A field report from NYS

This just in from faithful reader and correspondent PFD from NYS:

There was this lady who was married to the president. She ran for the Senate, campaigned on her “track record” and easily won. It was her first elected political office, ever.

Some dirtbag in Illinois, virtually guaranteed a Senate seat, somehow got himself married to an attractive actress, tried to get her to perform in a sex club, she said No and got a divorce. When all this became public, the dirtbag’s unknown opponent became Senator – and who knows? That guy could become president someday.

Some guy, flawed but not a total dirtbag, in New York had family problems. He was a Congressman. There were domestic disturbances in his house; 911 was called; the police responded. When this was all anybody could talk about, it became the issue – whatever “it” is – it sure sounded like he was beating up his wife. A woman challenged him for his seat. We don’t know what she stood for, but as she’s a woman, so she’s probably against husbands beating up their wives. Let’s vote for her. And if it turns out that the Congressman was the one calling 911 because his wife is violent and dangerous, well, either way he has family problems and shouldn’t be in Washington, right?

There was this other guy in New York – this one was the governor – we’re back to dirtbags. The lieutenant governor became governor. And the guy who could become president someday became president, and he picked that New York senator, the one who was married to the president, to be on his cabinet. So the lieutenant governor–turned–governor appointed the presumably anti–wife beating congresswoman to be replace her in the Senate.

And that is how we find the people to run the country

Flacking for Challies

In spite of his mother's fears that I hate him, I have received Challies new book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, as a promo copy, and I'm on the bandwagon.

Look for a full-scale review here, and on Jan 16, Tim and I will have a little blog chat at TeamPyro about his book as part of his "blog tour".

BOC-Talking to Atheists, Part 2

Part 2 of Cent addressing atheists takes us back to May of this year, just as the big debate with Brian Flemming was wrapping up. If you didn't read it "live," it is worth your time to head over to the Debate Blog and have a look.

OK: before I bore you all to tears with addenda to the last exchange on DBlog, I have one last thing I want to talk about and then we can get back to more important stuff – like making fun of other Christians and antagonizing bloggers with more traffic than this site.

Brian Flemming said this:

I should mention that the above essay merely skims some conclusions that I have reached in my own research. This essay is by no means a comprehensive representation of the mythicist case, nor is The God Who Wasn't There, which is merely an introduction to the case. Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and others (none of whom I speak for here) have made the case and various facets of it more comprehensively and far better than I can. I would encourage readers of the DebateBlog to experience these works directly, especially if you fear them.

The underlined part there is what grabs my attention.

See: when a Christian expresses the Gospel, there is no doubt that part of the message is about something scary. After all, we’re talking about a savior, right? And a savior is not someone who saves us from ice cream or from endearing friendship, is it? No: if we are talking about a savior, he must be saving us from something bad. The definition of “savior” is “one that saves from danger or destruction”; if we want a savior, or need a savior, or are talking about a savior, we are talking about something else dangerous that, frankly, we should have some kind of apprehension over.

In order to deliver the Gospel, we have to deliver the bad news, the danger that all men are facing without Christ. And part of that news is that Christ himself is coming back as the judge of all men. So the choice we are offering is that there is danger, that Christ can deliver you from the danger, but that if you reject His help He will be the judge who makes sure that you do not escape the danger – the punishment of your sin.

So in one way, we are saying, “You should fear this person Jesus – let me tell you about him.”

But in what way should I fear Doherty, Price, Carrier, or any of Flemming’s experts? Let me admit that I think Earl Doherty is a scary guy, but not in a way that makes me want to give him a bigger slot in my PDA’s calendar. In the best possible case for Flemming and his war on Easter, these fellows offer a truth which is a hollow victory for rationalism.

What do I mean by that? I mean that even if their case is not like trying to carry a pound of boiled angel hair pasta on a KFC spork, and that in fact they can prove that there’s no Jesus, they offer nothing to compete with the positive implications in faith in Christ.

For example, Brian was obliging enough to offer this in his last answer to me at the DebateBlog:

Growing up Christian and attending Christian schools, I heard about Jesus a lot. No doubt some of the values I hold I first learned from Jesus, if only by default.

So, what in Christianity has been "beneficial or worthwhile" to me? I guess it would be those things that I grabbed from between the nasty bits and made part of my own value system.

Now: that is a huge concession by any atheist. I’ll go on-record to say that I have never heard any atheist make that kind of concession while in a debate over the existence of God or Jesus.

But it is large enough that it leaves the door wide open to asking: so how will atheism fill that gap after the abolition of Jesus?

If atheism offers nothing to those who cannot self-actualize, it also offers nothing regarding a sustaining moral direction -- not because atheists today are bad people who have vicious ideas of right and wrong, but because the way they learned about right and wrong is the very thing they are attacking.

The source of western values is Christian philosophy; the way those values have been taught for millennia has been Christ and the Bible. If we count those things as the great evil lie which Eusebius and his ilk fabricated out of the hodge-podge of legends started by disgruntled Jews who wanted to be more like the pagans around them, the methods of instilling moral behavior in the next generation are gone.

Unless Brian knows something that no other atheist has been able to explain in the last 150 years. You see: you can’t throw out the Jesus but keep his wardrobe and expect to wear it as if it has always been yours. It doesn’t fit you, and everyone can spot a kid in hand-me-downs from a mile away. And nobody I know is afraid of a kid who’s wearing second-hand shoes.

BOC-Talking to Atheists, Part 1

A BOC first: the debut of an exchange that took place in the comment section on another blog back in April, during the whole War on Easter thing...[Note: I've added hyperlinks where I thought they would add context.]

Well -- lookie here! It seems that some people have been reading the debate blog!

One of the things I have found interesting in this exchange with Brian is that he paints with the broadest possible brush and then expects the reader to accept the broad strokes as actually filling in the blanks.

Let's take the current 2 questions, for example {1, 2}. On the one hand, the history of literature is filled to the brim with people who have copied other sources to create their work. A great example of this is English Renaissance poetry, which takes gigantic cues and even lifts whole passages canto by canto from Italian renaissance poetry. In that case, there is a clear genetic relationship between the English Renaissance and the Italian renaissance, and one has to be somewhat of a spectacular bone-head not to be able to see it.

But in that particular case, we have two things in evidence: one set of writings with a particular subject matter, theme, and aesthetic philosophy, and a subsequent set of works which are a radical departure from the language's previous aesthetic trajectory which now leaps off in the direction of the influencing body of work.

What I have asked Brian for -- and what he cannot provide, because it doesn't exist -- is the sources which produced the NT works in the way he has suggested.

What Brian does say is that Jesus is like Mithra, and Jesus is (apparently) like Zeus, etc. That's fine as a summary or as a thesis statement, but it's not actually an argument. An argument would look something like this:

In Ovid's Metamorphosis, 2.299, Zeus ends one kind of argument with a demonstration of his power; this section of Metamorphosis was clearly influental in the composition of Mt where Jesus drives out the demon which keeps a man blind and mute. So Ovid is clearly a source for the NT.

And so on. The problem is that while Brian may be relying on, um, scholars who assert that there is a logical genetic relationship between Jesus and all the ancient mythic heroes, none of these scholars demonstrate the particulars of the alleged genetic relationship.

What almost all of them do -- especially those who have been carrying on this idea in the last 20 years -- is depend on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces as a premise for their conclusions. The problem is that Campbell doesn't do the footwork either. Campbell's work on the subject of heroic literature is interesting in that it demonstrates the broad themes of human literature over the span of millenia, but it fails to note how -- if at all -- any of these stories influenced each other.

And that, by the way, is supposed to be Brian's point: heroic stories from the beginning of human history influenced each other all the way up through about 30 AD when the cult of Jesus sprung up, and then about 30-40 years later the cult started producing literature like other cults did.

Yet, problematically, the literature which previous cults produced were in radically different genres; they were based on radically different aesthetic philosophies; they attempted to convey truth by a different measure. And in the end, even if all of that is not enough to demonstrate that the NT is nothing like these works, there is the problem that you cannot find a single passage of the NT which is influenced by any cultice literature before it -- unless you admit that it looks suspiciously like the OT.

And when you make that admission, you have frankly lost the argument that Jesus looks like Mithra, and Osiris, and Orpheus, and Perseus. Why? Because Jesus actually looks like Joseph, and Moses, and Joshua, and David, etc. because there is where the actual logical genetic relationship lies.

Let me close up here with this: I suppose it is possible that the NT is actually a literary smoothie which has all of the near-eastern religious berries and fruits mixed together with Paul's secret fizzie ingredient. However, such a thing itself is simply not repeated anywhere in the history of literature. The hand-off from one generation to the next in cultural literature is, critically speaking, a much cleaner ordeal. When one source influences a later source, the influence can be demonstrated by comparing passages and reviewing the similarities.

All I have asked of Brian is to produce the influencers of the NT -- the texts, the original sources even in translation. If anyone wants to reject jesus as a historical figure on the basis of vague assertions, you are welcome to do it. Please do not pretend, however, that you have decided anything based on evidence.

centuri0n

-Frank

You keep saying "genetic" this and "genetic relationship" that, but I think the word you're actually going for would be memetic. You should look it up.

It also seems like you've never heard of folklore...

RO'H

RO'H:

ah, the love of the dictionary! Actually, I do mean "genetic", but there are a couple of words that you might in fact be thinking of that may be confusing you.

The first is "memetic", which has to do with Richard Dawkins' ideas on the transmission of data inside a culture. While that set of theories might have some relationship to this discussion, they are not included in the argument Brian has provided so far.

The next is "mimetic", which of course means imitative, or related to mimicry. And I can se why this may be what you think this is the case in Brian's argument. Unfortunately, it is not what I mean.

I have used the word "genetic" in its most-obvious etymological sense: "relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something". It's the first definition for the word at m-w.com.

See: Brian's theory is that the NT's origin is not the life of a man named Jesus, but with some sort of syncretic interaction between the culture of Palestine around 30 AD and the pre-existing religious stories of Attis, Mithra, Osiris and so on.

In the Christian account, the genetic origin of the NT looks like this:

JESUS -> WITNESSES -> NEW TESTAMENT

In Brian's account, it looks like this:

Cult -
Other Cults --- Jesus Cult -> N.T.
Stories-/

To which I say, "That's interesting: we would agree that there were other cults in the last century BC and the first century AD; we would agree that they had some form of literary expression. Let's compare them to the N.T. and see where they overlap in order to demonstrate your point."

What is puzzling is that I gave a clear example of how this would work vis. renaissance literature (I'll bet you didn't know my MA was in Literature in English, did you?), and still the question -- and so far, it is only a question, expanded here due to the many cries of foul -- is sniffed at as if I was asking for the autographs of the religious literature you claim exists.

I would think that scientific folk like you-all would relish the chance to demonstrate causation. And that's all I'm asking for: demonstrate causation. The genetic source of the N.T. ought to pretty easily turn up if it was in the religous literature of the previous 400 years.

centuri0n

There are many ancient texts that have been unearth over the last 50 years or so, that prove over and over again, that when different cultures intermingled they influence one another. To assume that.. maybe so, but not mine... is childish, silly thinking. Christianity evolved out of the Jewish religion and yet the majority of its followers are not. If that doesnt set bells off for you, check my link to the comparisons between Buddhist texts and the NT. And Buddhism is way older than christianity by a long shot.

say no to christ

Say No:

The question is not whether "cultures" have broadly "influenced" each other in the history of the world. The question is whether the Jewish expectation of a Messiah, based on the prophecies in Daniel in particular, were subverted by (as Brian has pointed out) stories of Mithra and Attis (or others, or all of the others) to create this literary Jesus in the N.T.

It would be quite stupid to assert that the occupation by Rome of Jerusalem had no cultural effect on the Jews. For example, the means and method of commerce changed under Roman law; the political evironment of Palestine changed in large part for the better as it was more stable; many Jews became Roman citizens and liberalized their religious practices. Denying any of that would be simple ignorance.

But whether I deny or affirm any of that, none of it is evident in Brian's argument. The argument which Brian asserts is, in effect, that all cultures had an equal influence on the Jews of Palestine within 100 years of 30 AD, and all that influence simply created this cult of Messiah, and after about 30 years this cult produced a body of literature influenced by all the predecessors in religious lit of the day, which we now receive (in part) as the NT.

Listen: it all sounds pretty good until you think about how broad a statement it is to say that all the previous religious heroes of the near east influenced the origin of Jesus. In the best possible case, it is so broad that it is undemonstrable -- the claim is too broad to have any particular evidence. But even if it is not too broad, it simply doesn't bother to provide any evidence at all.

However, you can prove me wrong: you can list one particular work Brian or his list of expert witnesses have produced and compared to any part of the NT in order to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. One.

After that, you may be as silly or as childish (your words) as you like.

centuri0n

Where God Is

Over the weekend, I had this brilliant idea. See, the kids need new pajamas, and I'm not about to pay $19.99 a pop so they can sleep with Dora or Sponge Bob - so I had to come up with something more reasonable. Enter the brilliant idea...

Make them myself.

So, that's what I did. For the girls, the tops are Giant Tiger (Canadian and much smaller version of WalMart) brightly colored, plain t-shirts at $2.97 each, with .10 appliques from the dollar store (daisies, butterflies & other girlie stuff) strategically placed on the front. The jammie pants are created from fleece throws at $2.97 each.

Total cost for new jammies for 1 kid = $7.00

They're cute, they like them, and I saved a load of money on each pair. So what does that have to do with where God is? Everything, and I'll explain why.

Yesterday in church we had a guest preacher speak about Jonah and how Jonah wasn't all too thrilled with God's sovereignty in salvation. It was an excellent message that everyone here should have heard. Jonah didn't want God to be merciful to the Ninevites, he wanted Him to smote them off the face of the planet.

Also at church yesterday was a guest musician (who is nothing short of amazing on the acoustic guitar) that had a challenge of sorts for us when we pray about where God would have us be. He suggested that when we pray, that instead of asking God to bless our ministry (which is a perfectly acceptable way to pray), that we might ask God to lead us into where He wants us to be, and be ready, willing and able to go where He leads. I've heard this message before - asking the Lord to lead us into where He is, rather than asking Him to bless us where we are. It's a good message and something I think we should all seriously consider on a regular basis.

How that all fits together with dollar store & Giant Tiger jammies is pretty simple. In honor (sort of) of Frank's disdain for "this is where I am right now" posts, this is where I am right now. At my sewing machine. And my kitchen, and my laundry room. I'm at home with my kids, persuing the opportunity to be the best stay at home mom I can be, and seeking His guidance and wisdom every step of the way. But this isn't where I was headed at one time.

Before I had kids and even after I had kids, being a stay at home mom wasn't my goal. Ironically when I think back on it now, I realize that my children's best interests weren't even my goal. I had huge plans, and going back to school to study in criminology was one of them. Twice I enrolled at community college for my 2 year degree - both times with the plan of eventually heading to Quantico and working in the best forensics lab in the world. Quincy MD was a role model growing up, and I was fascinated with forensic pathology. So that's where I was going.

WRONG

The Lord clearly had other plans for me even though I was a thick as a brick and didn't catch on right away. Both times I enrolled in school, those plans were wiped out. Both times I was upset and didn't understand why it didn't work out for me. Eventually I came to understand that as a mother, my top priorities were right there in my own house, and I didn't need to go to school anywhere to invest my attention in the right place. Someone once jokingly said that the Lord gave me a whole houseful of my own little criminals for me to study and investigate.

I know it might sound odd that as a mother I didn't put my kids first. The thing is, I didn't realize that I wasn't putting them first. I had the mistaken notion (read: subliminal feministic type brainwashing) that my fancy-dan career would afford them better opportunities, etc. so forth and so on. In other words, I had convinced myself that if I could justify taking time away from them and investing it elsewhere, that eventually it would be good for them. Um... no. Any time a mom takes her time away from her little ones, she cannot get it back. Ever. Time gone, moments lost, period. That's never good for them, and never good for mom. Ever.

The day it hit me was like a ray of sunlight accompanied by choruses of angelic alleluias. Or maybe it was like a rap on the forehead and hearing "hello, McFly?". I'm not sure. All my plans were washed away and my top priorities (my kids) were standing right in front of me. It was so simple it brought me to tears that I hadn't understood it sooner. God gave me (and Kev of course) all these kids and also gave me a few gifts and talents to be able to take care of them. That, is where I was supposed to be.

So when I heard the messages yesterday about seeking God's guidance to be where He is, or go where He is - and Jonah's resistance to being and going where God wanted him to go - it was a personal message to me. I had lived that way (in rebellion) for a while and I can tell you it's no fun. Even as a believer, I wasn't "getting" that I needed to be where God wanted me to be. It took Him literally closing doors left and right, before I finally understood it. It was unpleasant, frustrating, upsetting and quite simply a miserable way to live. I continually asked God to bless me where I was going, without ever once asking Him to lead me where He wanted me to be.

That was many years ago. Things have changed a lot since then, and even though the message was one I needed to hear way back then, it was a good reminder for me yesterday. There is a world of difference in asking Him to bless you where you want to go, and asking Him to direct you to where He wants you to be.

The latter is much better, trust me.

Oh, and that musician I mentioned? His name is Jay Calder, and I had the chance to speak with him a little bit after church. I got the impression that he is somewhat "emerging-ish", but I could be wrong. He was quite friendly and it was a pleasant conversation. In any event, God has blessed him in ridiculously astounding ways, musically. You can visit his site here, and even listen to his music. If you like acoustic guitar like I do, you'll love this guy. Watching him play was an added bonus, but listen to his clips anyway. Apply all doctrinal disclaimers & stuff as needed. If needed, I don't really know where he is doctrinally.

Have a great week. :o)

Peace with the Devil

With the recent Ted Haggard revelations, I thought this would be an appropriate post to resurrect from the archives. I originally wrote this after a local pastor resigned when his two-year affair was uncovered by his sons. This was the post that got me into blogging in the first place. I hope it proves a blessing.

***

On October 3, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood before the House of Commons and attempted a defense of his abandonment of Czechoslovakia to the German Reich. Three days previously, Chamberlain had returned from Munich with his now-infamous assurance of "peace for our time." By this he meant that Britain and France would not interfere with the German annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, a move that stripped Czechoslovakia of her strongest defenses and a large portion of her industrial capacity.

As Chamberlain stood before the House on that October Monday, enduring cries of "Shame!" from the Honorable Members, he argued that "the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past." Five months later, Germany, along with Poland and Hungary, divided up the remnants of Czechoslovakia, annihilating a model democracy and staunch ally of the Western powers. Less than six months later, Europe plunged headlong into the cauldron of the Second World War.

The morally bankrupt diplomacy of appeasement was largely responsible for World War II. A just peace was whittled away a sliver at a time, until the pitiful remnant of "peace" was too small to prevent the blade from slipping into bloodshed. Small steps, tiny accomodations, incremental acceptance. So begin wars. So begin adulteries. So begin every evil known to man.

No nation transitions instantly from peace to war, and no Christian transitions instantly from holiness to impurity. For instance, when a church reels from the scandal of an adulterous pastor, you can be sure that spiritual appeasement is responsible. When a root of bitterness sprang up, it was allowed to push roots deeply into the soil and leach vitality from the soul (Heb. 12:15). When circumstances pressured a weak conscience, they were allowed to press the conscience to the side (1 Cor. 8:7). When the right action was apparent, it was replaced with inaction (Jas. 4:17).

Step by step, a mosaic of sin began to form. Rather than declaring war on sin, the pastor sued for peace. After all, the wandering imagination is only natural. The flattery of attention is powerful, but not deadly as long as you know it's happening. Implementing God's commands are time-consuming, and there will be more time tomorrow (or the day after). Gradually, tiny acres of the soul were ceded to Satan with the understanding that this would be the final allowance. The pastor willfully ignored the fact that the Devil is a predatory dictator who will be satisfied with nothing less than total control of both body and soul. But Satan is also a wily diplomat; like Hitler, he will agree to partial control, knowing that a foothold today is a firm grip tomorrow. And when the dreadful morning dawns, when the depth and the horror of secret adultery breaks into the punishing light of day, the only sound greater than the weeping of God's people is the laughter of the Devil.

Do not be deceived; peace for our time is a lie. As long as the Curse works its deadly way through our bodies and minds, we must declare unending war on sin (Gal. 5:17). Give no quarter, take no prisoners, accept no truce. Make no provision for the flesh (Rom. 13:14). The command is clear, and the choice is equally clear. If we accept the peaceful coexistence of sin, we will soon live in the lashing service of sin.

A Girly Girl's Thoughts

It's not as if the Christian blogosphere needs another post about Ted Haggard, you know? It doesn't take a genius to see that if you look at Phil's post about this over at TeamPyro, you'll find that every Christian blogger and his crazy uncle Guido has written on it and linked to Phil's post to boot. Adding to that would only be bandwagonish, so I wont do that. This really isn't so much about Ted Haggard anyway, it's more about Mrs. Haggard, and the Haggard children. More than that, it's about me, and my children. Even more specifically it's really about Christian wives and mothers, and their children. Okay, it's about all of those things rolled into one.

Kev (and for those of you that don't know, that's my husband - and he doesn't have a crazy uncle Guido, but he does have a crazy uncle Jerry, which has nothing to do with anything) and I have discussed this issue in the news over the past several days, as I'm sure many other married evangelicals have done with their spouses. There are so many angles and areas involved in this, that hits right at the heart of any Christian church & family. In some ways, we can't help but relate to what the Haggard family is going through right now.

When I first heard about this last week, after my initial lack of surprise (which actually bothers me, I want to be surprised when a leader in the Christian community is at the center of a public scandal), my next thought was Mrs. Haggard, and the Haggard children. As a wife and a mother of a professing Christian man, I immediately empathized with her. How could I not?

However, if the truth be told I did think of the things here and there in my own marraige that could stand some improvements (if we're all honest, we'd all admit there are things like that) and had the most arrogant thought as I think I was trying to make myself feel better about the severity of the issues I have in my own life:

Well, at least my husband didn't sleep with a gay meth dealer.

How dare I think such a putrid self-righteous thought? As quickly as the thought crossed my mind, I felt like a haughty slob, and new thoughts took its place. That might not be an issue in my own marraige but there are plenty of others to keep me occupied in prayer. Like self-centeredness, lack of obedience, temper-control issues, laziness, procrastination. And those are just my own issues that I have hard time with.

I know there are all kinds of books out there that tell men what women think & how we feel, but I suspect most men don't bother to read them. I probably wouldn't, if I were a man. Not because I wouldn't care, but more because as a woman when I've read them, I get this sick feeling in my gut that as I read I find all sorts of things that are supposed to be "wrong" with the way things are and how should desire to improve in this area or that area. I actually feel worse about my situtation after reading, than I did before reading. Even if it's an area that there really isn't anything wrong with! So... I could be dead wrong here, but I assume most men don't beat down the door to the bookstore when the latest "what women think" book comes out, for the simple reason that it's unpleasant. Like a visit to the dentist, when he's having a bad day.

For that reason I want to sum it all up in one simple sentence. I wont sell any books with this, but here's the truth all the same:

WE NEED YOU

There it is. Women need men. We were designed by God to need men, and we do.

As little girls we need good and godly men to raise us the right way. If we don't have that, we suffer greatly.

As young women we need good and godly men in our lives (pastors, elders, youth group leaders, dads, friends of the family, etc.) to help us navigate through the miserable puberty years and help us focus on Biblical goals for our lives.

When we marry, we make a vow before God and men that this man is going to be our husband for the rest of our lives. When we say "husband", we mean best friend, lover, team-mate, confidant, companion, study partner and all sorts of other things. Somewhere in the deepest part of our hearts, we know that we've become one flesh and we want it that way even if he does leave the cap off the toothpaste or never picks up his dirty socks. If we lose him, it's like losing a part of our own physical body because we do become one with him.

We expect to be able to count on him to keep his word, to trust him to keep our secrets, to protect us (and oh boy do we ever need it!), help us, hug us, teach us, laugh with us, cry with us, pray with us, pray for us, fix things that are broken, and listen when we spill our own hearts. We rely on this husband person in so many ways like we rely on our own two feet, or our own hands. He is part of us, and these things have to work in conjuction one with another or things go all wonky. We don't like wonky, it throws our schedules completely off balance.

Naturally then, when I read about the Haggard scandal, my thoughts went to Mrs. Haggard. I don't know that she'd agree with me 100% about what a husband means to a wife, but I suspect if she had the chance to read what I just wrote, she might be nodding in affirmation more than she'd disagree.

Her trust was violated and she was betrayed by the one person in the world that is never supposed to betray you; your other half. Along with that, comes the devastating reality that this same person also betrayed his own children and made himself out to be a hypocrite in their eyes. I don't say this with any kind of malice or snarkiness, I'm only stating the unpleasant truth.

When a woman's children are hurt, she is hurt. When she's already hurting herself, it's a doubly painful reality that only the supernatural grace and mercy of God can soothe. That mercy is the only thing that will prevent her from reacting in the flesh and being angry, seeking revenge, losing her temper, and having irrational thoughts of self-blame.

I thought of all of these things and discussed them with Kev, after we'd initially heard this news break, and the subsequent updates. Every armchair theologian blogger has a thought on this (and many of them I'm sure are excellent God glorifying thoughts), this week. More than anything else though my only thought now is what this woman and her children need. They need the same thing they needed all along, good and godly men (and women) to be there for them in prayer, to help them sort all these things out and to direct them to the foot of the cross. Obviously Ted Haggard needs the same thing but to be truthful, my heart tends to go out to the blameless in situations like this, more than the one who caused the pain to begin with.

So, just a suggestion but as you read more and more about this topic in the days to come, you might ask yourself if there is something you can do about it, rather than just read, discuss and write about it yourself. There IS something you can do, and that's lift these folks up in prayer, that God's wisdom, guidance, comfort and assurance will be theirs in abundance, in the next few weeks and months as they all adjust to the bombshell dropped in their laps over the last few days.

I honestly cannot dare to imagine what I would do/think/feel as a wife of a professing Christian, were this to be my own life situation.

Mrs. Haggard has shared a few thoughts in her open letter to her church this past Sunday, and if you read it carefully, you can see that she's a wounded woman desiring to have the right attitude and do the right thing. You can read this letter at Justin Taylor's blog, here.

BOC-Faith & Works

It's double-play Wednesday, so we're featuring two posts. First, a full meal on the right relationship of faith and works, followed by the shortest reconcilation of Paul & James I've ever seen...

The main course...
So I'm thinking about this short series since last night, and I realize that some people might read this and call it another in series of merciless beatings regarding purity of doctrine. Let me tell you that I do not intend this to be a "merciless beating".

The last bit of background or foreground or pallet or whatever you want to call my qualifications of this series about U2's last CD and the Banty Rooster's review of said CD (this is still about that 2-part review) is that I reject using the name of Christ and His church for ungodly ends. If I wanted to translate that down into something more application-oriented, it pretty well makes me sick when someone tries to leverage the good conscience of a disciple of Christ to achieve something that is not glorifying to Christ.

Some of you have read the article in CT from the "condiment" entry in this series, and you are prolly asking yourselves, "Cent: crackhead. Is eliminating AIDS in Africa actually not glorifying to God? What about eliminating poverty? Have you gone mad?"

Here's what I think about that: Jesus doesn't call us to eliminate poverty, but to minister to the poor. In that, ministering to the poor starts with delivering the Gospel ministry. To hand our loaves and fishes but not to hand out the Bread of Life sermon is metaphysically criminal. If you have also read Doug Wilson's blog that I linked to today, you'll see the fleshing out of that argument in a way which I can agree with.

Jesus also doesn't just call on us to heal the sick, but to preach the Gospel in order to reap the Kingdom, which is to say the Resurrection. Somebody is bound to try to take my head off over that statement, arguing that I am disjoining the incarnation or making the hope of the Gospel purely future and Aristotelian. Well, I doubt it. Those who are allegedly antisectarian but will call anyone with a cross earring a "Christian" are doing far worse when you think that the ministry to physical needs takes priority over the Gospel ministry.

Now go ahead: cite James 1 & 2 on me. You know what I'm taking about:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Which is to say, "Cent, if we are preaching them the Gospel but not meeting their need out of our surplus, we are frankly dead men walking." Yes, I agree -- but this actually makes a better point than the objector thinks.

In what way? Because James never bothers to tell us what he thinks about works apart from faith! If someone is doing "good works" but can't bring himself to say "in the name of Jesus Christ" as a matter of qualification and a matter of adoration, then this person has no faith and is merely trying to live up to the Law.

It is not at all either/or. I would submit that it is wrong to spout propositions in hopes that they will do some spiritual or earthly good without also ministering to the person, but it is equally wrong to set up a soup kitchen or a hospital or whatever and not include the Gospel as part of the ministry -- it simply stops being a ministry and turns into a bureaucracy.

My point, really, is to underscore one important fact of the matter here: I'm in no position to judge the state of Bono's soul. I can't see that well. My glasses don't have the Spiritu Sanctu polarized lenses. So in that, I can't tell you if Bono is saved or not.

Whatever conclusions I draw in the final part of this series, (like nobody can see what's coming in this series, right?) I am not consigning Bono to Hell: I am trying to underscore the point that his rhetoric and his poses are a ploy to achieve a political end and not a statement of faith. The reason to make this point is simple: the conscience of the church should not be played for the sake of politics. And in that, it raises questions that the Banty Rooster's review of U2's last CD doesn't answer.

The question you readers should ask yourselves is if, after Cent finished deconstructing Bono and TBR, he will apply the same level of disinterest to those with whom he shares some political affinity.

See: THAT's gotta hurt.



and for dessert...

"Even so faith, if it hath not propositions, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have propositions: shew me thy faith without thy propositions, and I will shew thee my faith by my propositions." Some might argue that this restatement is leaning in the opposite direction from James' expressed concerns. So it is, which does not make it false or unnecessary -- Paul did it too. Paul and James were in full fellowship, both their concerns were legitimate, and they extended the right hand to one another. They did this, and what they both wrote is in the Scriptures because sinful men constantly want to veer off in one direction or the other. Paul opposed dead works, and James opposed dead faith. What they shared was their hostility to death.

HT: Doug Wilson.

It starts with a clean heart

(This is actually a cross-post, and I hope no one minds but it's what I'm about today...)

As reformation day is upon us, you and I are going to read a lot of personal reflections in the next few days about what this day actually means to various people. To some people it means quite a bit, as it marks a truly significant day in the history of the Christian church. To other people, it means very little and they might even try to tell you it means nothing, since it has no importance in their own lives or their own understanding of history.

Some say the reformation was a failure - as it didn't reform the church in Rome.

Some say we need a new reformation - as the modern church is corrupt in numerous ways.

Some just don't care one way or another and couldn't tell you anything about the events that led up to, or that were significant about the reformation at all.

It occured to me recently, what might happen if we did have another reformation, in our day? What would be the outcome, if a young man nailed a list of 95 things dreadfully wrong with the evangelical church, to a local church door? More than likely, he'd be derided by the ecumenical crowd for pointing out those 95 things and laughed at by mega-church enthusiasts. I wonder who would really pay attention to his list of 95? Would it really matter? Would it have any kind of impact on this generation of believers, or the next generation? Would believers still be writing about the reformation of 2006, in the year 2506?

As for me personally, I'd love to see another reformation. A real one, where honorable men of God stand up for what is right and true, and reject what is ungodly and unprofitable. One where men and women would find the boldness and courage in Christ to speak up and speak out for the truth of God's word, without any matter of watering down, compromise or blending of unBiblical philosophies or practices. I'd dearly love to see that on a broad scale - all across Canada, the US, England, Europe... the world.

Recently Steve Camp posted at his blog an exhortation for believers to make this year's Reformation Day a day of fasting and prayer for reformation, repentance and revival for His church in every nation . Toward that end, brother Steve has been posting articles with this theme, that you might find a great encouragement:

• - Everybody Wants Reformation...but who is willing to let goods and kindred go?
• - The Burden for Reformation and Revival Prayer, Contrition, and Confession
• - The Foundation of Reformation and Revival... a right view of the Lord Jesus Christ
• - The Passion of Reformation: Our Great Salvation chosen by God; sanctified by the Spirit; redeemed by the Son
• - Truth Necessary for Reformation/Revival...recovering the sufficiency and authority of Sola Scriptura
• - The Barrier to Reformation and Revival...cherishing iniquity in our hearts
• - The Heart of the Reformation: the Doctrines of Grace our joy, hope and confidence - salvation is of the Lord!

I would greatly encourage you to read these posts, and let them bless (and convict) your heart.

The more I thought about praying for another reformation, the more I wondered what that would really look like? While it's easy to say "we need another reformation", it's a completely different matter to find yourself on your knees earnestly petitioning our Heavenly Father for it in our homes, churches, cities and countries. If you're going to pray for genuine reformation, repentance and revival, then I believe that's exactly how it should start. If you might be wondering what to pray for and who to pray for, here are some suggestions: (warning - this may change your prayer life!)

Yourself

How are things going in your own life? Is your attitude in check, your faith doing okay? Are you praying daily that He might use you as a vessel of grace to minister to the needs of others?

Your spouse

If you're the husband, seeking God's wisdom and guidance in the leadership in your home, is always a good place to begin. Making it a matter of prayer to be attentive to your wife and children, setting the example for them through various means such as family devotions, and regular family prayer, is always a good thing to pray for as you lead in your home.

If you're the wife, have you given much recent thought to the Biblical mandate of submission? How are you doing in that area? Are you making a good and comfortable, Godly and encouraging home for your husband? Are you being the kind of wife that you know He's called you to be according to His word? Are you praying for your husband every day?

Your children & extended family

How is your example to your children, your siblings, your parents? For your children, you are in direct authority over them, and in that authority bears a great responsibility to raise them up according to His word, and set the example for them to follow after as they grow up. Parents must take this responsibility seriously, and make it a matter of prayer ever day. Likewise with your extended family - are you taking every opportunity He affords you to minister His grace to them?

Your Christian friends and aquaintances

How are your friends doing? Do you know? Are you praying for them? Is there something you could be doing in addition to prayer that might bless them in some way? Is someone sick, in a difficult relationship, or in some other kind of unpleasant situation?

Your pastor & church leaders

Your pastor bears a great responsibility to equip you and solidly ground you in the word of God. Are you praying for him, and the other leaders in your church that they might be blessed with wisdom as they lead and teach?

Your congregation

You worship and sing praises to the Lord every week with these people. Do you really know them? Who is suffering? Who just had a baby and really needs help? Who among them is weak and needs ministering to right now? Would it bless someone's heart to get a card from you this week, or a phone call just to let them know you're praying for them and thinking of them? How can you better serve, in your local church?

Your church's associations & fellowships

Most churches are connected in some way with other churches, or fellowships. Is everything going well there among these fellowships & associations? If yes, then praise God! Pray that He might be pleased to continue to be gracious this way, and open more doors for the gospel's sake. If no, then pray for those areas where things aren't going so well, that He might be pleased to grant wisdom and understanding.

Other Christian churches & outreach ministries in your city

Remember these churches and ministries as well as your own. God's people come from various backgrounds and churches, and it's quite likely the family of believers in the church down the street from yours, has many of the very same needs that your own church has.

Church planting ministries

Lifting these men and women up in prayer is crucial. As a people of faith we depend on one another to remember us this way - and a church planting ministry is a much needed resource in our day. You might want to remember to pray that God's blessing be on these people as they stand firm on His word and minister to their communities and congregations.

International ministries (radio, web, direct mail, apologists, writers, lecturers, etc)

In the high-tech age we live in, almost all of us are blessed by these people, in some way. Keeping these people in prayer and thanking the Lord for their ministries is something that we shouldn't forget to do.

Missionaries

You probably already pray for your own church's missionaries (I hope), but what about the missionaries in my church, or the church across town? How about the missionary families? In many cases this is very dangerous work, and quite often these men and women literally put their lives in jeopardy to take the gospel to those that have not yet heard of Christ. Praying for their safety and their assurance is something we should all be doing.

Civil leaders

In almost every form of government throughout the world, there are ungodly men and women in leadership. As people of God we are called to pray for these people, so this is something we shouldn't ever neglect to do.

While this is obviously not an exhaustive list, or any kind of all encompasing treatment on how to pray for certain people, I do hope that it gives you some ideas on who to pray for, and why. Someone once said that genuine revival starts with one person on their knees. I believe that to be true, as it will bring about reformation in your own life, and will be an edifying thing to those around you.

May we see another genuine reformation in our time, one prayer at a time.

Fellowship Obstacle #1

Having trouble being teachable? Here are some tips!

Tip #1: God gave you two ears, and only one mouth. Do the math.

Tip #2: Remember, it isn't the messenger, it is the message (Recall Balaam's Donkey?)

Tip #3: If at first you don't agree, don't assume it is because they simply don't understand your point.

Tip #4: Remember that God didn't always instruct Moses face to face - sometimes he used people too.

Tip #5: The biggest hindrance to your spiritual education is going to be your own ego.

Follow these five tips, and you will find yourself suddenly able to take instruction from any of God's saints. We are called to edify one another, and to receive the same from each other - this works best when self is on the cross.

Have a nice day - and spend some time today in prayer for this coming Lord's day!

BOC-Political Activism and the Gospel

I was highly tempted to post something on DW, but since we're in the height of the political season, I opted for this instead.

A reasoned view of how politics and the Gospel should play out on the weekdays, with a dose of "what about church discipline" thrown in for good measure.

From Aug '05...

P.S. The original subject line was THE NEEDLE IN HAYS' TACK


Ok -- ok. The subject line is hokey. Steve Hays has been bristling about ECBs and their usefulness in Kuyperian political philosophy, and I just posted 6-pages on his blog in response to his latest salvo. Personally, I respect Steve and think the world of him -- but we don't agree on this one.


Here's the text:
=========================




Great questions. I have a free moment before my day is over here at work and I drive 6 hours to my in-laws for the weekend. Thanks to Steve for thinking about this with me, even if we cannot come to agreement about the matter.

| 1.I’m all for godly church discipline, but just
| what, exactly, do the critics of ECB have in
| mind? Say that 30% of Southern Baptists are
| divorcees. How does church discipline apply
| retroactively? Should they all be
| excommunicated?
|
| I pose this as a serious question. What
| concrete proposals do the critics of ECB
| have to offer? What tough-minded measures
| do they recommend to curb moral laxity in
| the church?

Since this is a pragmatic question, it deserves a pragmatic answer: start anywhere. This is not a matter of high theology. The problem is not that we have “lax” church discipline: it is that there is no church discipline to speak of. The handful of churches that attempt such a thing have no hope of enforcing it because the offenders will simply find a church that doesn’t care.

The answer to the question is “start anywhere”. FWIW, I don’t think excommunicating all divorced people in the SBC would be a very effective first volley – because it is indiscriminate and it is also the wrong message. It says, “We didn’t bother to try to help you have a decent marriage, and we didn’t try to help you heal your marriage, so we’re going to punish you by throwing you out of church.”

How about we start with mandatory pre-marital counseling that challenges couples to see marriage in a holy and practical way – a way which places the emphasis on sacrifice and lifting one’s mate up to God as a gift rather than as a secular romantic tax-relief vehicle?

| Suppose we did excommunicate all of the
| divorcees. And suppose, for good measure,
| we were to excommunicate all of the Free
| Masons as well.
|
| By definition, that would purify the church.
| Yet it would do nothing to purify the general
| culture. Rather, it would simply relocate the
| problem. It would transfer the nominal
| believers from the church to the street.
| Exporting our internal rot to society at large
| would make the church better, but it would
| do nothing to make the general culture any
| better.

The issue is not purifying the church, Steve: the issue is the church acting on the Gospel first, and then acting on the results of the Gospel. The church will never be completely free of unbelievers in the ranks until the final judgment, but until then, we are tasked (and I’m going to hate saying this, so feel free to give me the business over saying it) not to give out merciless (even if justified) beatings (ouch) but to give mercy because we have received mercy.

I have not intended to make the point that the church should be doing nothing until it perfectly reflects the measures internally demanded by Scripture – I have been trying to make the point that the church’s business is the Gospel, and because the church in America is really, desperately empty of that complete message of God’s work and man’s role in responding to that call, the church needs to figure out why it’s “A-List” of activities has political action and short-term programs rather than the Gospel.

We should vote; we should write letters to the editor; we should be teachers and managers and builders and pastors and whatever you have there on the list of what people do. But in all things we should be preaching the Gospel first.

| 2.There are other complications as well. Say
| that Mom and Dad are nominal believers.
| They’re on their second or third marriage.
| But they bring their kids with them to
| church—kids from their various marriages.
|
| If you excommunicate the parents, you
| excommunicate the kids. So you take the
| kids out of the church and put them back
| onto the street. Does that improve the
| general culture?
|
| My immediate point is that it’s very easy to
| issue vague, facile imperatives about how
| the church ought to do some spiritual
| Spring-cleaning. But if this is to be more
| than empty verbiage, then it needs to be
| followed up by some very specific policy
| proposals.

As I said, I don’t think a mass excommunication is the answer. You’re building an argument against something I wouldn’t advocate – especially because the objective of church discipline is not cleaning house but reform of those who say they are disciples of the Gospel, which is to say “reconciliation and unity”.

I am not voicing a facile imperative about spiritual house-cleaning. I haven’t used those terms or anything like them. What I have been saying is that our first weapon against the evil that men do is the Gospel – not the sword. And because the church is in a frankly-disastrous state, using the sword when we can’t even pick up the Gospel is backwards and useless.

Let’s imagine that in the foreseeable future all the legislation we might want to pass about abortion and gay marriage gets passed. What do we do next? If gay marriage is illegal, what about pre-marital and extra-marital sex? These are the same kinds of evils. But I think that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to stick his political neck out and say, “if you have sex before marriage, or outside of your marriage, you are violating the core of our society and your act should be illegal.”

Where this message is rightly pressed and rightly framed is inside the Gospel, and by necessity the message comes from inside the church. Does it result in some legal ramifications? I would say “yes” – but qualify that by saying whatever legislation comes of it, it is based on Gospel principles.

Until we are delivering the Gospel, all the laws we would deliver will be only secular rules that no one understands or can rightly obey. And think about this: without their epistemological foundations, those laws would be easily manipulated into something never intended.

| 3.BTW, is church discipline the same thing
| as preaching the gospel? Or is this
| something the church needs to do before it
| can get back to preaching the gospel, which
| it needs to do before it can participate in the
| democratic process?
|
| After all, if the church were to get really
| serious about church discipline, that would
| plunge a denomination into a very divisive,
| bitter, and all-consuming controversy.
|
| So what should be our priority: reaching the
| unchurched with the gospel, or taking
| remedial action against nominal believers in
| the pew?

I am certain it would be controversial. I am certain there would be fall-out. But I am certain that it is part and parcel of the Gospel. One of our problems today is that we have disjoined “discipline in the church” from “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Discipline in the church is a direct function of reverence for Christ – and is therefore a direct corollary of the Gospel.

Part of teaching the unchurched the Gospel is teaching them how to rightly live inside the Church. This is itself not either/or: it is one thing.

| And I hope a critic of ECB isn’t going to tell
| me that we can do both (evangelism and
| church discipline), for if it’s true that we can
| do both, then the C-bees would rightly reply
| that we can do evangelism and politics at the
| same time too.

The crazy thing, Steve, is that I agree that they can be done together – but the Gospel comes first! If we stick to the example of gay marriage, we reject gay marriage not because of legal or political reasoning: we reject it because it offends God. Marriage is established by God, from the beginning, between one man and one woman, and the two shall become one, leaving their parents and cleaving to one another.

So whatever law we ought to be enacting, it must reflect the categorical nature of marriage. To simply call it “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife” (cf. defense of marriage act) is to completely overlook what we are actually trying to defend: God’s intention for marriage.

If the Gospel leads first, the correct definition of marriage is much more specific, and is tied to the affirmation of God’s intent in creating man and woman. I don’t happen to have a draft of such legislation, but that’s what Gospel-first means: we don’t accept that those who hate the Gospel have a way to express what only the Gospel expresses. In that, we do not accept their definition of terms, especially legal terms.

| 4.One critic of ECB has said that the church
| cannot have two priorities. If true, this is not
| merely a criticism of ECB, but a criticism of
| political activism, per se—even if it were
| limited to fellow evangelicals.

That was me. What I said was that the church cannot have two first priorities – two things cannot occupy the first place. You cannot serve God and mammon, etc.

It’s a criticism of political activism for the sake of having a finger in the pie. I stand by it. Political activism is not an end unto itself: it is a derivative end, a consequence of a greater goal or premise. If the Gospel is not leading the activism, the activism is trying to lead the Gospel. I can hardly imagine how that cannot be true.

| BTW, this is a problem when you talk to the
| critics. When you press them hard, they will
| admit that political activism is legit, but
| once the pressure is off, they revert to their
| gospel-only, every-member-evangelism line.

You won’t get that from me. Political activism is appropriate if it is lead by the Gospel. If it is lead by some other urge, it’s outside the bounds of Christian ethics.

| 5.As a matter of fact, the “church” can,
| indeed, have more than one priority. As I’ve
| remarked before, the painful irony here is
| that those who presume to speak on behalf
| of the church in opposition to ECB have a
| very defective doctrine of the church.

Anyone – or any organization – can have a list of priorities – but there can only be one first priority. That’s why it’s “first”: it’s definitive. It sets the tone for the balance of the priorities.

| There is a division of labor within the
| church, for the “church” is simply the
| community of believers, who come together
| for worship, but have a wide variety of
| callings in life outside the church. Everyone
| is not called to be an evangelist. Dobson is a
| pediatrician and child psychologist; Colson
| is a lawyer.
|
| It is possible to have a godly vocation
| outside the ministry, is it not? Ironically
| again, critics of ECB attack the C-bees for
| being too cozy with Rome, yet the critics are
| operating with a tacitly Catholic ideal, in
| which to be a wife and mother or family
| man is second-best.

You are missing the point entirely, Steve: I have not once argued that everyone is called to be only one thing inside the body. What I have said is that the Gospel comes first. That means, for example, as a lawyer Colson ought never to lie in order to advocate for a client – even though that’s legally acceptable. It means that Dobson, as a psychologist, ought never to manipulate others into doing things – even if it is for their “own good”.

And if we have political activists, so be it: but let them live by the Gospel first, and advocate laws that come from the Gospel first. Let’s keep this as specific as possible, Steve. Here are the definitions from DOMA:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Would you agree that this is an adequate definition of marriage? Is it the one you would advocate in speaking of marriage? Or is it, instead, a weak piece of legislation because it misses the point of marriage entirely?

Now what if the Gospel came first? That is, what if God’s definition of marriage was “in” this definition – for example, if the law made explicit reference to Gen 2, Exo 20, Mat 5 and Eph 5? Would that be a better piece of legislation – more powerful that merely banning same-sex marriage – or would it be merely another choice?

My gripe is that the Gospel is not in their legislation at all. The law as it was written is merely a club – “gay? No! Hell No! No marriage for you!”

You can be a Christian politician – if the Gospel comes first. Otherwise, you’re just a politician with a fish-pin on your shirt.

| I’ve said this before, yet it doesn’t sink in.
| But isn’t this a fixture of the Reformed
| Baptist theology?

It is – but in defining the role of the magistrate, the LBCF says “according to the wholesome laws”, and says that waging war may be done “under the New Testament”.

The question is not, “can a Christian be a politician”, but “he must still be a Christian if he is a politician.” “Christian” doesn’t just mean “baptized”, does it Steve? Of course not. It bears the weight of LBCF XXI,3: “They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righeousness before Him, all the days of our lives.”

That is at least as essential to the matter of defining Christian magistrates and the methods and motives of ECBs as the explicit definition of the civil magistrate as a class.

| 6.In Scripture, the church is not prior to the
| state, and the state is not prior to the church.
| Until the return of Christ, these are both
| essential social institutions.

I agree – but they are separate institutions, and in the best case the state is populated with members of the church.

| Indeed, the state exists for the primary
| benefit of the church. Although the state can
| persecute the church, yet, in the common
| grace of God, the state more often functions
| to protect the elect from the reprobate.
| Without law, there would be no church.
| Without law, the reprobate would
| exterminate the elect.

That is an interesting statement, and I will mull it over.

| And this is another reason why Christians
| need to involve themselves in the
| democratic process. For if we leave it to the
| unbelievers, then the unbelievers will turn
| the coercive powers of government against
| the church and thereby muzzle the gospel.

You are again overstepping the bounds of my argument: I’m not advocating a total withdraw from society. I am not advocating a church in a bunker. I am advocating against compromise of the Gospel to effect alleged political gains.

| A certain amount of persecution can have a
| refining effect, but persecution on a
| totalitarian scale can decimate the church.
| Just look at the impact of ironclad
| communism on Eastern Germany? And look
| at how the reunion of Germany after the fall
| of communism had the effect of secularizing
| Western Germany.

Is one of the premises of this statement that the church in Western Germany was healthy when the wall came down? I’d like to research that topic before I agree or disagree. Anecdotally, I don’t think that’s true, but I’d have to read up on it to give you a real opinion.

I really must run. Be well this weekend and do not attend any political rallies without my prior approval and the consent of your ruling elders. :-)

Today's Menu: Legalism with a side of tradition bondage

Well, now that I've got your attention...

Recently I did a google to locate a diagram or instructions on how the Amish/Mennonite folks set up their indoor drying lines for the winter. I know it's not rocket science, but I thought a visual (diagram or writing) might help. My dryer's been on the fritz so I'm planning on installing a laundry line or two, take some of the workload off the dryer. Of couse with the recent tragedy of the schoolhouse shooting in the Amish community, there were a lot of 'current event' type of articles to wade through before I could find some comprehensive Amish/Mennonite lifestyle articles.

I never did find what I was looking for, but what I did find was somewhat interesting. I think a lot of us "Englishers" (this is what they call us) are fascinated with the Amish lifestyle for no other reason than they seem to be the closest we'll ever come to seeing the results of a time-machine. Especially within the Old Order Amish/Mennonite communities, these are a people who have stopped the clock for the last 300 years or so. To be sure, their lifestyle is interesting especially if you compare it to the way most North Americans live, and waste massive amounts of time on absolutely pointless persuits and/or entertainments. While most all of the Old Order women are spending their days cooking, gardening or sewing - many of their English women counterparts are painting their toenails and watching Oprah. Okay, not all of us watch Oprah or paint our toenails but I think you get my point.

What was even more interesting to me were the reasons behind a lot of the lifestyle specifics of the Amish. Some of the most unusual reasoning goes into what they do:

- Clothing does not have buttons, because the Amish were persecuted by soldiers that wore bright, shiney buttons on their uniforms. Buttons represent that to them - so buttons are out.

- Underclothing is hand made, because store bought underclothing is snug fitting (especially with the elastic in it) and causes temptation.

- Most Amish do not have their pictures taken due to the graven image commandment given in Scripture.

- Some Amish communities still practice what is called "bed-courtship". The young man who is courting the girl will arrive at her house after the parents have gone to bed for the night and he will stay overnight in her bed. They believe this practice prevents the young couple from running around, and gives the parents the assurance of knowing where they are. (I am not making this up, I assure you).

- Part of the reason some Amish communities do not have church buildings, but hold church in the homes of the community members, is so that the entire community can keep an eye on the family and see that they're lifestyle is in accordance with the Church Ordnung (church order).

These are just some of the things that stuck out to me as I reading through Amish lifestyle sites. One of the sites I read was that of a man who grew up Amish, left several times and modernized, and finally left for good and spent the next many years fighting the legal system to get protection for his abused neices and nephews, within the Amish community.

It seemed obvious to me as I read, that while most Amish live that way because they prefer it, the ones that have the biggest problems with that lifestyle (and end up excommunicated, shunned and miserable within their Amish communities), are the ones that rebelled against the legalism of the lifestyle. Maybe a young man was caught with a radio. Or a young woman might have been discovered to be wearing undergarments with elastic in them. A boy might have his sleeves rolled up too high toward his elbows. A girl might get this fancy idea in her head that she wants to continue her education past the 8th grade. Any number of things like this would fall into the category of "sinning" and would be met with strict discipline within the Ordnung. While these things are indeed a "sin" within their own community, they are in fact not a sin against our Heavenly Father. They are man-made traditions that keep the people in bondage to a certain lifestyle, and strict adherence to the rules of the community out of fear of being physically disciplined (if a child) and publicly humiliated if an adult.

Like with any "ex" of any religion, they are the ones who have the most to say about such rules and orders, and why they left. In many cases, they didn't necessarily desire to leave their faith or belief in God, they just couldn't reconcile the forced lifestyle with who they understood God to be.

As I was reading and thinking about all of this, I thought of a lady I know of (through a friend) that is not Amish, but has the very same kind of legalistic pattern to her thinking. She is a professing Christian just like the Amish, but at the same time she is so caught up in the man-made traditions handed down to her by her own parents, and there is no joy in her Christian life. No joy in actually being a redeemed person, walking by faith, thankful for His grace. It's all about control, rules, power-struggles, etc.

I went through a little of this myself, early in my own Christian life. It's not a pretty place to be. It's also not what we're called to live like, when Jesus said take up your cross and follow me.

I don't really have any kind of stunning conclusion to this post. I just wish it weren't so easy to get caught up in legalism and bondage to man-made traditions that cloud our view of what it really means to live in Christ. It was an eye opener to read of these legalistic rules within the Amish communities, but it really made me think of us Englishers, and our own made up rules and guidelines that we tend to defend as if they were Scripture.

Maybe there's a lesson in here somewhere for all of us to take a closer look at our own traditions, and see how we're doing?

Have a lovely Monday.

:o)

The Lionization of Orthodoxy

How many creeds, councils and confessions must a man adhere to in order to proudly wear the "orthodox" label? The answer really is: it depends. We would all agree that you should at least be able to say, with conviction, that you agree to all that you find in the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D.

Of course, this same council prohibited kneeling, and declared that you could only be rightly baptized by an orthodox believer, and if the person who baptized you later became an heretic, your own baptism would be invalidated. Which is the soft way of saying, the councils were often pretty good at dealing with identifying heresy, but were often a little over-the-top in assessing their own authority.

So where do we draw the line. If you accept the Nicene Creed, but kneel during the litrugy - can you still claim to be orthodox? What about if the guy who baptized you turns into a modalist ten years from now?

What about the Council of Constantinople in 381. Are you still orthodox if you agree with the new improved Nicene Creed (sans anathema)? What about if you disagree with that famous third canon - that the bishop of Constantinople should be next in power to the bishop in Rome? What if you thought both should have equal authority, or perhaps have no special authority? Would you still be orthodox?

What about the council of Ephesus in 431. Are you still orthodox if you think calling Mary the mother of Christ is wrong? Must she always be referred to as the mother of God? What if this council anathemized you because you think that Jesus cast out demons by the finger of God (Holy Spirit) - are you still orthodox?

What about the council of Chacledon in 451. Are you still orthodox if you felt that a deaconess need not be at least 40 years of age, or that monks and nuns should be allowed to marry like everyone else?

These councils did a good job (generally) of identifying heresies - and I think when most of us think, of "orthodox" we aren't thinking of all the ecclesiastic debris that came along side this stuff (such as was mentioned above), though the faithful papist may disagree. Typically we reason that if we agree with the bulk of the creeds (inasmuch as they agree with scripture), and we agree that the heresies identified by these councils are in fact heresies (though -not- because these councils called them heresies - but rather because we draw from scripture the same conclusions these councils drew from scripture.

We dare not suggest that we begin discarding or neglecting church history! Good gravy no, we just don't exalt these things above scripture.

We all (at least on the evangelical side of the fence) tow-the-line, parroting with zeal that "there must be a balance!" - even if we haven't the first idea where that balance is supposed to be. Too many of us, I think, ignore church history altogether because we feel that all we really need to know is our bible. But in thinking that we forget that the people who fell into heresy weren't without scripture themselves - that these "heretics" were typically the well-read theologians of their day - not laymen, but presbyters and bishops - well respected and quite influential indeed. It behooves us therefore to reason that if these worthy men could go astray - then we must allow for the possibility that left to our own devices, even having a good grasp of scripture isn't necessarily any sort of guarantee that we will never err in our understanding. The wise man errs on the side of caution - which in this case means he doesn't toss out church history because he knows how to read the bible.

The point to all this is really is just to highlight the fact that the term "orthodox" (I apologize again to my papist friends) isn't as cut and dry as it might first appear. Some would suggest that unless you can write the WFC out in your own blood - from memory - you are not orthodox "enough" - while others think that if you can recite the gist of John 3:16 your plenty orthodox already.

I recall with morbid fascination the first time I realized that I held a belief that had been anathemized by one of the councils (justification by faith alone has been anathemized you know). When I saw that there was a real synod that met and anathemized me, and when I correctly reasoned that these people had exactly the same authority as any of the people in any of those other councils which had anathemized all the other heretics - well, let's just say that I gained a new perspective into how much shrift I ought to be giving to the term "orthodox."

It was then that I became satisfied with a label that perhaps is less than orthodox - I call it the "I am not a heretic, at least as far as I know..." label. It works for me, for now.

The bottom line today people is this: Don't toss tradition out the window just because you are an evangelical, and don't cling to it as though it were scripture. A whole lotta error has been identified already and can be easily avoided ever after if we are willing to learn a bit from our christian fathers. Tradition is very much like a Christian "Talmud" - there are some good things in it, but following it exclusively or with undue authority is going to lead you eventually away from scripture, away from truth - and chasing a label** instead of Christ.


**Now 100% Talmud Compliant

BOC-Do Something Now (for the Gospel)

In the comments to yesterday's post, Frank mentioned hanging a sign on the well in the native language with "John 4:13-14" on it. The reason for the sign is in this excerpt from a July '05 post, from a previous call to "do something for Africa." As a bonus, Frank throws in his testimony...

I ask all these questions because the answer, in its most-raw form includes the matter that we ought to feed the hungry, aid the sick, and comfort the prisoners. But the answer must also include cultural reform – and when you read those words here in this blog, you had better understand that “cultural reform” means “the invasive expansion of the Gospel message and its consequences”.

I’m not preaching a prosperity Gospel here – I’m not advocating that the Gospel means that by 2010 Africa could all be paved and landscaped so that it’s a nice drive-by. I’m saying that the Gospel strikes down the barriers between races and between tribes and between language groups – it is the message that God has made His peace to all the nations, and that means the nations of Africa as well as the nations of the West. I’m saying that the Gospel calls men to share each others’ burdens, and in that it calls those with power (read: the local political rulers) to exercise compassion and justice in carrying out their ministry which is ordained by God. I’m saying that the Gospel calls men to repent of sin – and the sin of sex apart from marriage is not a worse sin than any other sin, but it is the one which is ravaging the health and welfare of these people. I’m saying that the Gospel has already been delivered to us, and if we hand over a bowl of soup, or a pill, or a dollar, and when we do that material act we do not take a moment and preach the Gospel which has empowered us to do this work, we have failed as disciples of Christ.

Look: here’s what I mean. About 4 months ago, our associate pastor was about to go on sabbatical and as part of his last sermon before leaving, he gave me the honor and privilege of providing my testimony to the church as an example of the Gospel.

To keep it brief, my testimony is this:

I grew up Catholic, and became an atheist. I rejected God and embraced the philosophy of man. Ten years later, everything I had done to suit that philosophy of man-made priorities had proven itself to be, as Paul said succinctly, “skubalon” – dung. My life was not worth living because it was only my life – my choices, my values, my ethics. I wanted to die because of the emptiness, and planned to die, but God showed me a different plan through the Gospel.

I had to come to that lowest of low points to find out that God would go any distance to do what He planned to do – and it wasn’t just for laughs or as an open-ended possibility: God did what He did for me. “Me” who cursed the name of Jesus; “Me” who spit on the idea of church and worship; “Me” who thought that selflessness was suicide and vain. God did what He did for me – and that changes who and what I am and what I ought to be.

So now when I do something for someone, it is in Jesus’ name – the name which is above all names, who emptied himself out in order to take the form of a servant for the sake of my salvation and God’s glory.

When I finished giving that testimony, I had lunch with my brother-in-law, and he said to me, “You know, I have never been that low in my life. I can’t imagine what it’s like.” And when I hear that, I’m stunned – because he’s not the first person to ever say that to me.

If you have never been so low as to know that the only hope you have is in Christ, and in Christ alone, then I suggest you have never met Jesus and you have no idea what the power of the Gospel is. That is not to say you cannot be saved: it means that you do not understand the definition of the word “saved”. And in that, you have no idea what the gift is you have been given if you claim to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

That gift – and its power to change death into life both in the soteriological sense and in the “I got out of bed this morning” sense – is the greatest gift we can send to the African continent. It cannot come without the food, and the money, and the medicine, and the education, and the investment – but it is possible that all of those other things could arrive without the Gospel. And the Gospel will not be delivered by those who do not realize that it is the power which gives life to dead bones.

If that happened – and it is happening right now, make no mistake – then we would be doing far worse to these people than letting them starve to death. If we do not do these things in the name of Jesus Christ, we might as well send them money to establish a porn industry, because it will no doubt be a solid way to generate cash for them and their economy. We must do these right things in the right spirit for the right goal of every tribe, tongue and nation on Earth giving praise to God.

This is really not about whether we give $30 billion or $3 trillion to Africa: this is about calling dead men out of their tombs. This is about Lazarus and whether God was careless to let him be dead or if God planned to use his condition to bring Glory to Himself.

By the way, since Jesus hasn’t come back on the clouds yet, this is about you and me getting ourselves together and doing what He sent us to do. Each with his own gifts, and each as members of one body, but each without any doubt as to why we do what we set out to do, and let our critics either be reached by our message, ashamed for their hatred, or damned.

Hypostatic Union and Teen Pregnancy

This is old bread from my pantry, but it's one of my favorites, and the first post I wrote that got a comment from Cent. That was the first step toward my destiny: to play second-fiddle to a brashly self-promoting book peddler from Arkansas.

Ehh, you take what you can get. At any rate, enjoy.

***

The EPT is positive. The ever-loving boyfriend is AWOL. The 17-year-old girl sitting in your living room is begging you not to tell her parents.

Bookmarked on your lampstand is a volume of church history containing the Chalcedonian Creed of A.D. 451. The creed defines Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man, one person encompassing two natures. His human and divine natures are joined “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.”

What earthly good are heavenly creeds when life hurts? Theological formulations are dandy in the cool silence of the lecture hall, but does theology ever intersect reality? For instance, of what value is the doctrine of the hypostatic union to an unwed pregnant teen?

Christian orthodoxy claims Jesus as the uncreated Son of God, consubstanial and eternally co-existent with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5). In plain Hebrew, he was Immanuel, “God with us.” Though he relinquished his grasp on divine glory to tread the dust of Galilee, his divine nature was not shelved in a heavenly warehouse until his return. While he “dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he allowed the veil of his flesh to slip just long enough for Peter, James, and John to understand whom they were following (Matt.17:1-8; Luke 9:28-36).

At the same time, the Son was not engaged in a metaphysical Halloween game. His flesh was not an ingenious disguise to cloak Jesus’ divinity; he was not God wrapped in human skin. Humans are susceptible to temptation, and Satan took full advantage of this one cosmic chance to tempt the untemptable God (Jas. 1:13; Matt. 4:1-11). Immortality does not die naked and impaled to a cross. When Jesus surrendured to death at Golgotha, a mortal man died (Phil. 2:8).

Back in your living room, she's sobbing uncontrollably now. How does any of this matter to her?

It matters because Hebrews 2:9-18 matters, particularly verse 18: “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted” (NASB). What we sinners need is someone who understands where we’re coming from, and who can plead our case with the Father from an empathetic heart.

If Jesus was God but not truly man, he may have regal compassion on us. He may even be affectionately inclined toward us. But if his divine nature never partook of our human experience, he can’t understand what it means to be tempted. However merciful God’s nature, we are ultimately left guilty and shivering before the Judge of all the earth, with no tender-hearted intercessor who sympathizes with our struggle. The Father knows people are weak (Psa. 103:14). Jesus knows how it feels to be weak.

On the other hand, if Jesus was truly man but not God, his sympathy is pointless. You as a human being can feel the pain of my guilt, but you can’t relieve it. More to the point, the death of a mere man could never atone for the sins of many. At best, the substitutionary death of a perfectly pure man could free one sinner from the sentence of death. Only the death of the infinite-finite, immortal-mortal God-man could conceivably propitiate God’s wrath for “a great multitude which no one could count” (Rev. 7:9). If Jesus was not very God of very God, his death was virtually meaningless, and we remain shackled to our guilt. But if Jesus was indeed true deity, his death frees his people from all guilt, and his resurrection secures their eternal resurrected bliss.

A pregnant teenager doesn’t need a lecture on Chalcedonian ontology. She doesn’t even need to read this limited defense of the doctrine of Christ’s hypostatic union. But she does need to know Jesus understands her weakness, and that his sacrifice of love offers hope to his hurting and guilty people. If she is a child of God, she needs to know Jesus sympathizes and will not throw her away. If she has yet to repent in faith, she needs to know the sacrifice of Calvary can make all her guilt and shame go away forever.

Despite first impressions, the doctrine of the hypostatic union is theology in action. It comforts and strengthens, encourages and emboldens. It brings light to the sinner lost in the brooding darkness of his own soul. It gets the bruised saint back on his feet, brushes the dirt off, and helps him walk again.

As Linus said, sound theology has a way of doing that.