Does the Bible really say ‘Take eat, This is my Body’ and ‘Take drink, This is my Blood?’ Does the Bible really say Baptism will wash away our sins and that it is for us and our children? We can go on and on about all the things Satan loves for us to doubt with the phrase, “Does the Bible really say…” Volumes of books could be written on the subject but we must continue because a very important verse in the argument to the above question “Does the Bible really say woman should not be pastors?” is stated directly after the serpent’s temptation. What does the woman say in response the serpent’s temptation? Again we see Genesis 3:2,

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

This verse is very important in the understanding of women not being pastors. What was Adam to Eve? Obviously, he was her husband, she was his wife. What else was Adam to Eve? If we boil it right down, he was her pastor. Why is that you may ask? Here is why. When was the command forbidding the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? When did that take place? That’s right; it took place before Eve was formed. Eve was not present for this command given to Adam by God. Why is this important? Because Adam acted as pastor to Eve by being God’s mouthpiece in relaying to her God’s command concerning that tree. Here is where it gets interesting though. First, we see in Genesis 3:1-7, Eve speaking out of turn. (There is an obvious order of creation issue here.) So, We see the following: Adam (a) was the pastor, (b) was the one present when God gave the command concerning the tree. Eve in speaking to the serpent usurped the authority that rightfully belonged to Adam. Adam was present when God gave the command so therefore he should speak to the serpent, but alas he did not, Eve did. Second, not only did Eve speak concerning the command for which she was not present, but she added to the command. So, when she usurped Adam’s authority and took the pastoral role (as God’s mouthpiece) on herself, she failed in doing so because she quoted the command incorrectly! As you can see in Genesis 2, God never gave the command “…neither shall you touch it…” when speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It’s not there. At this point we could go on and on about whether Adam was the one that gave the command incorrectly when giving it to Eve or if Eve took it upon herself to add to the command. Just know this, since Eve is wrong in speaking to begin with, she is incorrect by adding to God’s Word as well. Lastly, it must be mentioned that in the end, Adam is the one credited with the fall. He is the one who should have spoken up but didn’t. He is the one that should have been a faithful pastor and taken the lead in speaking the truth to the serpent but he didn’t. He remained silent and sinned. Eve spoke up and sinned. If anyone wishes to delve into women and their role in the Church, you can look to a number of Pauline Epistles that speak on or about that subject (Paul specifically talks of Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2).

Now let’s look at the Israelites. Let’s look at Exodus. The Israelites were in bondage in Egypt. I’m sure there are few, if any Christians that do not know the story of Moses and the Exodus, whether it is from Scripture or from Cecil B. DeMille and Charlton Heston. Everyone knows about the Exodus. Well, what is one of the first things the Israelites do (after they are freed from bondage) at the first sign of perceived trouble? When Moses took (what in their minds) was too long on Mt. Sinai, what did they do? That’s right, they sinned. They made “an idol cast in the shape of a calf…” (Exodus 32:4). They turned from God. As God says in Exodus 32:7,8:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for your people whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’”

What the hades were they thinking? We look at these events and others throughout Scripture and wonder what in the hades were these people thinking? But here is the rub. We are Adam. We are Eve. We are the Israelites. We are no different from any of them. In the same situation, under the same circumstances, we would have done the same exact thing. That is the point. We are all sinful, every last one of us. So, it is no wonder there is a shift from confessional churches to non-confessional churches. As sinners, we are categorically opposed to the doctrinal truths of God, so a shift to a church denomination that has lax doctrines/confessions (or none at all) fits our sinful nature perfectly. It makes perfect sense. heck, we are all in our “Christian Bubble” (at one point or another) anyway so a lax, heterodox setting makes it that much easier to stay there, unbothered and uneducated. There are individuals I know that have told me they read the Bible, they go to church and they are Christians, but doctrine is just not their thing. It’s just not their cup of tea. Well you know what? Any person that says such a statement is completely and totally uninformed and uneducated, which is a nice way of saying ignorant. You can use the description you prefer but in the end it is just sad. It truly saddens me to hear such a statement. What is doctrine? More importantly, what is sound doctrine? What is meant by this phrase “sound doctrine” or "apostle's teaching" as it is used in Acts 2:42; 1Timothy 1:10, 6:3; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1? Sound doctrine and the apostle's teachings are nothing more than correct teachings of Christ, so for someone to say that doctrine is not their thing, they are in essence saying correct teachings of Christ are not their thing. No wonder American Evangelicalism is in the state it is today. It is okay (because it is done unknowingly) to rebel against Christ because every time they say they are opposed to sound doctrine, that is exactly what they are doing!

You know…it’s funny, I have actually met individuals who have said they do not sin. They have actually said that phrase to my face. What’s really funny is by someone saying they do not sin, they are at that moment sinning! We are all sinful and we all sin. In our sin, we would love nothing better than to become Adam and Eve by wondering “Did God really say…”, or by hiding and running from the means in which God comes to us (Word and Sacraments). Likewise, in our sin, we are the Israelites turning to any and every false god we can find (as is later seen in the Israelites worship of Baal as well), whether it is money, power, fame, sexual immorality or any number of vices that grip our lives. But there is hope. Praise be to God, He keeps us in the true faith until life everlasting. He draws, sustains, and keeps us steadfast in the faith. We don’t. We can’t. Our faith is God’s doing. Through Word and Sacrament, we are strengthened in the one true faith. In Baptism, our Triune God claims us as His own. In the Lord’s Supper, Christ gives us His Body and His Blood for the strengthening of our faith. In the preached Word, God uses the pastor as the vessel for His life-giving Word. Through these means, we are saved by grace through faith and it is God’s doing, not ours. To use an oft used quote from Luther:

“This is most certainly true!”

fjohan

On Dynamic

2008-03-18T14:33:00.005-06:00

Princeton (Puritan) theologian Jonathan Edwards - "widely acknowledged to be America's most important and original philosophical theologian" - purportedly read his sermons word for word in a high-pitched, monotone voice. That probably wouldn't pack the Ford Center today...just a guess.

Similarly, I was reminded of the way in which Jesus himself used to speak to the crowds in parables (to fulfill prophesy). Mark Balthrop's series on the parables in Matthew brought this to my attention...consider an evangelistic opportunity so large the crowds filled a hillside, forcing the speaker into a boat. Mt. 13:2,3:

Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables...

Dynamic and easy to understand? Seems to me Jesus sat down and delivered confusion to his audience...Reading on, it becomes obvious that even the disciples were confused - maybe even a bit annoyed!

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

Fascinating chapter with so many implications.

Finally, I find it interesting the emphasis Americans place on extemporaneous speaking - evidenced not only in sermons but also in prayer. It is implied in many circles, that prayers which are read are not heard by God...hmmmm....there is a lot here which could be said!

Religion Survey, Part 1

2008-03-17T17:02:00.041-06:00

Before I get to the post let me start by squelching any rumors as it pertains to me. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a genius. Nor am I an English major, great orator, world renowned theologian, etc. I am by all accounts a simpleton. So please bear with me and please be patient. This will be my first blog post...ever. Now, without any further ado, on the post!

The subject matter of this post is a recent AP article I read on cnn.com. The link is as follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

While the content does not surprise me, it most definitely saddens and enrages me all at once. As I type, I sit back and wonder how I should approach this article. What angle should I take? Basically, how should I tackle this article and its content? For this first post I decided to break down my response by paragraph.

Paragraph 1 (emphasis added):

(AP) -- The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds.

From the opening line we already see the first real problem concerning this article. The AP is treating religion as a marketplace (which is volatile no less). The very foundation of the article is erroneous by the sheer fact that the AP is treating religion as a business. Religion (more specifically Christianity) is not a business. The catholic Church on earth is not a business! Unfortunately, there are church denominations that make church a business, and in the end any church that does so is entirely incorrect in its actions. The catholic Church is not some Fortune 500 company with Jesus (or the pope for that matter) as the CEO. It just doesn't work that way, in fact, if any CEO was to run their business with Jesus as the exact model, they would shut there doors soon after opening. Jesus is not a businessman. Jesus is not a door to door salesman either. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. He is my Savior and yours. He is the "...Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Praise Be to God! So from the get go, we can see the erroneous stance the AP is taking by turning religion (more specifically Christianity) into a business. Not to mention the way in which the AP talks of adults leaving the faith as a "switch (in) allegiances." What is this Survivor? Has Christianity been whittled down to where it is nothing more than a reality television show? If that is the case then God help our country.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 (emphasis added):

The study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is unusual for its sheer scope, relying on interviews with more than 35,000 adults to document a diverse and dynamic U.S. religious population.

While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing -- it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.

I must confess, I have no clue what the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is (probably a non-prof.) and what they do, although I will venture to guess that they do studies on religion (and maybe public life as well) but there are two words that jump out at me in the second paragraph. Any guess on what those might be? The two words are "diverse" and "dynamic." While the words themselves are of no particular interest to me, when they are used to describe anything possibly involving Christianity my ears naturally perk. In what way the article sees the "U.S. religious population" as "diverse" and "dynamic," I'm not quite sure but I do know this: all too often the words "diverse" and "dynamic" are used to further a false perception of Christianity by American Evangelicalism.

Is the makeup of any Christian congregation “diverse”? Most definitely. You have some who are tall while others are short. You have some who are male while others are female. You have some who are old while others are young. You have a varying number of ethnic backgrounds as well. While the makeup of the congregation can be “diverse,” what happens when they step foot inside the church door? What happens? We don’t lose the genetic makeup that makes us who we are nor do we all magically become bodily twins but we absolutely become one. We become one body of sinners in need of God’s grace poured out for us in Word and Sacrament. As Romans 3 says so directly,

“For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

In faith, we are one in God’s eyes. As Galatians 3 states,

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

In our baptism, we are made one with Christ. Through the holy gifts received by faith in baptism we are received as children of God and are made one in Christ Jesus. So, while the church body may be “diverse” in their genetic, social and cultural makeup, in Christ Jesus we are one. We are identical as baptized children of God, having put on Christ so that when God looks upon us on the last day, He will not see our rotting, sinful flesh. He will only see His Son, our Savior and in that there can be no greater hope and comfort. Praise Be to God!

How is the word “dynamic” used in Christianity today? I am certain there are ways in which the word “dynamic” is used in a good, right and salutary way in describing an aspect of Christianity (which I hope to show an example of later). Personally, all too often I have seen the use of the word “dynamic” completely juxtaposed as it pertains to God and man. In my experience, the word “dynamic” has been used to describe some attribute inside of man. One must not travel far to find any number of local or national “pastors” or “preachers” who are described as “dynamic.” Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, and most famously Billy Graham have more than likely been described as “dynamic” at some point in their life. But what is most important when describing a pastor? Is it more important for the pastor to be a dynamic public speaker with a wonderful charisma or is it more important for the pastor to be faithful to the sound teachings of God’s Word? In the following example, which is the more “successful” pastor?

Pastor A: Pastor A is a truly charismatic presence. He is a top notch orator with unrivaled skills in speech and language. He is described by his congregation as “dynamic.” He is the pastor to a huge congregation where on any given Sunday he could preach to 30,000 people. He has a message of hope and love of how God wants to give you all the earthly blessings you could stand right here, right now. He purposely and deliberately preaches around such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified (and the like) but in the end he makes his congregation feel so uplifted and good about themselves (and isn’t that what truly matters).

Pastor B: Pastor B is your average confessional pastor. The day charisma was taught in school, he missed. He isn’t the most eloquent of speakers. At times a slight stammer is evident. When he first accepted his call to become the under shepherd of his current church, the church rolls showed 200 members. After 3 years, the church rolls show a total of 125 members. He teaches that “no one is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10) but “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:2-5). He purposely and deliberately preaches on such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified while always maintaining the scriptural and doctrinal teachings of his church’s confessions. He simply preaches the Word in its truth and purity and he faithfully administers the Sacraments.

The million dollar question: Which pastor is more successful? Pastor A or Pastor B? Getting to the bottom of this question requires us to break the question down into two questions. Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of the world? Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of God? In our sin, we look at the two pastors and say Pastor A is more successful. In our sin, we define success by how dynamic a pastor’s sermons are or how charismatic a pastor may be. In our sin, we look to the man for “dynamics” and not to God. Lutheran Theologian, Rev. Klemet I. Preus in his book “The Fire and the Staff” writes:

"Think back to the sixth grade when you were learning about adjectives, words that modify nouns. Take the sentence 'The Word is in the hands of the people.' Now add the adjective 'dynamic' to the sentence. The difference between Evangelical American Protestantism and the Church Growth Movement, on the one hand, and the teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran church, on the other, is this: Which noun does the adjective modify? Do we say that the church thrives because dynamic people speak the Word? Or do we say that the church thrives because people speak the dynamic Word? Evangelicalism and the Church Growth Movement say the former. The Scriptures and the Lutheran church say the latter." (282)

God’s Word is “dynamic.” We needn’t find a “dynamic” person to be a pastor. We needn’t look any further than God’s Word to find all the dynamism we need. If the “dynamics” of the pastor is on the list of God’s priorities then He must have slipped up with Moses. Moses was not a great speaker. In fact, he had a speech impediment yet God used Moses for the feeding of His flock (much like but not the same as how Christ feeds us). (Exodus 4:9-12) If somehow the “dynamics” of the pastor leads to an increased number of followers and is how God desires that increase, then His own Son cannot be deemed anything less than a failure. Look no further than John 6 for an example. According to American Evangelicalism, Jesus had his mass of disciples’ right where he wanted them. He had performed miracles in front of them; in fact he performed one sometime earlier with the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1:15). It cannot be more dynamic than that. As American Evangelicalism defines it, Jesus’ act of feeding the 5,000 was the perfect example of dynamic. He had them and they were right where they wanted to be when a dreadful thing happened. Wouldn’t you know it; Jesus let the truth get in the way of “success.” Jesus spoke the truth and in their sin many of his disciples left him that day (John 6:60). They literally couldn’t “handle the truth.” How dare He! How dare anyone (let alone the Son of God) get in the way of numerical success! Inconceivable!

Now, do not get me wrong, that’s not to say that all churches that grow are evil and incorrect. If they are growing due to a watered down Gospel or some other false teaching, then yes they are evil and incorrect but do not think I am blanketing all growing churches into one category. I am simply stating in Scripture you see a remnant theme as it pertains to the Church, and God never promises tremendous growth when the Gospel is preached (as John 6 exemplifies) nor is growth the goal...speaking the truth is the goal. We do not need "dynamic" pastors to speak the Word. We need faithful pastors to speak the dynamic Word. Who would think the placement of one word could create such vastly different avenues of thinking as it pertains to the dynamics of the Church, but it has. It has today and it will tomorrow.

To be continued till Religion Survey, Part 2...

fjohan

Perfection More Difficult

2008-03-12T08:06:00.002-06:00

The list of official sins grows ever larger...perfection it would seem is even further off than yesterday. *sigh*

ROME, Italy (AP) -- A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior... When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations." He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

My favorite quote is the last sentence in the article:

"There is some sound going around that perhaps he is going to speak about ecology and environment, and if he does, this is kind of preparation for that," he [Apparcel] said.

Would seem that even the Vatican is getting into the environmental act!

Southern Baptist Scientists

2008-03-12T07:49:00.004-06:00

Southern Baptist leaders shift position on climate change

(CNN) -- Several prominent leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention said Monday that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change -- a major shift within a denomination that just last year cast doubt on human responsibility for global warming

The nature of the controversy is best evidenced by comparing SBC's stance from last year to their recent announcement; total flip-flop. As amateur scientists, the Southern Baptist leaders look silly at best. As theologians, I'm not sure I see the connection or relevance with their recent press release. I agree that we as citizens should display some level of environmental consciousness...however, I don't think this is a debate in which I want or expect my church to be united as a "force for good in the world". I would argue that it's not the role of the church anymore than we are required by God to elect the next President a conservative.

The article ended with a quote from a letter signed by Dobson, Bauer, and a handful of other "religious right" leaders:

The issue (global warming) should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

Amen.

More on Finney

2008-03-07T12:52:00.007-07:00

Charles Finney has become something of a fascination of mine recently - especially given all the attention that contemporary Reformed authors have conferred upon his influence when describing modern evangelism. In his discussion of the Pelagian captivity of the Church [¹] (which I just finished reading), R.C. Sproul describes the early Church in a rare show of solidarity against Pelagius' teachings:

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism-because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

I find it fascinating whenever the Church (or any group of people, for that matter) shows such unanimity on a topic. I find it even more fascinating that one man was so successful in not only reviving the Pelagic heresy, but also responsible for it's viral spread and broad acceptance:

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings-and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

Finneyism & Political Activism

2008-02-25T19:14:00.005-07:00

Modern Reformation recently picked up an interesting article from Associated Baptist Press on religion and politics:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and best-selling author Rick Warren, both ordained Southern Baptist pastors, will speak about how to use the pulpit to address political, social and cultural issues at a preaching conference in April...

This seems to me a clear confusion of the two kingdoms brought on by Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening. Although I am somewhat new to the idea myself, I firmly believe that politics and the pulpit should never be confused. Rather, the Church should focus on the salvation available through Jesus Christ. This alone is the message the Church!

Warren has set a precedent for using his pulpit to speak about global warming and HIV/AIDS and has invited several prominent political figures -- including presidential contenders Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- to speak in his church...

Maybe I missed something - but are Obama and Clinton ordained ministers? Did they speak the Gospel during their time at the pulpit? Perhaps Obama delivered this line (quoted from World Magazine, "Preach It", Oct 2007):

Obama has said the Bible is not "a static text" and says he "must be continually open to new revelations"—and he has acknowledged that those who believe the Bible is inerrant and that it teaches, for example, that abortion is wrong aren't likely to accept his "ground rules for collaboration."

Wowza...I'm not sure I'd want to hear an Obama sermon even if it wasn't on politics...In any case, back to the original article:

Huckabee, in the middle of a campaign to win the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, is a good example of someone who has connected the pulpit with politics, Michael Duduit, editor of Preaching Magazine, said.

Even the Christian presidential candidate is getting into the act it would seem...perhaps that's why all Christians must vote for him! *sarcasm alert*.

All this to say that individually, Christians "have a duty to seek the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7)" [¹] - or to be engaged politically. Corporately, however, the body of Christ should disengage from political activism. For, as D.G. Hart put it, "because the truths about politics, economics, and international relations are much more ambiguous than the way of salvation revealed in Scripture, Christians, as Machen admitted, will likely disagree." Which means that even if I don't support Huckabee's presidential bid, I can go on being a Christian...Ron Paul '08!

Sunday School Musings

2008-02-18T20:36:00.002-07:00

I knew that I didn’t agree with the teaching last Sunday – but I didn’t know why. After having talked with several other people and reading the articles they recommended, I began to gain a simpleton’s understanding of Biblical Anthropology; the nature of man as derived from Scripture. I found there are essentially two camps in Christian anthropological circles:

Dichotomy (or dualism): Man consists of a physical (body) and non-physical (soul / spirit) element. The words "soul" and "spirit" are viewed as being synonymous.
Trichotomy (or tripartite): Man consists of a physical (body) and two non-physical components (spirit and soul). The words "soul" and "spirit" refer to different elements.

The trichotomy view has taken many forms – most of which become confusing given only casual study such as mine. A form of this position was held by many of the early church leaders – including such notable theologians as Irenaeus and Origen. However, failing to derive support from Biblical scholars such as Augustine, the view largely disappeared from church history until the 18th century. More recently (20th century), Watchman Nee and Charles Solomon have advocated a tripartite understanding of man. Today, this position enjoys considerable support in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles.

I do not subscribe to the tripartite view of man for a host of reasons – outlined in the mini treatise below. Instead, I find the words spirit and soul to be used interchangeably in the Bible. Further, while recognizing that man can be categorized into the material and the immaterial, the two are so entwined as to be viewed as one. That is, no part is greater than the other (good part vs. evil part), and apart from one the other cannot survive. According to Mark Balthrop, dividing man into two, three (or even four) parts unnecessarily "does violence to the unity of man".

My conclusions are largely summaries of the following articles:

David P. Scaer, "Body, Soul, and Spirit", Concordia Theological Quarterly, April 2002
Kim Riddlebarger, "Trichotomy: A Beachhead For Gnostic Influences", Modern Reformation Magazine, July/August 1995
Mark W. Balthrop, "Biblical Anthropology", Heritage Presbyterian Church, Wednesday Bible Study handout
A. McCaig, "Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature", The Evangelical Quarterly 3, 1931
R R Byrum, "Christian Theology"
Chalres Hodge, "The Nature of Man", Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Chapter II

My original intent was to keep my points short and to the point (queue laughter). As a result, my writing on the subject fails to fully develop many of the points made by the referenced authors. I would hope that the serious reader take the time to fully digest each of the listed articles; they constitute a wealth of knowledge (and additional references) on the issue. Without further ado…

The Biblical Case Promotes Unity

As is easily demonstrated, the words for spirit and soul are constantly interchanged and practically synonymous in the Greek and Hebrew – both in the old and new testaments. Attempts to divide the two into separate elements are, according to Hodge, "Opposed to the uniform usage of scripture"

The body of Scriptural support for the interchangeable nature of the two words is staggering – especially when approached with a Hebrew (rather than a Greek) mindset and context. The following is taken directly from Mark Balthrop’s article on Biblical Anthropology:

Man is described in the Bible both as someone who is body and soul and as someone who is body and spirit:

Matthew 10:28 (body and soul)
1 Corinthians 7:34 (body and spirit)
James 2:26 (body and spirit)

Grief is referred to the soul as well as to the spirit:

1 Samuel 1:10 (soul)
Isaiah 54:6 (spirit)
John 12:27 (soul)
John 13:21 (spirit)
Acts 17:16 (spirit)
2 Peter 2:8 (soul)

Praising and loving God is ascribed to both the soul and spirit:

Luke 1:46-47 (soul and spirit)
Mark 12:30 (heart, soul, and mind)
Luke 10:27 (heart, soul, and mind)

Salvation is associated with both the soul and the spirit:

James 1:21 (souls)
1 Corinthians 5:5 (spirit)

Dying is described either as the departure of the soul or of the spirit:

Genesis 35:18
1 Kings 17:21
Psalm 31:5
Matthew 27:50

Proof Texts?

The favorite trichotomy "proof texts" can also be interpreted in support of dichotomous and tetrachotomous positions. Perhaps the most common support trichotomy support text is 1 Thessalonians 5:23:

"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Following the same line of interpretive reasoning, Luke 10: 27 (see also Mark 12:30) can just as easily be shown in support of heart, soul, and mind – adding a fourth dimension to man.

"He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Luke 10:27

Similarly, the word "heart" at the end of Hebrews 4:12 adds credence to the tetrachotomy view of man:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

I find it impossible to believe that anyone, after reading the above, could state that the intent of either verse was to display or validate the tripartite nature of man. The reasoning is faulty and the context says otherwise.

Scripture And…

Separately, it is easily argued that trichotomy derives as much or more support from Greek philosophy (Plato) and Oriental spirituality than Scripture. The early church fathers who championed the tripartite view (Irenaeus, Origen, etc..) were heavily influenced by Platonic thought and based many of their arguments (apart from Scripture) on this understanding. More recent champions of the doctrine such as Watchmen Nee rely heavily on Oriental religiosity and "modern" psychology to enhance their arguments.

It’s not the point

The Bible does not describe man scientifically, nor does it provide us with a comprehensive psychological understanding. Attempts to divide man into constituent parts necessarily miss the point – not only of their "proof texts" (both their context and meaning), but also in the broader sense of Scripture itself. Spirituality by no means constitutes the primary point(s) of the Bible! This is not the "Good News" that Jesus came to proclaim, but rather a subplot which is easily elevated to thematic.
To quote Mark W. Balthrop of Heritage Presbyterian Church:

".. the Scriptures are not primarily interested in the constituent parts of man or in his psychological structure, but in the relationships in which he stands."

Put another way:

"We may say without much fear of contradiction that the most striking thing in the Biblical portrayal of man lies in this, that it never asks attention of man in himself, but demands our fullest attention for man in his relation to God."
-- G.C. Berkouwer

But it is important

Charles Hodge, author of Systematic Theology, coined the term "Realistic Dualism" to refer to man’s dichotomous nature. By linking the doctrine to several other key doctrines, Hodge placed immense importance on its rightful understanding:

"It [the doctrine of "Realistic Dualism"] is intimately connected with some of the most important doctrines of the Bible; with the constitution of the person of Christ, and consequently with the nature of his redeeming work and of his relation to the children of men; with the doctrine of the fall, original sin, and of regeneration; and with the doctrines of a future state and of the resurrection. It is because of this connection, and not because of its interest as a question in psychology, that the true idea of man demands the careful investigation of the theologian."

In other words, mess this up, and you open yourself to a host of errors.

It has historically served as an enabler for heresy

According to R R Byrum, "The principal reason for the opposition to Trichotomy was the use made of it to support certain heresies". Chief among these – especially in the early church was Gnosticism. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to dwell on this topic for extended periods without becoming obsessed with secret knowledge (gnosis); a heretical path well traveled.

Each of the following heresies built upon a false trichotomistic view of man:

Gnostics: The spirit, part of the "divine essence" is incapable of sin
Apollinarians: Christ had a human body and soul joined with the divine logos instead of the spirit or the rational part of human nature
Semi-Pelagianism: "Native depravity" affected the soul, but not the spirit

In each case listed above, a trichotomistic anthropologic view served (serves) as an enabler of false doctrine; taking many different shapes in the process. It should also be noted that the trichotomy viewpoint is also closely associated with fringe Pentacostalism / Charismatics and Dispensationalism (ref. Scofield Bible notes, 1 Thess 5:23)

"…trichotomy allows Pentecostals to argue that because the spirit is the higher element of human nature, "speaking in tongues" is the divinely appointed means of bypassing the lower elements of human nature, such as the rationality of mind and soul. In the Pentecostal scheme, we can commune with God directly, without the hindrances of the lower elements of human nature and language. Indeed, in such schemes, we can commune with God directly, apart from any means at all. Trichotomy conveniently provides the means for a host of neo-gnostically inclined Pentecostal practices."
-- Kim Riddlebarger, Trichotomy - A Beachhead For Gnostic Influences

It often sets the material in opposition to the immaterial

Finally, the tripartite view necessarily creates a sharp antithesis between spirit and body; with the former seen as holy and the latter as evil. Matter, as created by God, should not be considered evil - just as it should not be viewed as a “tomb for the soul” which is to be gladly abandoned at death. In direct contrast, Scripture teaches that the elect will be united in a bodily resurrection (Romans 8:23, 1 Corinthians 15:12-57). This sharply contrasts with the common view of a spiritual nature of the resurrection (i.e. spirits floating amongst the clouds playing harps).

Recognizing that there exists a spiritual component of man, Hodge stresses the unity of the material with the immaterial:

"...[Man] according to the Scriptures, is a created spirit in vital union with a material organized body. The relation between these two constituents of our nature is admitted to be mysterious...the relation between the two is a vital union, in such a sense as that the soul is the source of life to the body. When the soul leaves the body the latter ceases to live."

Scripture supports this view through its description of death as the departure of either the soul or spirit (Genesis 35:18, 1 Kings 17:21, Psalm 31:5, Matthew 27:50).

Thus, it is rightful to think of man of consisting of two parts - material and immaterial, physical and non-physical – acting as one. Much in the same way that we are able to speak of the Trinity as three, yet one, we should view the dichotomy of man as one.

Tripartite Teachings

2008-02-16T16:33:00.006-07:00

Last week’s Sunday School (10.Feb.08) had something of a different flavor...instead of the usual video, we were treated to a lecture by one of the elders titled "Division of Soul and Spirit". The main reading was from Hebrews 4:12:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Instead of focusing on the penetrating power of the word of God, the speaker chose to concentrate on the words "dividing soul and spirit". Termed trichotomy or tripartite, this division became the foundation for the remainder of the presentation. Having established his anthropological view of man, the lecture was then divided into two sections: the spiritual realm and the realm of the soul.

Realm of the Soul

As presented on Sunday, the soul is the component of man which is earthly and evil. From my notes, man can expect to find "truths" with a little "t" in the realm of the soul. Such truths are useful, but not to be confused with Christian truths. Examples would include Dr. Phil, The Secret (Rhonda Bryne), and even Joel Olsteen’s "Your Best Life Now". Practical nuggets of wisdom but little else. In addition to these truths, we were introduced to the idea that man’s soul is extremely powerful - yet dormant as a result of Adam’s Fall. This power within us all was termed the "latent power of the soul" after Watchman Nee’s book by the same name (download | approx. 20 pages). Satan is not only aware of this power, he is actively trying to exploit it.

Spiritual Realm

In contrast, the realm of the spirit is where man is to find the Truth; capital "T". The realm of the spirit can be further subdivided into three categories (the three "R’s"):

Relationship: Not formulaic or a series of steps
Renewal: Die to self, let Him work in you. Not self-actualization
Redemption: Not acceptance

These categories serve as a litmus test for truth. If a truth (little "t") that we encounter fails to meet the standard, it should not be considered the Truth. Thus, it is in the spirit that man should strive to live. Only by living in the spirit will we ever find the rest that God promises in Hebrews 4.

The presentation concluded with a feisty question and answer section that prompted the speaker to say "it appears that I’ve opened Pandora’s box!".

"How do we live in the spirit?"
"How do we know when it’s God who is telling us to do something?"
...and on and on it went.

Inaugural Post

2008-02-16T11:04:00.002-07:00

For several months now I've been waiting for a lazy Saturday afternoon in which to create a new blog dedicated to my layman's understanding of Reformed Christian theology. This post marks the beginning of what I hope will become a continuing discussion on various aspects of the Christian faith. I expect the conversation to be far ranging - covering topics such as the teachings of our local church, book reviews, Church direction, and general topical expositions on which I've been ruminating.

To God alone be the glory!