Eulogy

After Prejean's apparent declaration of James White as a has-been, I'd like to formally declare myself, um, the, um, guy most likely to make Jonathan Prejean lose his marbles.

In the event that Prejean's ipse dixit is, in fact, false, I'd like to congratulate James on getting a RC apologist to say the most absurd thing I have ever read, Q1 2007.

Nice work, James. It didn't even look like you tried very hard ...

Get 'em while they last

Destined to be the all-time best seller at the Pawn Shop.

Boo. Yah.

And in other news ...

Apparently people don't know how to report death-threats to the FBI.

Yes, death threats and stalkers can be scary. But read that article -- it's like these people think every negative comments is a potential Silence of the Lambs.

Oh, that settles it ...

Apparently James Dobson knows Fred Thmompson is not a Christian, but Newt Gingrich is.

Dobson can obviously tell because Thompson has only been divorced once and Gingrich is a serial adulterer on his third marriage. Clearly, Thompson is the non-Christian because he is the lesser of two hypocrites.

How-to

I got an e-mail from a faithful reader today who asked me, "So how do you pick a child to sponser through Compassion International?"

My advice: you can't pick. It's too heartbreaking. That red ribbon graphic -- you understand what that means, right? How can you look at these kids and not want to take them all in? My suggestion is to use the "pick a child for me" link on the left at the top of the page when you click through from this blog (the blue button in the right sidebar).

If you do not sponsor a child through Compassion (or some other Christian relief org; Compassion is my org of choice), you should stop reading my blog. Stop reading right now. You are using my blog to prop up your conscience rather than doing something -- and believe me, you can't do less than what they expect from you at Compassion and be doing anything at all -- and I hate that. Don't read my blog if you can't do something about the things that get discussed here.

It's $32 a month. You spend more than that on Cokes every month, dude. You could drink water from the cooler and save up enough money to sponsor one of these kids. You could Eat PB&J on Mondays for lunch and save that money to do this thing.

Just don't come around here complaining about your sad, sorry, non-reformed local church if you personally aren't reformed enough to minister to orphans and give mercy to the poor and oppressed.

Credenza

Because I was admiring their new scenery this morning, I happened to stumble upon an intermittent discussion of the Creeds over at BHT (no link - rule 40). The proprietor of the Tavern had this to say about creeds:

How about “No Creed but Christ.” That’s a pretty good creed.

We don't need a [j/n] to see the minor bout with sarcasm iMonk has employed here -- his point being that creeds are only as useful as they are actually credal. They have to say something specific to be useful at all, and the "No creed but Christ" creed is so unspecific, it's not helpful at all -- except to do something about which I think two things:

[a] iMonk does not intend to do this here, so let's keep in mind that [b] is not an accusation of anything against iMonk.

[b] it is intended, in a sneaky way, to be a unifying and conciliatory statement of belief.

That is, it co-opts the title "creed", but it does something which the creeds do not intend to do at all. See: let's start with the Nicene Creed -- why was that adopted? Some would (I think wrongly) say that it was adopted to advance Constantine's idea that religion ought to have a centralized authority. In fact, The Nicene Creed was intended to unify the theology of Christendom against Arius and his followers, not to reconcile people of opposing views about Jesus.

Creeds are meant to divide, but (and it kills me to say this) in a good way. The Creeds are meant to divide truth from error and exercise the teaching office of the church against error. And let me say this: they are also occasional in nature, meaning that they are drawn up specifically to advance truth against some specific error.

Creeds were historically drawn up not to be complete affirmations of the faith. They were meant to drive out the errors of a particular time and place. So in many ways, it is wrong to hang on to the creeds as if they are useful and broad statements of the faith because they are not intended to be broad statements of the faith. They are catechetical devices used to guard against specific errors.

I’ve got my merit badge in saying the ECFs or anyone else can be wrong. That being said, your attitude towards this unifying statement for the body of Christ well-represents the underlying problem with radical restoration movements. The apostle’s creed predates the New Testament canon.

Boy, I'd throw on the brakes there. There is an early form called the "old Roman Creed" which Tertullian quotes; you can read about the relationship between that creed and the Apostles' Creed here, which is from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- a source friendly to the idea that the Apostles wrote the Apostles' Creed.

But that said, given that Tertullian cites this earlier form of the creed, the idea that the "canon" was predated by this creed depends on what you mean by "canon". The Muratorian fragment dates the understanding of a fully-formed Christian Scripture to roughly 170 AD, and the numerous incidents of self-reference in the books of the NT -- that is, writers of the NT calling the writings of other contemporary writers "Scripture" -- points to something which I think iMonk here is overlooking.

In the best case, I'd say that the Old Roman Creed developed parallel to the canon; it would be hard to say it happened before the canon, unless you define the canonization of the NT as the council of Trent.

Acting as if its composers were idiots (”descended into hell!?!?”) compared to the insights we have today is a teenagers argument. At the very least, shouldn’t we disagree with the creed respectfully? When we say it at soli, I always call it the “ancient and universal faith for which the martyrs died.” Yes, it’s only a fallible summary of that faith, but I believe it ought to be treated as a treasure, not a joke to be discarded while we wave our Bibles and rhetoric around as if we have something to say more important than the creed. I always put the creed after the sermon, so that if I have nothing to say worth hearing, the creed will still preach.

My criticisms so far notwithstanding, I think iMonk has a point here: the form is ancient, and the truths of the creeds (when understood in their contexts) are beautiful and Gospel-preaching. They are intended to teach. But we have to remember that they were hardly meant to teach everything about the faith -- in the same way, for example, that Francis Chan wasn't trying to teach everything about the faith in his video.

So yes: they are good for something, and time-tested for that end.

In what sense is there less agreement in the historical church about the creed than about the canon? It’s not considered inspired, but I consider it the standard for a unified church confession, and considering its age and origin, it’s pretty important. If I meet someone who rejects the Apostle’s Creed, just about everything comes into question for me. It’s an “outer boundary” of the faith that shouldn’t be torn down.

I'd be careful about what we mean by "unified" here, but this is exactly right: if someone cannot agree with the creeds in the way they are expressed, they are most certainly outside of orthodoxy -- because that is the purpose of the creeds: to make the "point of no return" in orthodoxy, and in that, they are also occasional in that they address specific problems of the faith which have already been dealt with. It is exactly right to question someone's orthodoxy if they cannot affirm an adequate, modern translation of the creeds in good faith.

But in that, the Apostles' Creed stands out as a creed which doesn't really have an author or an occasion. It seems to mimic or mirror the Athanasian Creed (which itself seems to have problematic authorship) in some ways, and the "fuller" Nicene Creed in others. If you're going to go credal, you should stick to a creed for which you can have confidence in the authorship and the historical context. And for my money, the Nicene creed does well to give us a really fair and basic affirmation.

[snip]

I believe we should write creeds and confessions that include the proclamation and actions of the Kingdom, but the first and most valued creed must always be the AC.

And it's in this final part which, I think, I have to part ways with the iMonk. His view is that the creeds should be inclusive and prescriptive. I think that's what a confession is for. A creed is to define and exclude error, and it operates on a much more narrow band than to say "we affirm X but abhor Q".

But it's hardly worth fighting over. Discussion might be useful, but this isn't any kind of ground to die on.

Brilliant

We were talking about the Mega Church last week, and this portion of an audio from 9Marks is extremely useful on that topic.

Listen and learn something.

DebateBlog

a new Debate has opened up on the DebateBlog. As if sniping at the Charismatics isn't enough work for one lone blogger ...

He didn't mean that ...

You know: I have fired a couple of rounds off in the Cessationist/Continualist debate at TeamPyro, and I have been thinking long and hard over it – because good men disagree on this matter, and it deserves more than a passing consideration.

But as I think about the “other side” – that is, the “Continualist” position – here’s how I understand their reasoning. It begins, really, with the fact that God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, (skip a few) Samuel and Nathan, (skip a few) Elijah and Elisha, etc. That is, God spoke to men and gave them His word, His testimonies, His statutes, and so on in good Ps 119 form. Nobody denies that except people who aren’t actually Christian, so that’s fine.

But, of course, there is also the issue of the apostles – God also spoke to them and their messengers (like Luke, and Mark, and whoever wrote Hebrews [not to stick a hornets’ nest with a rake]), and they got personal revelation which we get in Scripture. John Piper says that about that:

Now the point is this: Today the New Testament stands where the apostles stood. Their authority is exercised today through their writings and the writings of their close associates like Luke and Mark and James (the Lord's brother). So, in the same way Paul made apostolic teaching the final authority in those days, so we make the apostolic teaching the final authority in our day. That means the New Testament is our authority. And since the New Testament endorses the Old Testament as God's inspired word, we take the whole Bible as our rule and measuring rod, of all teachings and all prophecies about what we should believe and how we should live.

But then they also had revelations (which are recorded in Scripture) like Peter’s vision regarding the centurion and Paul’s conversion experience and his multiple visions and personal revelations – and while these are “recorded in Scripture” they are not scripture per se. By that I mean that they were inerrant communication of God, but they weren’t general revelation meant for the whole church to use as normative. In the example of Peter, we’re not all supposed to go and visit a centurion (in fact, I advise you not to do such a thing); in the case of Paul, we’re not all supposed to stay in Corinth (as one example – you may have a favorite other which I have glossed over).

So to the place where there were apostles, God was talking to men specifically – not just to enscripturate some scripture, but to tell them what they were supposed to be doing for the sake of the Cross.

And frankly, nobody disagrees with that, either. The problem, unfortunately, is in the next generation.

Dr. Piper puts it this way:

Now ask yourself this question: Did Joel and Peter and Luke think that all the men and women—old and young, menservants and maidservants—would become prophets in the same sense that Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets, that is, people who spoke with verbal inspiration and with the very authority of God and who could write infallible Scripture? Is the prophesying of Acts 2:17 that sort of prophecy? Or is there a difference?

I believe there is a difference. I don't think the gift of prophecy today has the authority of the Old Testament prophets or the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Or, to put it more positively this sort of prophecy is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and yet does not carry intrinsic, divine authority.

One of the reasons that this kind of prophecy is so hard to get a handle on today is that most of us do not have categories in our thinking for a Spirit-prompted statement that doesn't have intrinsic, divine authority. That sounds like a contradiction. We stumble over a kind of speech that is prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit and yet is fallible. But I am going to try to show this morning and this evening that this is what the gift of prophecy is in the New Testament and today. It is a Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained utterance that does not carry intrinsic, divine authority and may be mixed with error.

As I understand this, Dr. Piper (and by extension, the other cautious Charismatics who would agree with him) is saying that after the private revelation which even the Apostles experienced, we can experience the same kind of private, personal revelation of God.

Um, with two significant exceptions.

[1] The revelation we might receive privately is not infallible. That’s critical – because this is the primary distinction between whatever this revelation is and Scripture. This qualification unequivocally places Scripture above any private revelation in authority, and I say "amen" that this is true and necessary to affirm.

[2] But problematically, it is also not necessarily actionable. Here’s what I mean when I say that: if I receive one of these fallible revelations, however exciting the experience might be, it would be 100% warranted on my part to question whether or not I should do anything about that message – including following its direction if it is a command. You know: if I got a private revelation to “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me,” it would be right (and fine -- not a sin) for me to say, “huh. I think I better go check on Mars Hill in Seattle first because it was a cool experience to hear from God, but I might be mistaken about what he was telling me to do.”

When Scripture tells me, “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church,” dude: that’s necessarily actionable. I better be doing that. Wouldn’t you agree – that because that word is infallible, God’s purpose is manifest in that admonition from Scripture. In so many words, thus saith the Lord, and I should be about that business.

But these private revelations don’t bear that kind of necessity. And that makes for a larger problem, but someone in the back of the room has raised their hand.

“cent,” says the person with the iPod playing Robin Mark downloads, “dude, if God tells you to go to Ninevah, it’s necessary that you do it. You won’t be happy if you don’t. I got a private revelation that I ought [insert private revelation here], and every time since then when I ignored that revelation, I haven’t really been happy.”

Yeah, that’s a big problem: I won’t be happy if ... Listen: God doesn’t reveal Himself with my happiness as the top item in His eternal daily task list – He never has, and He never will. Is His revelation for my benefit? No question: God’s revelation benefits me. But is it why He reveals Himself? Are you kidding? He didn’t make me in order to pander to me – He’s God, and I’m the grass which quickly dies.

So the objection that “I won’t be happy if” I don’t follow or consider a revelation which is not necessarily infallible doesn’t change my worldview – or my reading of Scripture – at all.

But that said, what exactly is the point of God chatting with me as if He didn’t have anything better to do – sharing with me some kind of idle spiritual conversation which He doesn’t really expect me to do anything about? You know: God expects me to do something about John 3 or Phil 2, but apparently He is only suggesting that apart-from-Scripture revelation he gave me while I was drinking coffee this morning. Can you cite any examples in Scripture of that?

For example, when God told Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you,” that’s not even a command – it’s just a kind of divine FYI. But look: Paul takes pretty vast comfort in that private revelation and makes it an example of how the Christian life ought to be lead. It’s a wholly-comforting statement, and a wholly-encouraging statement through which other people can also receive comfort. And it speaks, by the way, to the scope of who God is and what He does when He speaks to people.

You know: we’re considering what happens when God says something. He’s not just bored and you’re the first number on his cellphone speed dial he thought of: He’s God. He’s got better things to do than chat, and He’s actually doing those things.

I am sure this is going to kick up a lot of dust as people run this down, but this stuff has to be said -- and considered by those who want to call something fallible and not requiring some immediate action a "prophecy".

The hub-bub

The hub-bub this morning is brought to you by TeamPyro.

This is a bit on taxes which you will need in the coming presidential election cycle.