Christus Rex

Movin' On

2006-10-02T15:13:00.000-04:00

This blog has been moved to Studium et Liturgica. I just like WordPress a whole lot better!

Treeman - Life of Christ from a Dog's-Eye View

2006-07-13T11:57:00.000-04:00

As one of my final acts on this blog (see last post for explanation), let me engage in some familial nepotism. My father is an extremely talented artist. Growing up, he was always writing some novel, painting, or working a bronze sculpture. We were encouraged to pursue whatever creative impulses we had at the moment, and there were plenty of them!

My father recently published one of those novels he'd worked on during my childhood. In some ways, it's like another sibling. It was almost published by a major evangelical publishing house (I won't name them), but it floundered on a legalistic policy they have about Biblical references in fiction.

The novel is, in fact, the life of Christ told from the point of view of a wild dog who starts following Peter around (who tosses him the occasional fish). Obviously, you have to make up a few things that aren't literally in the Bible in order to stay consistent with a dog's point of view. What is remarkable is how my father never broke away from the dog's point of view (this was remarked upon by a college professor who read the book). Although this limits us to what a dog would understand about Biblical events, I found it a stimulating exercise to try and remember what events were being described.

This novel helped me see Jesus through new eyes ... through a dog's eyes. Jesus smells of wood, thus the title. Judas is named "Metalman" because he carried the money-bag. Because the author tells us so little, at the human level, our other senses are awakened to hear, smell, and taste 1st century Palestine. I especially enjoyed how the demoniacs were called "Donkeymen". What other category would a dog have to put braying people in?

In particular, the crucifixion scene was quite powerful. We're so familiar with the story, we forget how the scene would have reeked of blood, sweat, and screams.

Now, of course I'm biased, but my parents encouraged us to read non-stop, so I think I know a good book from a bad one (coupled with a few years teaching literature). Although there are so many books, and so little time, check out Treeman.

You can also get a brief preview here.

Reformed Liturgical Institute

2006-07-13T11:46:00.000-04:00

My dissertation blog has been moved to Reformed Liturgical Institute, and has been substantially modified. I plan to concentrate what little extra time I have on this new project, but will leave Christus Rex up for the time being.

As I begin a doctoral program in earnest, and as I continue to learn about how liturgy works in the concrete, I hope the RLI will help others in their own studies of liturgy. My only excuse for being part of the the project is that I don't know enough to do it. "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing badly - Chesterton". But, I'm learning, and I hope I can save others some time by collected a wide array of both Reformed and Catholic (universal throughout church history) liturgical resources into one place.

I've asked some other folks to help me in the project, and we do have some exciting resources in the works. Stay tuned!

Elijah & John the Baptist

2006-07-04T08:21:00.000-04:00

Dillard and Longman point out some fascinating parallels between Elijah & John the Baptist. I'll paraphrase a bit ...

1. Both Elijah and John dress in the same, retro style.

2. Both Elijah and John are hunted by deadly, scheming chicks.

3. Both Elijah and John "anointed their successors at the Jordan River" (166).

4. Elijah's successor Elisha does a bunch or miracles. John's successor Jesus, of course, does a bunch of miracles. Additionally, Elisha and Jesus do many of the same types of miracles. Matt. 11:4-5, "is largely a list of the miracles of Elisha" (167). Dillard and Longman give more details and evidence for this claims, but those interested can read it for themselves ...

Southern Culture & Sickly Education

2006-07-01T12:52:00.000-04:00

I just finished two books helpful (I might almost say, "essential") to understanding the plight of American culture. The first, I'll Take My Stand is the classic Agrarian manifesto. In the last essay, Stark Young writes that we cannot, nor should we try, to recover Southern culture. But, there was much good in it that we should not jettison in our wild pursuit of modern technology, decadent fashion, and frenetic individualism.

We live in a peculiar part of the South, south of Raleigh, where the South and the North flow into each other like the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. Reading this book helped me understand the virtues and weaknesses of both cultures.

Living in an area dominated by computer technologies, I found this incisive: "Motor-cars, talking pictures, the radio, labor-saving devices, possessed amazingly great potentialities for the extension and enrichment of the leisure one might devote to humane pursuits. At some point, however, one would commence to regard these things not as means, but as ends in themselves, to become dependent upon them to be one's leisure and social activity; beyond this point it could be reasonably expected that one would only become progressively enslaved to them" (Henry Blue Kline, "A Study In Individualism"). How many people work at jobs which only exist to keep all our labor saving technology running? How many people are required to run computers which make our life "easier"?

The other book was a random find, a college text-book. Normally, I avoid text-books like CCM, but this one was quite good. It's brief, the author's credentials are unassailable, and he doesn't have a Christian agenda. This is all the more interesting because his book is a history of how Americans have placed faith in schools to solve all of society's woes. Henry J. Perkinson, in The Imperfect Panacea, demonstrates how this faith has failed throughout our history. Beyond giving a brief, but comprehensive, of American education, Perkinson also provides additional evidence for R.J. Rushdoony's thesis in The Messianic Character of American Education.

Although Perkinson offers a post-modern answer to the problem (since there are no Ultimate Answers, the only thing we can do is teach kids to be critical thinkers), he does show that the Titanic is sinking: "But in the twenty-first century perhaps the only way Americans can shore up their lagging faith in education is to move beyond the public schools" (302).

Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together

2006-06-30T07:18:00.000-04:00

Well, I've signed it: Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together. Joel Garver's analysis of the document (as one of the architects) is helpful. If you see me writing in such a way that violates the principles behind PPT, feel free to call me on it. It's not an agreement not to debate, but it's a call the charitable debate.

Baptismal Regeneration?

2006-06-29T09:28:00.000-04:00

This answer to a question quickly graduated beyond the comments section, so I'll post it here to clarify why we are making so much of our boys' baptism ...

Jazzycat asked: "At this infant baptism of your son, do you consider him as being redeemed and regenerate or a member of the covenant with expectations of regeneration and redemption at a later date?"

****

Jazzycat,

Great question! You've obviously done study on this issue, and I hope this isn't too much of a cop-out, but I don't know when my three boys have been/will be regenerated. All we can do, as parents trying to keep the covenant faithfully, is baptize them in accordance with God's promises to us and to our children (Acts 2:39).

In some sense, it seems your question might be a false dichotomy: we baptize our children because they are already holy (1 Cor. 7:14) and Jesus tells us the operation of the Holy Ghost (who regenerates us) is like the wind: we can't see it, but we see the effects (Jn. 3:8). So, we pray that our boys will manifest the fruits of the Spirit, but we don't treat them like unbelievers in the meantime.

The confession both our churches subscribe to seems to gives a both/and answer: “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth to, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time” (WCF, 38.6).

I’ve highlighted the phrases which state that infants can be regenerated at the moment of baptism. In fact, it seems that the Divines thought this was the “right use” of the ordinance. In other words, we should expect God to work in this way. But, contrary to a strict view of baptismal regeneration, God is free to regenerate his elect at some future time. And, of course, it’s all a work of the Holy Ghost, and of sovereign grace.

Thanks for asking this tough question. I’m preaching through 1 Peter, and am starting to get nervous about 3:21! This has helped me to clarify my thoughts.

Federal Vision Practicum

2006-06-28T16:17:00.000-04:00

Call me Luther, a boar in the vineyard of vacuous American traditions ... My wife and I believe our high-Church Calvinism should affect every part of our lives, and so it was inevitable that we do something different for the birthdays of our three boys. After all, we'll have three opportunities each year to do something informed by theology, rather than what the magisterium of American materialism has handed down to us. Here's my exhortation for the service I'm leading Sunday at Providence Church in Greenville, NC.

******

This week, we celebrated Athanasius’s 3rd birthday. But he didn’t get any presents. Or cake, or ice cream. Not that we are health nut freaks, or that we are opposed to presents. If anyone deserves presents for his birth, it would be my wife! The birth of a child is indeed a miracle, and a central metaphor for our salvation (Jn. 3:5-6; 1 Pt. 1:23). We should celebrate birthdays, especially when so many in our culture of death never make it out of the womb.

So, Athanasius got to pick out a special birthday dinner and help prepare it. But ... this Sabbath is a special day, too: this is his Baptism Day! Today, he gets cake and presents! Today, we celebrate his entrance into the Church. Wednesday, we celebrated his entrance into the world; today we will celebrate his entrance into the Kingdom. On his birthday, he came into our family, but in his baptism, he entered the Family of God. He became, officially, a living stone in the New Temple. This, indeed, is a cause for celebration.

Now, I don’t bring up what our family is doing to make the rest of you feel like you must do it our way. In God’s providence, we were able to baptize all three of our boys the within a week of their birth, and so the timing works out perfectly. But, however you do it, we should constantly remind our children of their baptism. We should constantly remind ourselves of our baptism. Baptism is our badge of membership in the Church; baptism into Christ is our identity. We are all part of Christ’s family. “Christ” is our last name; we are all Christians. Eph. 4:4-6 reads, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” As we celebrate birthdays, let us also celebrate our new birth, our adoption into the Family of God.

Light in August?

2006-06-28T09:21:00.000-04:00

Jordan Siverd has useful updates on all the denominational meetings which are taking place this summer.

Especially painful is what has happened in the Episcopal Church in the US. Post tenebras, lux!

Praying in Jesus' Name Practicum

2006-06-27T08:07:00.000-04:00

According to Russell D. Moore in the latest issue of Touchstone, praying in Jesus' name is a difficult thing to do in our military. His article, "Uniform Prayers" discusses the pressure chaplains are under to address God in prayer without the sectarian tag "Jesus". It just makes Muslims and Jews uncomfortable. And, since our Army of One is the arm of our pluralistic empire "under God (however you define Him/Her/It)" this should come as no surprise.

Apparently, the House of Reps. is seeking to pass legislation to prevent such discrimination against Jesus' name, but Moore points out that this is not ultimately the government's job. He exhorts seminaries to train chaplains, and encourages denominations to send out tough, orthodox, chaplains to the front lines, instead of lowest-common denominator pansies. (I'm putting words in his mouth, but the substance is the same ...)

Moore also includes brief discussion of why we pray in Jesus' name, which relates to my previous post.

Justin Martyr and Van Til

2006-06-22T16:41:00.000-04:00

I was struck to see how Van Tilian and presuppositional Justin Martyr was. See his Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection, chap. 1 for an interesting comparison between one of the first great apologists of the Church, and one of the greatest in recent history (Van Til, of course).

Note on Links

2006-06-22T16:15:00.000-04:00

I've taken links off and only left those to which, or whom, I have some personal connection. There's too much impersonal gnosticism in the blogosphere anyway. I'm sure you already know about the folks I had listed. Some of them wish they didn't have so much publicity. In a couple cases, such as St. Anne's Pub, the Slavic Reformation Society, and Atlas School, you really should know more about them, and thus they remain.

Federal Vision Musings

2006-06-22T15:36:00.000-04:00

Although my sympathies lie with the FV folks (mostly because I don't actually know the guys on the other side of the debate), I can't claim to be an expert in the controversy. I'm still learning too much! However, one book I've found quite helpful in working through these issues is Leonard J. Vander Zee's Christ, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

I was struck at how FV he sounded, even though Wilson, Wilkins, and Lusk don't show up anywhere in the footnotes. The only suspect listed is Leithart, but the rest of the sources are top-notch scholars.

Vander Zee writes: "If we don't really know what baptism is we don't really know what the church is either. It seems to me that we will not recover a solid ecclesiology until we recover a solid biblical understanding of baptism, which is our incorporation into the body of Christ," (112). Although the FV debate is stirring up a lot of dust (maybe too much dust), it's an important debate to have. Justification is central to biblical Christianity, but so is baptism.

Vander Zee also stresses the visibility of the Church, and cautions us against making too much of the visible/invisible Church distinction (112).

I found this a powerful statement of what baptism does: "Baptism unites us, by water and Spirit, into the body of Christ that is both visible and invisible, local and universal, at the same time. We presume that all who are baptized are spiritually united with Christ unless and until they, by their unbelief and unrepentant sinfulness, show themselves otherwise to the very end of their lives. Finally, this is judgment only God can make," (113).

Although I've quoted only a few tidbits from two pages, Vander Zee is a wise voice from outside the Reformed ghetto (a pastor in the CRC), and reading his irenic study might help some folks to calm down and work through these issues carefully.

Dear Jesus ... In Jesus' Name?

2006-06-22T09:58:00.000-04:00

I heard it again today: praying to Jesus, and then closing the prayer "in Jesus' name". This is pious, well-intentioned, heterodoxy. I won't take the time to proof-text this (unless someone either asks sweetly or calls it heterodoxy in turn). However, I think it's fairly obvious that we are to pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is how the ancient Church used to pray (note the closing benedictions at the ends of John Chrysostom's sermons), and it makes good Trinitarian sense. Jesus did not pray to himself. Jesus told us to ask things in his name. And Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit prays with us (Ro. 8:26).

I should also mention that I heard a seminary-trained pastor do this! If seminaries aren't teaching men to pray properly, what are they doing???

WWJP - what would Jesus pray? I'm sure God accepts our confused prayers, but there's no need to perpetuate this anti-Trinitarian praying.

Honoring the OPC

2006-06-13T12:35:00.000-04:00

Did you know this last Sunday was OPC Sunday??? Not quite a major holiday, I know, but we are nonetheless grateful for their faithful labors, even in the midst of serious disagreements.

"The Following Resolution was Passed at the 2005 CREC Council Meeting:

In celebration and grateful acknowledgment of the seventieth anniversary of the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [OPC] at its First General Assembly in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 11-14 June 1936, the first General Council meeting of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches hereby resolves:

That 11 June 2006 shall be proclaimed a day of celebration and prayer in our various churches; that we thank God for the OPC’s seventy years of confessional adherence to the Reformed faith, and for that body’s steady witness of the Gospel against unbiblical pietism and liberalism; that we thank God for the many faithful teachers and pastors of that body from whom we in the CREC have learned so much; and that we petition God for his continued protection and blessing upon our brethren in the OPC—for their continued peace, reformation, and faithfulness to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ for generations to come."

Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Those Blasted Puritans

2006-06-07T20:05:00.000-04:00

This gentleman has an interesting piece of evidence which seems to show our Scottish reformer fathers were not as rabidly opposed to the traditional Church calendar as some of their latter-day, neo-puritan, descendents (I know I'm throwing labels around--seems like you have to these days to get anyone to read your blog.)

Belated Pentecost Musings

2006-06-06T18:51:00.000-04:00

We had a wonderful Pentecost, complete with presents, multi-cultural cuisine and wines from various continents (thanks to Gregg Strawbrigde up at All Saints' for the food ideas). In our liturgy, we had fun mis-pronouncing various languages, all reveling in the gift of the Holy Spirit. I've posted further thoughts on Protestants celebrating the Church Holydays at Wittenberg Hall. I also included our Pentecost liturgy there, hoping that others might find it useful, and perhaps spur on others to improve upon it.

Liberal Education & Silly Education

2006-05-29T14:19:00.000-04:00

Some fragments on education ...

"At its best, liberal education opens a conversation between ourselves and the immortal dead, gives us voices at our shoulders asking us to think again and try harder--sometimes by asking us not to think but just to look and listen, to try less hard, and to wait for the light to dawn," (Alan Ryan, Liberal Anxieties and Liberal Education, 47).

And, as further proof that we should not try to go back to the 50s, here's some classes you could take in that "golden era":

"Developing School Spirit"
"My Duties as a Baby-Sitter"
"Clicking with the Crowd"
"What Can Be Done about Acne?"
"Learning to Care for My Bedroom"
"Making My Room More Attractive" (quoted by Ryan, but taken from Anti-Intellectualism in American Life)

Perhaps this sort of mindless drivel produced the hippies? Who wouldn't rebel???

Lastly, it's always good to hear someone super-famous supporting your own team. Jacques Barzun seems to agree with the educational philosophy of my own alma mater, New St. Andrews College:

"For it is the oldest fallacy about schooling to suppose that it can train a man for 'practical' life. Inevitably, while the plan of study is being taught, 'practical life' has moved on ... The corporations employing the largest numbers of engineers and scientific research men are on this matter way ahead of the colleges. One such firm conducted a survey last year to find out where and how its first-rate executives had been prepared. They came from the most unexpected places--including small liberal arts colleges, the teaching profession, the stage, and the Baptist ministry. It was found that the engineering schools--particularly those sensible ones that make no pretense at intellectual cachet--turned out a good average product, but few leaders. The company's own intsitutes and night courses raised the chance of foremen and district managers--but only up to a point. The survey concluded that what it wanted as material to shape future executives was graduates of liberal arts colleges, trained in history and economics, in philosophy and in good English, and likewise possessed of an intelligent interest in science and technology," (Teacher in America, 134-35).

Baby Theology

2006-05-21T20:44:00.000-04:00

Tonight Athanasius asked if we can "drink the Spirit". My first thought was to say no, you silly boy, but then I remembered Paul telling us not to be drunk with wine but to be filled with the Spirit. From the mouth of babes ... Perhaps this is natural revelation at work, because we've never discussed the Spirit. Or perhaps he knows that we drink the blood of Jesus at church ... ergo, q.e.d., and all that.

Hauweras on Reshaping Desires

2006-05-19T16:58:00.000-04:00

I've been posting on music and pop culture over at Wittenberg Hall. The entire issue boils down to the fact that aesthetic taste needs to be trained and discipled just like every other faculty in our fallen nature. Though I'm probably wrenching him completely out of context, Hauerwas says something which holds true in aesthetics: "Outside Christ and the church, you don't have the slightest idea what you're looking for. That's why you need us to reshape you and your desires," (qtd. in Byars, The Future of Protestant Worship: Beyond the Worship Wars, 23).

The Church needs to step up to the plate to reshape our aesthetic desires and stop treating pop culture moguls as the final arbiters of taste. The antithesis between belief and unbelief affects marriage, education, necklines, business practices, and music. I don't pretend to know how all of this works out in practice, but we must grant the premise before we can begin to seen the faint glimmerings of widespread reformation and revival.

Healthy Eucharist = Healthy Church

2006-05-17T08:34:00.000-04:00

Interestingly, even though he supported communion in only one species (bread) Nicholas de Cusa linked Eucharistic practice with the health of the church. As summarized by Pelikan, de Cusa argued: “When the love of the church was at its peak, believers communicated often and under both species; when it was only warm, they received more rarely and by means of intinction; and now that it was merely tepid, they received even less often and under one species. Thus, ‘the usage was commensurate with the love of the church,’" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 4, 124).

It is no coincidence that Paul comes back repeatedly to the Supper as he deals with the Corinthians and their train-wreck of a church. We either feast on Christ, or we feast on each other!

Sabbath Chocolate

2006-05-15T08:11:00.000-04:00

Athanasius is advancing in his understanding of Sabbath theology. He saw his mother making me a protein drink, adding some chocolate syrup to make the brew go down better, and his response was: "Is Sabbaff?" This is encouraging, since we try to give the boys chocolate milk on the Sabbath whenever possible. Athanasius couldn't pass an examination before the elders, but he can taste the Sabbath, and he knows it's a sweet day.

New Community Blog

2006-05-12T15:03:00.000-04:00

Jamey Bennet was gracious enough to invite me on board Wittenberg Hall, a promising group blog with contributors ranging from George Grant to Jim West. There are sub-blogs on eschatology, classical Christian education, and beer.

Just Surviving Adolescence?

2006-05-04T20:43:00.000-04:00

At school, I sometimes hear parents say something like: "This is that age. We just hope they just survive." This attitude is part of the problem, if not the source itself. Parents who look at their teens as strange monsters, or hormone-overloaded animals, have decided years ago to lose the battle. If you adopt this attitude, then every age is an age to "just survive". We "just survive" pouring ourselves into our infants at all hours. We "just survive" the energetic whirlwind mis-named the "terrible twos". We fail to take every God-ordained stage of development and channel it in the proper way. Energy is a good thing, and the glory of young men is their strength. But a powerful river flows in a specific channel. That channel should have been carved out by the parents when the child was still in the 3rd grade. The teen years should not be a time of "just surviving"; it should be a time of thriving, of tremendous growth and a flowering of righteousness. But, this can only happen if there are deep roots, grounded in parental love and shepherding.

Feminine Christmas

2006-05-04T20:34:00.000-04:00

Recently, I mused about why the Church celebrates Christmas more than Easter, and got good feedback which suggested that this is a modern aberration. Leon Podles confirms this:

"A woman relates erotically to a man not only as a husband and lover but also as a son and child. If the Christian should be feminine, as the Aristotelians maintained, he (or much more often, she) can relate as a mother to Christ. From this comes the devotion to the Christ child, and the importance of Christmas, which long ago eclipsed Easter as the greatest Christian feast in the Western church" (The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, 119).

This was an intriguing book, filled with statistics you can't argue with and provocative theories of why women feel more at home in church (at least in the Western church). Essential reading for all men who want to lead their families in the Way of the Cross. (Podles points out continually that male strength and leadership are primarily for the purpose of self-sacrifice. More men who beat their chests about "headship" should ponder this...)

Communion and Censure

2006-05-02T07:25:00.000-04:00

We went over chap. 30 of the Westminster Confession ("Of Church Censures") in our weekly men's study group at church. One aspect of censures the Divines outline is "suspension from the Supper" (30.4). However, if the Church does not teach a high view of the Supper, who cares? If nothing happens during the Supper, then suspension from the Supper is meaningless. What child would give a rip if he was barred from a play-dough dinner? We can't have effective church censures if we don't have an efficacious Supper. We can't have a high view of church discipline unless we have a high view of the Supper. We can't have covenantal curses unless we have covenantal blessings. Of course, we don't "have" any of this; we are merely the stewards of God's mysteries. As good stewards, we must teach people that these mysteries are powerful to save and to condemn (1 Cor. 5).

Sermon Outline - Providence Reformed Church (Greenville, NC)

2006-04-27T19:44:00.000-04:00

Preaching of the Particular Word: 1 Peter 1:4-9

Introduction - As 1:2-3 showed us, the Triune God has acted in history to save a people. Although these people are now “strangers” scattered throughout Asia Minor, they are still the special recipients of God’s predestination. God the Father is “blessed” because, out of his “abundant mercy,” he has “begotten us again”. God the Father has foreknown a people; God the Spirit has sanctified a people, sprinkling them with the blood of Jesus, making us an obedient people. We have a “lively hope” now because we are born again, through the “resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”. What is the nature of this hope, and how does it help us deal with “manifold temptations” and “firey trials” of our faith?

Overview - We live in light of the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, we are still dead in our sins (1 Cor. 15). But because Christ rose from the dead, we have a “lively hope”. We have an “inheritance” in heaven, an “incorruptible and undefiled” inheritance (v. 4). We are not merely saved from our sins, we are saved to this glorious inheritance. God did not merely cast our sins far from us, he filled us up with immense riches. We know we will not lose this heavenly inheritance because we are “kept by the power of God” (v. 5). We look forward a salvation which will be revealed fully “in the last time” (v. 5). Therefore we rejoice in the midst of earthly sorrows (v. 6). Though we may be burdened by temptations now, this is part of God refining our faith (v. 7). The faith God gives us is a precious metal, more precious than gold, which must be purified in the fires of affliction. This faith believes in Jesus Christ, and loves him, though we cannot now see him (v. 8). Because we believe, we “rejoice with joy unspeakable”.

Our Inheritance - Peter’s audience are addressed as “strangers” scattered throughout Asia Minor, and Peter also calls his readers “strangers and pilgrims” (2:11). We are strangers living in a strange land. We are pilgrims on a journey. In 1:17, Peter speaks of “sojourning”, which reminds us of Abraham and his sojourn through the Promised Land. Just as the Jews wandered far from the Promised Land, so Christians wander now. The Promised Land was only a type of the Heavenly Land. We no longer place any significance to the land of Israel. We hope for Heaven. Abraham, during his earthly sojourn, looked for heaven (Heb. 11:8-10). In Christ, we have already entered into the Promised Land. God, the Father, has already blessed us with “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), and has given us the Spirit as the “earnest” (pledge or down-payment) of this inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14), all to the praise of his glory.

Although our inheritance is ultimately in heaven, we can’t be “so heavenly minded we’re no earthly good.” In the Great Commission, Jesus expanded the land promise into a world-promise. Through Jesus, we have inherited the world. Jesus told his disciples that “all authority” was given to him, “on heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:20). Therefore, since Christ has been given all worldly and heavenly authority as his inheritance, he can tell his disciples to go conquer to world. Christ gives us authority over his inheritance. But the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, are not fleshly. We exercise spiritual dominion, through the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments. We baptize and we teach (Matt. 28:19) all the nations. As we do this, we are confident that we are bringing disciples into the kingdom of God, where they also share our incorruptible, heavenly inheritance with us.

Perseverance - Because we do not walk by our own strength, we know we will persevere until the end. All that the Father has given to Christ will come to Christ. None can snatch us out of the Father’s hand (Jn. 10:26-30). A Biblical response to most theological problems is two-fold: (1) sin, (2) God’s glory. Why did a good God let bad things happen to the Apostle Paul? 2 Cor. 12:7-10.

Whenever we are in midst of “heaviness” and “manifold temptations” and we are tempted to question God’s goodness, we need to focus again on the glory of God: Is. 40:25-31.

Seeing, Believing, and Loving - As our faith is refined in the fire of temptations, we continue to walk by faith, not by our own crippled and blurry sight. Although we cannot see Jesus, we can see his Body: the Church (1 Cor. 12:27). Through loving the brethren, we love the Body. Through loving those in the Church, we love Jesus (1 Cor. 12:20-26). Through our love for one another, the world will know that we are Christians (Jn. 17:20-21).

Chesterton & Dickens

2006-04-27T19:39:00.000-04:00

Interesting note on literary history. In 1906, Chesterton published his Charles Dickens: "It is important to note that when the book appeared in 1906 Dickens did not hold the reputation he holds now, and it is largely due to Shaw and Chesterton that Dickens began to be recognized once again ..." (Ffinch, G.K. Chesterton, 145).

Trinitarian Salvation

2006-04-22T20:03:00.000-04:00

I'll be preaching from 1 Peter 1 tomorrow at Providence Reformed Church, in Greenville (NC). An excerpt:

1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Here we see the functioning of the Economic Trinity (vs. the Ontological Trinity: God as He has been eternally). This is the Trinity acting in history. Cults like the Jehovah's witnesses stumble here, so it's important to understand. God doesn't reveal himself like an actor in a Greek tragedy, putting on different masks to play different roles (modalism). God, the One Divine Being, is eternally Triune. There are three Persons in the One Godhead. These three persons are all Divine, are all eternal, and all equally powerful. However, this does not mean God is three Super Clones. There is not only Unity in God, but there is also Diversity. Allah is one boring God, all alone in heaven: the Trinity is a glorious Dance, fellowshipping eternally. God was not lonely: creation issued out of the abundance of God's life and joy. The Trinity was having so much fun, They had to share their joy with created beings.

Thus, in history, God manifests his Unity and His Diversity. The One God saves His people throughout history, but in each stage of history, God reveals more and more of his wonderful Diversity. In the Old Covenant, God stressed his Unity. This was most important in the pagan context. Every pagan nation worshipped a pantheon of gods, a plethora of gods, a gaggle of gods. Israel was spiritually immature, and God was training them up as his sons. The fact that they continually fell into idolatry shows how hard this basic lesson of God's Unity was.

Then, in the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son to be obedient unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). But the dance didn't stop there. Jesus went away so that the Holy Comforter could come (Jn. 17) and shape a community of people into the image of the Trinity.

Patristic Polemics

2006-04-22T19:56:00.000-04:00

Justin Martyr, the Apostolic Father and philosopher, had this to say the Jews in his Dialogue With Trypho. Substitute your favorite theologian who has been grilled by the Truly Orthodox Heresy Hunters, Inc.

"For you swarm and light on sores like flies. For though one should speak ten thousand words well, if there happen to be one little word displeasing to you, because not sufficiently intelligible or accurate, you make no account of the many good words, but lay hold of the little word, and are very zealous in setting it up as something impious and guilty; in order that, when you are judged with the very same judgment by God, you may have a much heavier account to render for your great audacities, whether evil actions, or bad interpretations which you obtain by falsifying the truth. For with what judgment you judge, it is righteous that you be judged withal" (chap. CXV).

Lewis's Satanic Verses

2006-04-19T08:20:00.000-04:00

C.S. Lewis had a profound understand of the devilish mind. I'm reading Perelandra again (for 8th grade English), and the temptation scenes between the Un-man, Ransom, and the Lady are masterful. The spooky thing is that the Un-man makes a good deal of sense. The Devil is a master of logic. Most of what he says through Weston is half-right. But, it is "bent" logic that comes from the "Bent One".

I've written elsewhere about how Satan Loves Proof-Texts. Lewis seems to support my reading of how the Devil operates.

I'm reminded of the anecdote regarding The Screwtape Letters' initial publication in serialized form. Some country parson wrote to the publisher, canceling his subscription to the paper. He objected to someone giving such "diabolical" advice. Lewis's demons are eminently believable.

Baby Theology-Squishing the Dragon

2006-04-17T07:19:00.000-04:00

Trying to explain Easter to Athanasius (3 this summer) has been challenging, and quite rewarding. Since he has no concept of death, we explained the events in terms he does know. Thus, the Dragon (he knows about the "yucky dragon" in The Hobbitt) gave Jesus a war-wound (our term for cuts and bruises); but Jesus "boxed" (wrestled with) the dragon; Jesus went down into the cave; Jesus got all better; Jesus squished the dragon; the dragon is fussing in the cave (Athanasius' own addition to the plot), etc. From the lips of babes ...

Resurrection Day Bash

2006-04-17T07:16:00.000-04:00

We had abouth half our church over for a Resurrection Day Bash. Feasting, psalm-singing, egg-tossing, pin-the-body-on-the-Docetist, and the 1st Annual Westminster Shorter Catechism Obstacle Course made it a truly festive day. We hope the rest of the neighborhood noticed how much fun the Christians were having on this holiest of holy days. He is risen indeed!

Easter Traditions

2006-04-15T09:04:00.000-04:00

For a good introduction to why we have easter eggs and such, see Easter Eggs, Easter and Pretty Good Incarnational Theology. I shared this article with my 8th graders after we had a discussion about why we do what we do on Easter. They had no idea, but made up some creative justifications for easter eggs and candy. Good thing we don't have any man-made taditions in the Bible Belt!

Dissertation Blog

2006-04-15T08:37:00.000-04:00

I've created another blog devoted to my doctoral studies: Studium et Liturgia.

I'll probably spend most of my time posting there, since this PhD is going to be quite a project. Here I'll continue to post on what the Thinklings are reading (now The Church Impotent, by Leon Podles), and hopefully interact with the Southern Agrarians (I want to offer a junior thesis seminar on their writings for Cary Christian School next year).

Material for Providence Church in Greenville, NC, may also show up, since I'm continuing to help with that church plant. In addition, expect the occasional observation about what theological truths children and parenting teach us. I'm a slow learner, but it's amazing how much basic theology is acted out in the family.

If this blog is not updated regularly, it's because of the three little chubbies pictured at the top. What does it profit a man if he gains a wide blog readership but loses his soul (or his children)?

Resurrection Day vs. Christmas?

2006-04-13T16:05:00.000-04:00

1 Peter 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

Why doesn't the Church make as big a deal over Easter as it does over Christmas?

Our hope depends entirely on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, if all this is just a myth or a profound story, our faith is vain and empty (1 Cor. 15:13-20). If Christ did not rise from the dead, you are still in your sins.

We should celebrate Easter in the same way we celebrate Christmas, if not more! If all Jesus did was become man, live a good life, and then die like every other man, we would be without hope in the world. Lots of men have lived good lives, but their obedience does not profit us at all. Our hope of redemption is not a cute little babe laying in a manger. Christ came to us while we were still enslaved in Egypt. Christ came to us in the dark night of sin. We need to hear more about sin and depravity at Christmas, and we need to have more resurrection-feasting and resurrection-celebration at Easter.

This is not simply a question of how to celebrate non-Biblical holidays. Liberals love the baby Jesus, but they hate the Son of God reigning at God’s right hand. They don’t have to submit and bow the knee to a baby, though wise men do. I don’t think it’s coincidence that our culture loves Christmas and neglects Easter and Ascension Day. We want peace, love, and joy to all the earth, but we suppress the fact that peace and love can only be found through the crucifixion. Joy only comes when we are crucified with Christ—and crucifixion involves pain, to say the least.

Dabney's Classical Education

2006-04-08T15:07:00.000-04:00

R.L. Dabney, regardless of whether you agree with him in matter of the South and slavery, was an omni-competent man, someone who excelled in whatever he put his hands to. While God-given gifts have priority, his classical training certainly seems to have prepared him for his far-reaching intellectual prowess.

His biographer writes: "It is worthy of remark in passing that his studies at this period of his life seem to have covered no great number of topics, but that they were extensive in the classics. Two advantages naturally follow from this: concentration of energies along a few lines enabled him to put more force out along those lines, and accomplish relatively great things in those studies; he was also preserved from falling into the habit of skimming over the surface of things," (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, 28).

This is further evidence that less is more. Classical education, historically, did not try to cram a plethora of subjects into a student's head, but rather gave him the tools of learning. Then, he could branch out into any area desired and excel in it. For more on this, see previous posts on Tracy Lee Simons' provoking book, Climbing Parnassus.

Thinklings - Manalive (1)

2006-04-02T14:12:00.000-04:00

Dale Ahlquist has an excellent little introduction to Manalive. As he states, Manalive is the best window into Chesterton's worldview, as well as an exhilarating call to a Chestertonian life of continual wonder.

On the other side, David P. Henreckson has a provoking assessment of Chesterton from a Reformed point of view. He asks why Calvinists should read Chesterton, when Chesterton fumes quite regularly at Calvinism. The answer is that Chesterton saw enough of the ugly side of Calvinism to draw an accurate caricature. We should learn from his criticism:

"Chesterton was not an apathetic student by any means. So how could he fail to see the glorious poeticism and romance of our Protestant faith?
How, indeed? How could a man of Chesterton's intellect overlook the obvious virtues of Christendom's most poetic and romantic movement? Sadly, this is the one point where Chesterton has Calvinists cornered, the one point where we must sit at his feet as a disciple. For we have truly failed in recent times to live as poetically as our forefathers. As Chesterton writes elsewhere, "all these things were given to you poetical. It is only by a long and elaborate process of literary effort that you have made them prosaic." We have been given a poetic heritage, one of heart-ache and yet an indomitable spirit. Our heritage, however, has been ground into gray ashes, and the spirit is gone. Our life-view is now constrained to a textbook. And we therefore deserve all of Chesterton's rebukes. Truthfully, he was more of a Huguenot than we pretend to be. He understood how Christianity encompasses and permeates life and exile better than we know how to pass a theology test." [1]

Thinklings-Chesterton the Large (Part 2)

2006-03-20T21:23:00.000-04:00

Chesterton had a large frame--and a large sense of humor:

"'I am six foot two,' he informed a reporter in America, 'and my weight has never been calculated'. On another occasion he remarked, 'I always enjoy myself more than most, there's such a lot of me having a good time.' When during the First World War a woman accosted him with 'Mr Chesterton, why are you not out at the Front?' he replied calmly, 'Madam, if you go round to my side you will see that I am'" (Michael Ffinch, G.K. Chesterton, 4-5).

Good introduction to Chesterton: American Chesterton Society

Van Til on Creedal Progress

2006-03-18T11:25:00.000-04:00

Van Til did not believe in creedal fossilization. His brief treatment the relationship between systematic theology and creedal formulas challenges those of us who want to treat creeds as unchanging deposits of truth. In Van Til's formulation, systematic theology operates within the framework of the creeds, but must go beyond creeds:

"It must be shown over and over again that the standards are based on the Scriptures. In addition to this, the systmatic theologian has to go beyond the standards to see whether he can possibly find a more specific formulation of truths already spoken of in the standards, and whether he can find a formulation of truths of Scriptures not yet spoken of in the standards. In this way he may himself help in some small way the further implication of the church into the truth of Scripture. Creeds must be revised and supplemented from time to time. But it is not until systematic theology has progressed beyond the creeds that the creeds themselves may be revised" (Introduction to Systematic Theology, 4).

Bavinck on Catholicity

2006-03-18T10:38:00.000-04:00

Herman Bavinck, the great Dutch Reformed theologian, succeeded Abraham Kuyper at the Free University of Amsterdam. The topic of his first rectoral address was The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church. His remarks are particularly helpful as the conservative American Reformed church wrangles over the meaning of "catholicity":

"This catholicity of the church, as the Scriptures portray it and the first congregations show it, is of a moving beauty. He who shuts himself up in his own small church or conventicle, does not know it and has never experienced its power and comfort in his own life ... There is no general Christianity above religious difference, yet it is present in these differences. Just as not one single church, however pure, coincides with the universal church, so not one single confession, however much purified according to the Word of God, may identify itself with the Christian truth. Every sect that regards its own circle as the only church of Christ and believes to be the sole owner of truth, pines and dies away, as a branch severed from its trunk" (emphasis mine).

[as quoted by Klaas Runia, "Catholicity in the Reformed Confessions and in Reformed Theology," in Paul G. Shrotenboer, ed., Catholicity and Secession: A Dilemma?, 1992; 71].

Thinklings-Chesterton the Large (Part 1)

2006-03-16T21:21:00.000-04:00

(The Thinklings are a group of men associated with Christ Church, NC who read great books, sit around and talk, pretending to have great thoughts.)

The book currently being ingested by the Thinklings is G.K. Chesterton's Manalive. Some autobigraphical vignettes about Chesterton: he had a large mind, a large heart, a large frame, and (luckily) a large sense of humor.

Large Mind: poet Alfred Noyes thought Chesterton "had one of the most original minds of his day in Europe" (Michael Ffinch, G.K. Chesterton, 4). Chesterton excelled in an astonishing array of literary and artistic pursuits: "Though he claimed mastery in none of the arts, Chesterton was in fact a respectable writer of songs, poetry, drama, essays, short stories, and novels, as well as an accomplished illustrator and cartoonist" (Thomas C. Peters, The Christian Imagination: G.K. Chesterton on the Arts, 13).

Large Heart: though Chesterton freely attacked all the modern heresies (and punched Calvin and Puritans in the nose repeatedly) apparently he managed to avoid chalking up a list of enemies: "Chesterton was avidly listened to and, it appears, was one of the few men who never made an enemy. The reason was that everything he said was said with such good humour. Even those whose opinions he attacked felt confident that it was only their opinions that were under attack" (Ffinch, 4.) Luther, Calvin, and most Reformed internet heresy hunters could learn a thing or two from Chesterton.

Chesterton also knew what was truly important in life. His words are a helpful rebuke to me as I am prone to blog too much about abstract theological questions, forgetting to play with my little boys: "I for one have never left off playing, and I wish there were more time to play. I wish we did not have to fritter away on frivolous things, like lectures and literature, the time we might have given to serious, solid and constructive work like cutting out cardboard figures and pasting coloured tinsel upon them" (Peters, 10).

[To be continued...]

Confessional Harmony & Catholicity

2006-03-15T13:10:00.000-04:00

The "Harmonia confessionum fidei" of 1581 was produced by Protestants in Geneva and Zurich in order to present a united front against Roman Catholicism. Jean-Francois Salvard was the chief assembler (though Beza and Deneau had a hand) of this harmony of Reformed confessions. It was, according to Schaff, the "first attempt at comparative Dogmatics or Symbolics."

The preface should be posted on every theological web-forum, especially the ones run by us Reformed folks:

"Magnificently says Ambrosius somewhere: 'There shall not be discord but concored among the servants of Christ.' Since such an indolence, especially in godly matters, reigns in the human heart, that we do not understand things, which are by the way completely clear, it is not possible to deny, that we may gain a great deal of light on the basis of join inquiry and of amicable and brotherly deliberation. And above all, that seems useful and necessary, that the sense of each other may be sharpened, in order that (the gifts) given by the Lord to particular members of the Church, shall be communicated for the best of the whole body, and that all bad passion shall be put aside in order to listen to Christ, who is the Wisdom of the Father, as the only master and doctor of the Church, in order that he, being the prince of peace, shall unite our hearts through his spirit, so as to, if possible, we all share in the Lord one and the same mind" (quoted in Fritz Busser, "Freedom in reformed confessions of the 16th Century," Zwingliana, 1984/2).

Heretics - Bears of Little Brain

2006-03-13T13:56:00.000-04:00

Jaroslav Pelikan, probably the greatest living church historian, has a key point on the heretic's psychology: "Not the orthodox but the heretics were generally the ones who fastened upon a single idea, which may perhaps have been correct enough in itself, but which blocked the rest of the teaching of Scripture out of view" (Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation, 1964).

Like dear old Pooh Bear, the heretic has honey on the brain (a very important food stuff, to be sure) but he interprets all of Scripture and reality through that gooey framework. Thus, we find the heretic doing silly things like getting stuck in the entrance to Rabbit's house, and pretending to be a little black rain cloud.

Of course, this temptation to wear exegetical blinders exists for the orthodox as well, especially for those of us who have recently discovered the (ancient) thrilling doctrines of predestination, infant baptism, or Biblical man and womanhood. The temptation is to focus on one great truth, and forget all the others.

Semper reformanda, but semper middle-of-the-roada!

Refoming Beyond a Movement Mentality

2006-03-12T15:29:00.000-04:00

Joost Nixon has a great article on what it will take to keep the modern reformation/ classical Christian education going. In a word: endurance.

The REAL Jewish Conspiracy

2006-03-04T14:18:00.000-04:00

Aaron Freeman, who advertises himself as the "funniest Black Jew on National Public Radio" has this insightful piece on the The REAL Jewish Conspiracy. He calls on Jews to bring out their "secret weapon: Shabbat". He maintains that the goal of Sabbath-keeping is to party-hearty. His point is well-made and applies, as well, to those Christians who strive to keep God's Law (though on a different day). We are more attracted to what is beautiful than what is philosophically or theologically true. We can argue all we want that the Sabbath should be kept holy, but a hearty Sabbath party is more persuasive than ten dry-as-dust Puritan treatises.

Are Baptist Children Heathen?

2006-02-25T15:26:00.000-04:00

I'm doing some copying work for the Westminster Assembly Project. The goal is to get all the documents relevant to the history and work of Westminster up on the web, accessible to all. The gentleman in charge, Dr. Chad van Dixhoorn, found some lost minutes of the Assembly lying around(!!!), and so there is much to learn, or re-learn. My efforts are not nearly so grand. I'm typing out a sermon by Stephen Marshall, a central divine, called the "best preacher in England" by Robert Baille, one of the Scottish comissioners to the Assembly. Anyway, the following caught my eye. If you read slowly, the basic point is that (Ana)Baptists basically believe their children are going to hell; whatever way they find to get around that can also be used by paedobaptists to justify baptizing infants.

I thought something inflammatory might attract more readers. There's so much muck-raking elsewhere on the web, it's hard to stay relevant and provocative!

[Note: all the weird spellings and italics are in the original, unless I made a blooper. I've modified it to make it easier for the modern reader, so just imagine the original!]

"But it is expressly said, That hee that beleeves and is baptized, shall bee saved; Faith in Christ is the Condition, upon which men may be baptized: and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists: Unbeleevers may not bee baptized, children are unbeleevers, therefore they may not bee baptized. We have, say they, cleare evidence, that Faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized, no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of Baptism. Others of them adde, that under an affirmative command, the negative is to be included, beleeving is the affirmative, unbeleeving is the negative, therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized, unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized: this objection they much glory in, and some of them dare all the world to answer it.

I Answer first, but if this argument have any strength at all against the Baptizing of infants, it hath much more strength against the salvation of infants,; it is said expressly, he that beleeveth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that beleeveth not, shall be damned: there yee have both the negative and affirmative set downe, Hee that beleeves shall bee saved, hee that beleeves not shall be damned; now I frame their owne argument thus against the salvation of infants, All unbeleevers shall bee damned, all infants are unbleevers, therefore they shall bee damned; now look at what doore they will goe out, for the salvation of infants, at the same will we go out, for the baptizing of infants; how ever they will evade the one, we shall much more strongly evade the other, if they say this Text is meant of growne men, of the way which God takes for the salvation of grown men, Infants are saved another way, upon other conditions; the same say we of infants baptisme, the Text means of the condition of baptizing of grown men, infants are baptized upon other conditions; if, they say, infants though they cannot have actuall Faith, they may have virtuall Faith, Faith in the seed and roote, the same say we; if they say, though infants have not Faith, yet they may have that which is Analogous to faith, the same say we, they have somewhat which hath analogy to faith, and as effectuall to make them capable of baptism, as of salvation."

So Many Antichrists, So Little Brains

2006-02-24T15:32:00.000-04:00

Gentry has a real, actual quote from a real, actual dispensationalist, explaining why so many apparent antichrists have flitted across the world stage, without getting the lead role and ushering in the end times:

"At all times Satan has had to have one or more Antichrist candidates waiting in the wings, lest the Rapture come suddenly and find him unprepared. That is why so many malevolent world leaders have had names whose letters added up to 666 when combined in certain ways. (Depending on which 666 formula is used, at any given moment there are several hundred thousand men in the world whose names add up to 666. It is from this large pool of candidates that Satan has traditionally chosen his 'man of the moment')," (Raymond Schafer, After the Rapture, 55, quoted in Kenneth Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 11).

I wonder how many of the these antichrists-in-training have been busily employed writing malarkey like this to distract the Church from the weightier matters of the law, like giving our children a Christian education ...

Additionally, with all this antichrist-training to do, how does Satan find the time to tempt everybody in the whole world at the same time? He must be, like, almost God or something!

Three Little Fruits

2006-02-23T13:05:00.000-04:00

Oden Hammers Away

2006-02-22T20:05:00.000-04:00

More from Oden on the sickness afflicting modern seminaries:

"Under these assumptions [see paragraph below], theological inquiry may pretend to proceed almost entirely without reference to the worshiping community, its laity, its historic apostolic mission, and its classical texts. The critics that mean most to chic, mod-oriented, trend-smart ministry molders are only those commentators or researchers or feminists or deconstructionists who have written in the last ten years, twenty-five at most, not during the previous nineteen hundred. The serious study of Christian thought is considered to have begun with someone like Simone de Beauvoir or Paul Tillich, or at the very earliest with Friedrich Schleirmacher or Ludwig Feuerbach. It is easy to see how this premise marginalizes the study of classical Christian texts. Its modern chauvinism promotes a vicious subliminal attack on all premodern wisdoms. The fact that theology has no grassroots support or ties with worshipping community is at long last considered a badge of honor" (40-41).

Oden on the Faddish Seminary

2006-02-21T21:27:00.000-04:00

Thomas Oden in his Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements (Abingdon Press, 1995) has some stinging criticism of the modern seminary: "Brilliant academics with no experience whatever in the actual practice of the ministry of the Word, Sacrament, and pastoral care are often those who compete best in the race to become teachers of ministers in the trendy, fad-impaired seminary. Should an experienced, godly pastor who had a distinguished Cambridge doctorate apply for a position in that faculty, that person's extensive parish experience might well be viewed as a negative factor by PC purists who, having no experience in ministry, prefer colleagues who have not been contaminated by any exposure to local church practice or any strong tradition of piety. This is analogous to someone teaching dermatology in a medical school and doing grand rounds weekly, but who has never removed a mole, or one teaching contracts in a law school who has never drawn up a lien for a client" (40).

Interesting support, indirectly, for the intra parish model of pastoral education being worked out in Greyfriar's Hall. Theology cannot be separated from the Church. But this does not mean we need to have low standards for pastors: Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Zwingli were all stellar scholars and pastors. As an aside, they all (except Luther) had a classical (humanist) education. Classical Christian educators should pray and labor in the hope of training up the next generation of reformers.

Classic Chesterton

2006-02-20T09:49:00.000-04:00

Our local men's book discussion group (called the Thinklings) is reading Manalive, by G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton (after whom my second son, Chester, is named) had the uncanny knack of looking at the world side-ways, and sometimes backwards, thus seeing things no one else ever noticed. A couple quotes:

"It is the fashion to talk of institutions as cold and cramping things. The truth is that when people are in exceptionally high spirits, really wild with freedom and invention, they always must and they always do, create institutions. When men are weary they fall into anarchy; but while they are gay and vigorous they invariably make rules. This, which is true of all churches and republics of history, is also true of the most trivial parlour game or the most unsophisticated meadow romp. We are never free until some institution frees us; and liberty cannot exist until it is declared by authority," (20).

"Madness does not come by breaking out, but by giving in; by settling down in some dirty, little self-repeating circle of ideas; by being tamed," (27).

Athanasius the Jazzman

2006-02-16T09:05:00.000-04:00

Interesting how universal the tendency toward the lowest common denominator in aesthetics is. Athanasius (2 ½) invariably requests “toot toot jaaazz” if I ask him what music he wants to listen to. (He was also recently introduced to the Blues, and thinks that's nifty, too). He can identify The Messiah, and loves the “hah-yu-ya” chorus, but this was quickly superceded by Louis Armstrong’s trumpet. So, we’ve had to limit jazz to Friday night (fun night), and continue to play higher-level classical music during the week. A two year old’s musical tastes need to be disciplined (trained) as much as his behavior. What he likes is not always what he needs. He would like to eat cookies all the time (and cookies are great) but we have to give him what nourishes him, both physically and aesthetically.

Calvin and Federal Vision

2006-02-13T21:42:00.000-04:00

I wonder if Calvin would pass a presbytery examination in our conservative Reformed denominations.

Commenting on 1 Peter 1:2, he writes: "we are not curiously to inquire about the election of our brethren, but ought on the contrary to regard their calling, so that all who are admitted by faith into the church, are to be counted as the elect; for God thus separates them from the world, which is a sign of election. It is no objection to say that many fall away, having nothing but the semblance; for it is the judgment of charity and not of faith, when we deem all those elect in whom appears the mark of God's adoption. And that he does not fetch their election from the hidden counsel of God, but gathers it from the effect, is evident from the context; for afterwards he connects it with the sanctification of the Spirit. As far then as they proved that they were regenerated by the Spirit of God, so far did he deem them to be the elect of God, for God does not sanctify any but those whom he has previously elected," (Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 22, Baker, 24).

If I'm reading Calvin right, he basically says: if folks manifest the fruit of the Spirit, don't doubt their election. If we are Truly Reformed, we should be electional optimists! An implication of this would be an argument for not banning our children from the Lord's Table (though Calvin did). My sons both manifest the fruits of the Spirit (though they can hardly speak in complete sentences). Therefore, I don't doubt their election, and freely give them the Body of Jesus.

New Word

2006-02-11T13:14:00.000-04:00

I've coined a word to describe the typical 3rd Quarter slump many of our students fall into: "slackadaisical".

Inescapable Creeds

2006-02-09T21:20:00.000-04:00

William Hetherington, in his hagiographic and Presbyterian-cheerleading history of the Westminster Assembly, does have a good apologetic for creeds and confessions:

"The Christian Church, as a divine institution, takes the Word of God alone, and the whole Word of God, as her only rule of faith; but she must also frame and promulgate a statement of what she understands the Word of God to teach. This she does, not as arrogating any authority to suppress, change, or amend anything that God's Word teaches; but in discharge of the various duties which she owes to God, to the world, and to those of her own communion. Since she has been constituted the depositary of God's truth, it is her duty to him to state, in the most distinct and explicit terms, what she understands the truth to mean ... And, since she has been instituted fo the purpose of teaching God's truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so, the Church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught, so far as she was concerned," (History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1908).

The most basic argument for creeds and confessions is that everybody does it. If someone were to ask a Christian what the Christian message is, a consistent anti-creedalist could only speak in Bible verses. As soon as we summarize God's truth in words other than exact Bible quotes, we are writing a creed. The only question is which creeds and confessions are more faithful to God's revelation.

Lord's Day Exhortation

2006-02-03T18:44:00.000-04:00

(For Providence Church in Greenville, NC):

It is common, in some Reformed circles, to suggest that we come into corporate worship, in order to give, not to receive. We are told to focus totally on God, to laud his holiness, to proclaim his might, and not worry about getting anything in return. We are sickened by the Health-and-Wealth gospel preacher, who offers an immediate kickback from God to you … if you simply call this number and donate money to Mr. Health-and-Wealth.

This is a corruption of the Church, and needs to be reformed just as much as selling indulgences in the sixteenth century. But, whenever we react to a problem, we need to be careful not to overreact.

To say that we only give to God in worship is one-sided, and ultimately arrogant and haughty. To say that we don’t need anything from God is to deny our very createdness. God created us as his creatures—we didn’t spring up out of the primordial slime millions of years ago. We didn’t pull ourselves up the evolutionary chain by our own bootstraps. Much less did we even decide to adopt the holy attitude of only giving to God. God himself gave us that desire, as a free gift, a fruit of the Spirit. We were stubborn in our sin, unwilling to give God anything, though all we survey is rightly his.

The proper attitude in worship is to fall down on our knees before the Almighty Sovereign of the universe, asking him to give us more. We can’t even keep ourselves alive! Every hair on our head is numbered; every breath we take is numbered. The Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills. We are needy people. God created us that way, and like a father at Christmas, he wants to give us greater gifts.

Now, the proper way to ask for these gifts is, of course, to acknowledge the majesty of the gift-giver. When asking favors from a king, we don’t waltz up to him and treat him like our homey. God is not our home-boy! We approach God with due reverence, fear and trembling. But we also come to him as a loving Father. We need to come hungry; he wants to feed us. But we cannot come hungry for God if we are full and satiated with our own sins. We need to vomit them up—to reject them as the disgusting filth they are. Then, only then, will we be ready to receive the wonderful heavenly food that God wants to give us.

If I Were President

2006-01-30T21:44:00.000-04:00

One can only wish our Christian president would deliver a State of the Union address like this:

"And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against GOD and his SON JESUS CHRIST, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms; especially that we have not, as we ought, valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding among us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour, for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge, both in public and private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace," (excerpted from the Solemn League and Covenant, sworn by Scotland and England in the 1600s, emphasis mine).

One can only hope, pray, and confess. Reformation begins with the household of God, and we have much to confess as the Church. If the Church loses its saltiness, how can we blame the G0d-forsaking culture?

The Jungle

2006-01-27T18:38:00.000-04:00

Just finished reading Sinclair's The Jungle with my 9th grade American Lit. class. I'd not read it before, and it was a treat to experience the confusion, disgust, and morbid pathos of the novel along with them. A couple comments by my brilliant students left me thinking about what makes a story good.

A couple students basically said that so many terrible things happened to the characters, it was hard to care about them by the end of the book. The spiraling down toward death and poverty relentlessly robbed us of the breathing-space necessary to empathize with the characters. We knew Sinclair had factual evidence for most of the horrendous details, but the repetitive cycle of disaster broke the "suspension of disbelief" (to use Tolkien's phrase) necessary for fiction to work its magic.

Another issue was the pseudo-redemption at the end: Jurgis' sudden and miraculous conversion to Socialism. One key idea I'm experimenting with in teaching literature is the theory that every good story will follow the Biblical Story: creation--fall--redemption. As we read through classic American works (so paltry compared to the literature of Christendom), we ask whether the characters found Biblical redemption or not. It's a great exercise, and The Jungle failed abysmally. The main problem is that Sinclair's paean to Socialism (voiced through a weird assortment of characters at the end) is too complicated to be good news. The kids couldn't understand it. I'm not sure I understood it! Redemption can't be that complicated. It reminded me of all the N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Coordinated Experiments) cronies in Lewis's That Hideous Strength. All the psycho-social-babble is just that: Babel.

A lesson from Sinclair is that propaganda doth not good fiction make. Christians should especially remember this as we turn out cartloads of aesthetically inferior fiction with a good moral, or cool eschatalogical disasters. Like too many well-meaning Christian authors, Sinclair gets so caught up in his message, he forgets the story, and so we stop caring too. The best stories are full of light & dark, silence & and roaring, tension & rest. The Jungle was all tension. It would make a better rap "song" than novel.

Besides all that, I'm sure glad we live in an era of better food standards! People are disgusting sinners: Sinclair at least got that right!

Luther on Classical Education

2006-01-23T21:11:00.000-04:00

G.R. Evans (Problems of Authority in Reformation Debates, Cambridge UP, 1992) notes that Luther's reformation break-through was made possible by his training in the medieval trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric), which emphasized attention to words. Evans has a great quote from Luther:

"I am persuaded that there can be no sound theology (sincera theologia) without expertise in the arts of language (sine literarum peritia) ... I see that there has never been a notable (insignis) opening up of the Word of God, except where languages and letters have sprung up and flowered like so many John the Baptists to prepare the way. I do not wish ... young people to be denied the opportunity to study poetry and rhetoric ... These studies make them able first to grasp holy things, and then to treat of them skilfully and felicitously. So I pray you ... if my request carries any weight, to ensure that your young men practise as industriously as possible in poetry and rhetoric (ut strenue et poetentur et rhetoricentur). As Christ lives, I am often furious that I was not allowed to study poets and orators sometimes at that age ... I would have given much for a Homer so I could learn Greek," (16).

Is it purely coincidence that the great reformers were all formed by some sort of classical education? As Simmons shows in Climbing Parnassus, the emphasis was on learning the classical languages (with Hebrew added into the mix by the northern humanists). These men were armed with the basic tools of exegsis, and did not simply rely on the latest commentaries from formerly orthodox publishing houses. As professor Frank James said once in a lecture at Reformed Theological Seminary, we need more humanist pastors who really know Greek and Hebrew! In the good old days, you had to know Greek and Latin before being accepted to seminary!

More from Parnassus

2006-01-23T08:39:00.000-04:00

Tracy Lee Simmons quotes this from Evelyn Waugh's novel, Scott-King's Modern Europe. The head master of a school and a teacher are talking about the demise of the classics, with the head master hinting that the classics teacher may soon be out of a job if he does not adapt to the modern fad for "useful knowledge":

"If you approve, head master, I will stay as I am here as long as any boy wants to read the classics. I think it would be very wicked indeed to do anything to fit a boy for the modern world."

"It's a short-sighted view, Scott-King."

"There, head master, with all respect, I differ from you profoundly. I think it the most long-sighted view it is possible to take," (237).

Lord's Day Exhortation

2006-01-21T14:51:00.000-04:00

Here's tomorrow's post (I'll be filling the pulpit at Providence Church, NC). Below is my Exhortation to the congregation:

Right now, we are doing the most important thing in our lives. Corporate worship, the worship of Christ’s Church, gathered together on the Sabbath, is the apex of our lives. God created Adam and Eve to tend to his garden, which clearly symbolized a worship sanctuary. Later, when God commanded Moses and Solomon to build the Tabernacle and the Temple, images of trees, leaves, and flowers adorned these meeting places. Here, in symbolic gardens, God came down to earth and met mankind.

In these garden-sanctuaries, God ordained priests to guard his house, to be his servants and his waiters. Those who wished to meet God were all welcome, provided they brought a sacrifice, provided they brought food. Just as we practice good manners and bring a bottle of wine, or a salad, to a friend’s house for dinner, so people were to bring food for God’s table. As God’s waiters, the priests took a portion of the food and ate it for their dinner. God provided for those who served in his house. God provided for his priests.

The good news of the gospel is that all who have called upon the Lord Jesus Christ in faith and repentance are united to his Body. Sinners are regenerated, washed, sanctified, and brought into the Church, the Bride and Body of Christ. Peter tells us that we are, in fact, stones in the New Temple of God (1 Pt. 2:4-7). We are not just waiters anymore, we are the beautiful garden-house of the Church. God wants to meet with us, just as a Bridegroom wants to meet with his Bride.

It is this wedding-feast that we celebrate every Sabbath. It is this wedding-feast we will celebrate in heaven: the marriage supper of the Lamb. Just as God fed his priests, so He feeds us now. We are now priests: 1 Pt. 2:9. Now we are able to eat the bread of God, given to us in the Lord’s Supper.

So, are we the Bride, or are we priests? Both! No one symbol or typology in Scripture is enough to represent the glorious salvation we have in Christ. Rather, we are given a prism, through which the light of God’s truth is refracted into a thousand brilliant colors.

But these truths are not just those who spend too much time studying theology and typology. The gospel is for all those who hunger for God; and all men and women have a God-given void, a hunger, which can only be filled by God himself. God calls you as his Bride—to feed and nourish you. God calls you as his priests—to serve him and bring others into his sanctuary. God calls all of his elect, and promises to fill them to bursting with grace given in his Word and Sacraments. If you are hungry for God, then come, hungry … and expect to be filled.

Revelation 22:17 – “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

We cannot come hungry for God if we come full and satisfied with our sins. Before we enter the sanctuary of God, we must pass through the sacrificial fire of cleansing and confession.

Scripture Reading of Confession (Ps. 24:3-4): “Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.”

Climbing Parnassus

2006-01-21T11:22:00.000-04:00

I just finished Tracy Lee Simmons' Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin (ISI Books, 2002). My feelings are mixed. Others have raved about it, but I can't quite rave, since Simmons is openly a humanist (in the best sense of the word). His work needs to be balanced out by a heavy dose of Augustinianism and classical Protestant thought. Any education, no matter how humanistic its ideals or how rigorous and classical, will run aground on the basic fact of human existence: sin. Classical education needs redemption just as much as modern secularist education. That said, Simmons proves that Dorothy Sayers is not the last word (or the first word!) on classical education. Those involved in the classical Christian movement need to read Simmons, just to regain a little historical consciousness. It's ironic that those of us touting classics and history are sometimes quite provincial. We need to get back to the education that produced Calvin, Melanchthon, Lewis, Tolkien, and Dabney (not to mention most of the founders of America). If you think your local classical Christian school is doing this, you might want to check out Simmons (though I think the local classical school/homeschool is the best place for our children).

Some samples: "the more 'useful' a curriculum, the less valuable it may be for the long-term interests of the learner. That which we get on our own initiative is just as important as that which is taught us in the classroom," (230).

"Generations of educated men and women, for example, have read and enjoyed Shakespeare without getting him in school. The classroom saw them reading Homer and Horace, counting hexameter feet and agonizing over the force of a Greek particle. They weren't 'appreciating'; they were working," (230).

"Modern literature can be counted on to convey to the student neither discipline nor culture, being but 'the ephemeral productivity of the hour.' Anyone not reading on his own the good novels of his day, or those of the day before yesterday, has no business pretending to a humanistic education anyway," (235).

"Of course we must also declare, directly and without hedging, that a course of study in classics is not vocational. It hasn't been for two or three hundred years," (241).

"Humility remains a decent aim for the well-educated mind. Let us not try to do too much ... Dissipation of effort can lead to despair; the world outside will catch up with the young soon enough. School ought to be a training ground for the intellect, not a clearinghouse for 'skill': and if it's to be the latter, we should admit it ... why should we teach anything other than languages, mathematics, and geography before the age of thirteen?" (242).

This will probably make no sense to most readers of these excerpts, just as they flummoxed me at first. However, reading Simmons will help us transcend our modern cul-de-sac, and help us see why such ideas were taken for granted for centuries.

Horne on Transfiguration

2006-01-20T19:57:00.000-04:00

Mark Horne's commentary on the gospel of Mark (The Victory According to Mark, Canon Press, 2003) is one of the few theological books that excited me as I read it (after you read too much theology, it takes something special to do that!). Although I'm sure Pastor Horne would feel uncomfortable with the notion, I put his book right up there with James Jordan, Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and Thomas Oden. Even though I think the latter two distinguished scholars go off the rails at points, at least they write theology that doesn't put you to sleep. Horne (probably because he appreciates Wright as well) has a sense of aesthetic balance. No doubt this comes of attentiveness to the literary structure, typologies, and symbols of the Bible--God's artistry. A sample:

"The Transfiguration was not a revelation of deity, but rather a revelation of true humanity. God created human beings to reflect His glory. Thus, Moses' face shone after he beheld the glory of God (Exod. 33:18; 34:8, 29-35). Thus, Stephen's face will become like that of an angel when the heavens open above the Sanhedrin and Stephen sees Jesus at the right hand of God (Acts 7). We were made to glow; sin has dimmed us," (135).

Horne's book puts to rest any notion that Mark's gospel is simple and uninteresting. For those who attend to the rest of the Bible (as in the "Old" Testament that doesn't apply to us any more), Mark's gospel (or Peter's) springs into a 3-D typological panorama. Typological interpretation helps us see Jesus in the context of the whole Bible, rather than as an effeminate pietist knocking ever so gently on the door to our hearts.

Puritans & Liberty

2006-01-19T10:36:00.000-04:00

The Puritans thought the gospel should affect everything: "In the times that are before us as a nation, times at once of duty and of danger, we rest all our hope in the gospel of the Son of God. It was the grand peculiarity of our Puritan fathers that they held this gospel, not merely as the ground of their personal salvation, but as declaring the worth of man by the incarnation and sacrifice of the Son of God, and therefore applied its principles to elevate society, to regulate education, to civilize humanity, to purify law, to reform the Church and the State, and to assert and defend liberty; in short, to mold and redeem, by its all-transforming energy, every thing that belongs to man in his individual and social relations. It was the faith of our fathers that gave us this free land in which we dwell. It is by this faith only that we can transmit to our children a free and happy, because a Christian, commonwealth," Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, III, 735).

These words are particularly troubling as we've listened to the Supreme Court nomination hearings, in which "conservatives" try to pretend that our most deeply held beliefs do not determine everything we do. Liberals can have all the deeply held beliefs they want, as long as these personal beliefs line up with the agenda of the ACLU. As has been noted by many, the only thing the Preachers of Tolerance will not tolerate is someone who consistently acts upon the basis of their deeply held Christian beliefs. Of course, all this is alien to the worldview which prompted our forefathers to begin this great American experiment. They didn't come to America for religious freedom (in the abstract); they come to America for the freedom to follow God's Law. That, as James says, is the perfect law of liberty (2:25). The laws of the liberal establishment only lead to tyranny.

St. Athansius

2006-01-18T09:42:00.000-04:00

Today is the feast day of St. Athanasius, a day when the Church remembers and celebrates the life of the man who stood contra mundum (against the world), defending the deity of Christ from the Arian heretics. George Grant gives some insight into what made Athanasius, and other great saints, so effective in their witness:

"In contrast, the heroes of the faith through the ages have always been diligent, vigilant, and constant in prayer. They humbled themselves before God with prayers, petitions, and supplications always acknowledging their utter dependency upon His mercy and grace. Historical anecdotes abound. Athanasius, for instance, prayed five hours each day. Augustine once set aside eighteen months to do nothing but pray. Bernard of Clairveaux would not begin his daily activities until he had spent at least three hours in prayer. Charles Simeon devoted the hours from four till eight in the morning to God. John Wesley spent two hours daily in prayer--beginning well before dawn. John Fletcher regularly spent all night in prayer. His greeting to friends was always, “Do I meet you praying?”

Modernist Fundamentalism?

2006-01-17T10:24:00.000-04:00

Doug Wilson has a good review of Wright's book on Scripture. Though I've not read Wright's book, apparently he repeats a somewhat common argument that fundamentalism is part of the big modernist pie. Wilson writes: "To say that fundamentalism is blinkered makes perfect sense to me. But the claim that fundamentalism is modernist is a charge that (when I have seen any argumentation) proceeds on the assumption that their commitment to objective truth makes them modernist."

I don't know much about this discussion, but I think it's obvious that defenders of the faith always inhale (knowingly or not) the dust stirred up by the current battle. But, I am troubled by some statements I find in the great Reformed thinkers. Schaff, in The Principle of Protestantism, is too friendly toward the German rationalism that formed him: "In this respect, the scientific rationalism of Germany, by bringing in a severe criticism and grammatico-historical exegesis, which form the natural ground and necessary condition of all theological knowledge of the Bible, has wrought clearly with purifying power in the church, the traces of which are not to be mistaken in the most orthodox works of the modern evangelical school," (Wipf and Stock, 170). Now, Schaff was by no means a fundamentalist, but he is too comfortable with German thought for my post-Barthian sensibilities.

Charles Hodge has bothered me for some time. He seems far too cozy with modern thinking: "The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science," and, "In the third place, the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science," (Systematic Theology, vol I.5.A, pg. 10, 11).

Theological Balance

2006-01-16T20:15:00.000-04:00

Philip Schaff on walking the theological tight-rope (perhaps insight into why we have so many controversies in the Church with both sides appealing to the "Reformed Tradition"):

"Calvin thus combined his high predestinarianism with a high view of the Church and the Sacraments. Augustine and Luther did the same to a still greater extent, with more prominence given to the sacramental idea. It is the prerogative of great minds to maintain apparently opposite truths and principles which hold each other in check; while with minds less strong and comprehensive, the one principle is apt to rule out the other. In the Catholic and Lutheran Churches the sacramental principle gradually overruled the doctrine of absolute predestination; in the more rigid Calvinistic school, the sacramental principle yielded to the doctrine of predestination. But the authoritative standards are committed to both," (Creeds of Christendom, vol. I, 457).

Nevin on History

2006-01-14T12:04:00.000-04:00

John Williamson Nevin believed in the centrality of history in a college curriculum. This makes sense because every subject has a history. Every idea comes from somewhere. We need to hear his words again, especially since Americans are notoriously provincial in their historical memory: "You mean there was civilization before America? There was a church before the Baptist church?" History should teach us a little humility.

In Hart's summary: "Not only did history interest Nevin for understanding the development of Christianity and the organic qualities of the church, but it also proved to be a subject that gave coherence to the college curriculum. Because the study of history involved the 'universal relation of the system of nature to the system of living mind in the economy of the world,' it offered a means of training the mind to see things whole," (John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist, P&R, 182).

Nevin also resisted the drive toward "practical" education and a million specialized degree programs. Rather, he held fast to the tried and true heritage of liberal education: a broad familiarity with the classics of the pagan world and Christendom, an education that prepared you to do anything, precisely because it prepared you to do nothing (the vision New St. Andrews College is seeking to recover).

Nevin delivered these words to the 1867 graduating class of Franklin and Marshall College: "Let it be our ambition then, and our care, to maintain in vigorous force here, an institution that shall be devoted supremely to liberal education, in the old and proper sense of the term; liberal, as being free from all bondage to merely outside references and ends, as having to do, first of all, with the enlargement of the mind in its own sphere. This, after all, must remain the true conception of education forever," (Hart, 186-187).

Reformers & the Creeds

2006-01-13T07:20:00.000-04:00

My master's thesis documents how the majority of reformers (and the confessions they wrote) include explicit affirmations of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. In his book, On the Thirty Nine Articles (Paternoster Press, 1986) Oliver O'Donovan explains the motivations behind these affirmations of the catholic (universal) creeds. Although he writes about the English Reformers and the 39 Articles, his point holds true for the majority of Reformers and Protestant confessions:

"Nevertheless, it is clear what the Reformers wished to establish by their selection of documents: points of contact with the pre-Nicene church, with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan settlement of the trinitarian question, and with the Chalcedonian settlement of the Christological question (to which the Athanasian creed gave the most convenient documentary access). And in establishing these contacts with the church of the first five centuries they intend to be free of the opinions of any individual theologian, however great, and associate themselves only with the most considered doctrinal confessions of the church speaking as a whole," (54).

In other words, the English Reformers did not want to be "Augustinians", "Lutherans", or "Calvinists," in the sense of following the teachings of any one man. Rather, they affirmed the wise consensus of the church throughout history. They weren't starting a brand new church; they were reforming something already there.

Flaubert on the Shelf Life

2006-01-12T22:15:00.000-04:00

George and Karen Grant's book on the literary life (Shelf Life, Cumberland House) is an excellent panecea of quotes, profiles of famous readers, and practical tips on how to live the shelf life to the fullest. A sample:

"Pity the poor soul who finds entertainment in the buzzing distractions of this world, who finds amusement in the abondonment of the catalog of the canon of great books. His tiny world, his restricted scope, his narrow experience has robbed him of the fullness of life." (Gustav Flaubert, 1821-1880).

Above the World, Not In It

2006-01-11T08:54:00.000-04:00

Christians must adopt a good-humored skepticism toward the silliness and stupidity of the sinful world. Christians, of all people, should be light-hearted, because only we know what things are truly of great weight.

Robes of Glory

2006-01-10T16:14:00.000-04:00

Reflecting on Exodus 28: Aaron and his sons must be clothed in glory and beauty in order to minister in the tabernacle-their natural infirmity must be covered over by "cunning" and "curious" workmanship. When Adam and Eve fell, God had to clothe them before sending them out to take dominion over the cursed earth. When the priests, the fallen sons of Adam and Eve, enter back into the Tabernacle (which clearly manifested Garden imagery) they must be covered/clothed by God before entering into this liturgical service. God must beautify us before letting us into the sanctuary. The priests must be sanctified and glorified through artistic means before they step up onto the altar.

In contrast, Christ (our great High Priest), was stripped naked on the high altar of the cross. He had no natural infirmity which needed to be covered over. Though all the burning shame of our sins were imputed to him in that moment, still the glory of his sinless flesh shone forth in that glorious nakedness. Perhaps we obtain glimpses of that sinless state in the covenantal union of marriage--a taste of the Garden of Eden--of the coming eschaton when we shall shine in all the glory of Christ's righteousness. 2 Chronicles 6:41 "... let thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in goodness."

God has now, already, clothed us with righteousness (Ro. 13:14; Gal. 3:27). In heaven, we will wear white robes of Christ's beautiful righteousness. We will be perfect works of art.

Ship of Orthodoxy

2006-01-06T13:16:00.000-04:00

Good stuff from Jeff Meyers: "One value of a thoughtfully considered liturgy is that it enforces the idea that we are worshiping as the church, not as individuals or home groups. We are the Ship of Orthodoxy, not 350 separate rafts in a lagoon. The priesthood of all believers does not mean we don't need the help of anyone else to worship; rather, it means that we all help one another approach the Lord through prayer, singing, hearing, and feeding at his Table."

Nevin's Federal Vision

2006-01-04T21:09:00.000-04:00

Reading D.G. Hart's excellent biography of John Williamson Nevin (the Mercersburg theologian who, along with Philip Schaff, insightfully critiqued American Protestantism) is one Deja vou after another. The Auburn Avenue Gang is not the first group in church history to say what they are saying. Hart quotes Nevin on the Supper: "'Low views of the sacrament,' Nevin deduced, 'betray invariably a low view of the mystery of the incarnation itself, and a low view of the Church also, as that new and higher order of life, in which the power of this mystery continues to reveal itself through all ages,'" (Hart, John Williamson Nevin: High-Church Calvinist, 126).

Charismatic Chester

2006-01-02T21:29:00.000-04:00

Chester (1 and a half) is quite the charismatic chubby. He says "Amen" (rather, his version of it) at the end of the psalms ... and when the fridge stops running. Why not? God is in control of it all ...

Baby Theology-Metaphor

2006-01-02T21:22:00.000-04:00

One of the great joys of fatherhood is learning so much theology from watching our little boys. Athanasius (2) recently took to seeing animals and objects in the clouds. The funny thing is we had never taught him this, or suggested it. My conclusion: we are born metaphor-makers. It is a design feature to look at one thing and see another in it. Metaphor-making is a (if not the) primary way of human knowing/naming the world; apparently it starts at age 2.

Lewis on the Shelf Life

2006-01-02T15:59:00.000-04:00

In An Experiment in Criticism, C.S. Lewis, a great writer (because a great reader) mused about different types of readers. He notes three differences between the "majority" and the "few". Although he doesn't state it explicitly at first, he clearly believes the "few" are better readers:

A. "the majority never read anything twice. The sure mark of an unliterary man is that he considers 'I've read it already' to be a conclusive argument against reading a work ... Those who read great works, on the other hand, will read the same work ten, twenty or thirty times during the course of their life," (2)

B. "the majority, though they are sometimes frequent readers, do not set much store by reading. They turn to it as a last resource ... But literary people are always looking for leisure and silence in which to read and do so with their whole attention. When they are denied such attentive and undisturbed reading even for a few days they feel impoverished," (2-3).

C. "the first reading of some literary work is often, to the literary, an experience so momentous that only experiences of love, religion, or bereavement can furnish a standard of comparison ... But there is no sign of anything like this among the other sort of readers. When they have finished the story or the novel, nothing much, or nothing at all, seems to have happened to them," (3).

D. "Finally, and as a natural result of their different behaviour in reading, what they have read is constantly and prominently present to the mind of the few, but not to that of the many. The former mouth over their favourite lines and stanzas in solitude. Scenes and characters from books provide them with a sort of iconography by which they interpret or sum up their own experience. They talk to one another about books, often and at length. The latter seldom think or talk of their reading," (3).

However gnostic, part of this blog's excuse for existing is to revel in good words and good books, to "mouth [type] over ... favourite lines and stanzas."

New Year Scriptures

2006-01-02T12:18:00.000-04:00

Scripture we read during our Sabbath morning meal on New Year's Day (a little overview of redemptive history):

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ... I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people," (Jer. 31-31-33).

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new," (2 Cor. 5:17)

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," (Rev. 5:9)

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new ..." (Rev. 21:5)

Trinity & Liturgical Sexuality

2005-12-31T15:11:00.000-04:00

Lest anyone be scared off (or drawn to!) this post because of the title, let me hasten to clarify: James Jordan has argued that human gender (sexuality) is primarily a liturgical design-feature (see his challenging, but profound, articles here: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rr/rr086.htm &
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rr/rr087.htm)

God has made us male and female to help us worship Him. Since worship is the center of human existence, by worshipping God as male and female, God is teaching us central truths about his own character and personality. Thus, male-pastors speak words of comfort and admonition to the Bride (the Church). The Church responds in loving submission and obedience, winning converts (seducing sinners!) by her chaste and modest life (1 Pt. 3:1-2).

This liturgical view of gender/sexuality helps square Galatians 4:28 (no longer male/female in Christ) with Paul’s prohibitions of female teaching and ruling in the Church (1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35). This only makes sense if sexuality is a liturgical type (pointing to, or embodying spiritual truths), and not a permanent mold from which women can never escape (as in Islam or Mormonism, where women retain their sexuality in heaven). C.S. Lewis said (somewhere in That Hideous Strength) that we are all feminine in relation to God. Men just have the additional hardship of learning to feminine (in a Biblical sense!) on Sundays (excepting pastors).

Here, we Protestants need to learn (perhaps grudgingly) from the ruddy Roman Catholics: “The theological core of John Paul’s ‘theology of the body’ is his profoundly sacramental apprehension of reality. Our embodieness as male and female is not an accident of evolutionary biology, he insists. Rather, that embodiedness and the mutuality built into it express some of the deepest truths of the world, and teach us something about the world’s Creator. John Paul even goes so far as to propose that sexual love within the bond of marital fidelity is an icon of the interior life of God the Holy Trinity, a community of mutual self-donation and mutual receptivity. Thus, sexual love, within the bond of Christian marriage, is an act of worship,” (George Weigel, “John Paul II and the Crisis of Humanism,” in John Richard Neuhas, ed. The Second One Thousand Years: Ten People Who Defined a Millennium, 119).

So then, married sexual love is an expression of Trinitarian love & mutual indwelling. If our Christian marriages are not more attractive to the world, perhaps we've fallen into the Darwinian fallacy of thinking it's all animal impulses.

Abraham Kupyer said that every inch of the universe belongs to Christ: this includes our sex-life. As Calvinists, we chant the chief end of man: "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever". Amen ... but we glorify Him and enjoy Him by glorifying our spouses, and enjoying them. There are depths here we have not begun to sound!

Eucharist

2005-12-31T10:59:00.000-04:00

Athanasius (now 2) associates “Jesus” with the bread at communion. In fact, I’ve taught him such a strong (Calvinist) view of the Supper that he calls the bread (and sometimes other bread) “body of Jesus”. We should all have a 2 year old’s understanding of the Supper. Both boys love communion; it's the highlight of the church service!

Trinity and Catholicity

2005-12-31T10:50:00.000-04:00

The teaching of the church is unified, though diverse. The Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:17) unites us with Christ (the Way, the Truth, and the Life). The Spirit leads us into all truth (Jn. 16:13) and provides unity (Jn. 17:20-21). Thus, the teaching of the Church is Trinitarian, which does not mean monolithic or stultified. Within the Trinity, there is a wondrous play of unity and diversity. We should delight similarly in the unity and diversity of Christian tradition.

Eucharist

2005-12-31T10:47:00.000-04:00

Just as God, through the Word, spoke matter into existence and then shaped it into the created theater of His Glory, so His word makes dead bread life-giving grace.

Federal Vision Controversy

2005-12-30T14:29:00.000-04:00

The Federal Vision Gang is not the first to suggest the Reformed world is unbalanced:

George Eldon Ladd writes: “A Reformed scholar has pointed out that there is a danger in making justification by faith the central doctrine, namely, the danger of depriving Paul’s message of its ‘redemptive historical dynamic’ and making it into a timeless treatment of individual justification. The unifying center is rather the redemptive work of Christ as the center of redemptive history,” (A Theology of the New Testament, 412). The Reformed scholar referenced is H.N. Ridderbos.

Two more heretics for the bonfire!

Bullinger a Proto-Puritan?

2005-12-30T14:26:00.000-04:00

According to Philip Benedict, Bullinger’s On the Origin of Errors (1528) is responsible for much liturgical hyper-sensitivity in the Reformed world. It was “a compelling historical account of the gradual corruption of Christian worship through the introduction over time of new rituals. Perhaps more than any other work, it stoked the later Reformed suspicion of the least ritual innovation as a dangerous step down the slippery slope to popery. If the Reformed churches would be always reforming, and if their members would be quick to see small liturgical innovations as huge threats, it would be in large measure because Bullinger had taught them how easily and insensibly rot had infected the church in the past,” (Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 58). Bullinger’s influence on England was profound, so did this influence Puritan anti-ligurgicalism?

Demons & Learning Disabilities

2005-12-30T14:21:00.000-04:00

I’ve had parents tell me Satan has a hold in their child’s life (because of learning disorders). It never seems to occur to them that Satan might have a hold in their life, making them believe a delusion about learning disabilities. We should consider all the alternatives …

Christian War Songs

2005-12-30T14:05:00.000-04:00

After the secularized Christmas rush has washed over us like a tsunami, after everyone's heart has overflowed with good cheer, after we've all sung the traditional hymns of the season, perhaps we would do well to pause and gauge whether all of it really made a difference ... Singing is a primary weapon of warfare for the Church, and we should expect to hear the howling of demons in the wake of our Christmas caroling. Singing expresses who we are; singing also forms us into who we will be. Singing expresses the faith of the Church; but singing also shapes the faith of the Church ("the rule of singing of the rule of faith"?). The ancient church understood this:

"Apparently is was the example of the Eastern church and a need to meet the Arian hymn-singers on their own grown that brought hymn-singing to the Western church. Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan are credited with the introduction of hymns. Augustine records that Ambrose encouraged hymn-singing among those keeping vigil in the church premises to prevent the Arians from staging a coup, as it were," (A Sacrifice of Praise: An Anthology of Christian Poetry in English from Caedmon to the Mid-Twentieth Century, 79).