Splitting Hairs?

We live in a day of doctrinal compromise. Voices within evangelicalism tell us not to "split hairs" over doctrine. I recently read a brief article by a seminary president which asserts that Christians are dividing far too often over matters that are not essential. But this is not what I conclude as I observe the landscape of the contemporary church. I see biblical/doctrinal illiteracy. Oh for a few good truly doctrinal divisions! Instead, the church divides over music styles and personality conflicts.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not hoping for division within the body of Christ. But I do lament a kind of biblical ignorance that fails to build necessary boundaries. These boundaries over matters of truth are precisely what God's Word calls for.

From Martin Downes:

I want to offer some selective comments on a seminal New Testament passage concerning false teaching. That passage is 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 (ESV):

1. I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!

2. For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

3. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

4. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Several things should grab our attention:

1. The goal of the false teachers is to sever the intimate relationship between the true Christ and his bride, and not merely to exchange one set of ideas about God for another. It is vital that we view what is really at stake from Paul's perspective.

The loss is not merely intellectual but affectional, they have been led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. This is the burden of verses 2 and 3.

2. Both the origin of doctrinal error and the modus operandi of its preachers can be traced to the deception in the garden. We may speak of the original deception and all actual deceptions that proceed from it. This is the burden of verse 3, and verses 13-15.

3. The form that doctrinal error takes is to retain the right theological language but to substitute its content with alternative meanings. This is the burden of verse 4.

If we listen without discernement, we will assume that preachers who speak of Jesus, the Spirit and the gospel, are to be considered orthodox. But which Jesus, which Spirit, which gospel are they speaking of? That is Paul's concern

4. But there is also in these verses a damaging assessment made of the spiritual condition of the Corinthians. Paul's heart as a pastor is grieved by their tolerance of heresy:

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Did they really not know the difference between truth and serious theological error, between orthodoxy and heresy? It is a terrible thing to knowingly tolerate serious theological error. It is a reprehensible breaking of the first commandment. It is a sign of real spiritual trouble.

Wherever this is repeated, any pastor who shares some measure of Paul's concern for the truth of the gospel and for the good of souls cannot but feel great sadness and indignation at such a state of affairs.

He who has ears to hear, let him not listen to what the serpent is saying to the churches.

Check out Martin's excellent book Risking the Truth.

Jimmy Carter aplogizes to "the Jewish Community"

Well, it's pretty late in coming but the former president offered an apology of sorts to the Jewish community for statements he has made. Of course, what Mr. Carter does not seem to recognize is the genuine harm many of his comments and symbolic actions have actually caused.

Brad Hirschfield writes:

Former President Jimmy Carter offered the following words in a letter addressed to the Jewish community: "We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so."

The remarks should be welcomed especially in light of both the healing they could bring and the deep awareness of Jewish liturgical tradition which they reflect. I wonder in fact how many Jews would reach for the penitentiary prayer, Al Het ,as their model for public apology. Yet here we have a devout Baptist, sufficiently learned and comfortable in a tradition not his own, doing so. That alone is noteworthy.

Like many of Mr. Carters past comments, his words appear well-intentioned and sincerely offered. And yet, like so many of his past utterances, these latest mix profound sensitivity with much potentially unhelpful ideological baggage.

For starters, who is the "we" to whom he refers? If it is only himself, then he should say "I" and be done with it. Doing otherwise distances him from the responsibility he claims to take. On the other hand, if he is speaking for others, it would be helpful to know for whom he speaks. Are his comments also an admission that he has rallied a great many people to a position which he now regrets having taken? If so, that too should be noted.

It's also somewhat troubling that his comments are offered to the "Jewish community". His past comments, which attacked Israel as an apartheid state and worse, were not problematic because they offended Jews; they were problematic because they were rooted in faulty comparisons and flawed analyses of very complex realities that did not fit with Carter's idealized understandings of "big bad Israel" and "good little Palestine".

Too often, Mr. Carter made the easy, and dangerous, decision that whoever held the smaller weapon was automatically more moral. While such thinking assuages the moral concerns of those who are inherently uncomfortable with power, it is often false. While it is certainly true that power, especially military power, is easily abused, so is a people's lack of it - often becoming an excuse for horrific forms of terrorist violence.

Read the entire article HERE.

Bach, Beauty, and Advancing the Gospel

From an article by Uwe Siemon–Netto that ran originally in First Things:

Twenty–five years ago when there was still a Communist East Germany, I interviewed several boys from Leipzig’s Thomanerchor, the choir once led by Johann Sebastian Bach. Many of those children came from atheistic homes. “Is it possible to sing Bach without faith?” I asked them. “Probably not,” they replied, “but we do have faith. Bach has worked as a missionary among all of us.” During a recent journey to Japan I discovered that 250 years after his death Bach is now playing a key role in evangelizing that country, one of the most secularized nations in the developed world.

Read the entire article HERE.

A better kind of Christian

"Evangelical Christianity...is now tragically below the New Testament standard. Worldliness is now an accepted part of our way of life. Our religious mood is social rather than spiritual. We have lost the art of worship. We are not producing saints. Our models are successful businessmen, celebrated athletes and theatrical personalities. We carry on our religious activities after the methods of the modern advertiser. Our homes have been turned into theaters. Our literature is shallow and our hymnody borders on sacrilege. And scarcely anyone seems to care.

We must have a better kind of Christian soon or within another half century we may have no true Christianity at all."

- A.W. Tozer

The church needs godly shepherds not tough talking CEOs

Sad to say, Gary Lamb would probably say today (I hope) that his biggest regret is not something he didn't do.

Excellent Discussion about Brit, Tiger, and Jesus...

Check out this very clear discussion about Brit Hume's invitation to Tiger Woods to turn to Christianity from R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California.

Any thoughts?

Hang in there Representative Stupak

The New York Times has interviewed Representative Bark Stupak (D-MI) who has taken a courageous stand against the abortion language in the current health care bill. As a result Mr. Stupak has been called "the most hated man in Washington."

Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.

“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner. He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”

C.T. Interviews Brit Hume

Christianity Today has posted an interview with Brit Hume:

CT: In this discussion about Tiger Woods, it seems as though some are offended that you would say something about Christianity specifically.

Hume: Instead of urging that Tiger Woods turn to Christianity, if I had said what heneeded to do was to strengthen his Buddhist commitment or turn to Hinduism, I don't think anybody would have said a word. It's Christ and Christianity that get people stirred up.

CT: What about raising the topic of Buddhism?

Hume: I didn't say much about Buddhism. Look, I don't think there's any question, this is a matter of fact. I don't think Buddhism is hostile to forgiveness or redemption, but Christianity, like no other religion we've ever known, is principally, and fundamentally, and especially about forgiveness and redemption. That is what Christianity is based on. That is why Christ was here. That is what he came here to achieve. On that issue, Christianity is unique.

CT: Some have questioned whether Christianity can help you be more faithful to your spouse.

Hume: I don't think you draw a straight line that way. My sense is that if you turn to Christ and seek his forgiveness and mean it, you'll get it. You will be impelled and inspired to live the Christian life. Christianity is a religion for sinners. It doesn't encourage you to sin, it encourages you not to, but it provides a way of forgiveness and redemption. That's what Tiger Woods, like many sinners, needs. That's something we all need. He, in his particularly desperate moment here where he appears to be losing his family, is in special need of it. And I hope he finds it.

Read the entire interview HERE.

Fuel for your devotional life...

When you get a chance, check out the "devotional" tag on the right hand column of this blog.

It includes devotions from Charles Spurgeon (Here), daily Bible reading from the ESV (Here), daily Bible readings and reflection from Ref21 (Here), and guidance in praying the Bible from Matthew Henry (Here).

On Christian Community

"We must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly affection..., we must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality, we must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body, so shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us."

- John Winthrop

Don't miss THIS EVENT.

Piper on "Ruth"

A Sweet & Bitter Providence

Ruth: Under the Wings of God

"Hume's Gentle Witness"

Good article from Peter Wehner at NRO concerning the vehement attacks launched against Brit Hume:

The intensity of offense taken at what Hume said is itself revealing. Perhaps it can partly be chalked up to shock; maybe Shales and Hume’s other critics are genuinely surprised to learn that those who hold the Christian faith do so because they believe the claims of Christ are true, that His story is real. But of course if Christians didn’t believe their faith were true, there would be no reason to embrace it, as the Apostle Paul himself understood.

Some people obviously disagree with Hume; that is certainly their right. They can offer a different remedy to Woods if they so desire. They may think that a commitment to materialism, or atheism, or pantheism, or something quite different, is what Woods needs. Or they may think what Woods did was not problematic, and that he should be free to indulge his appetites and passions. If so, let them make their case. But Hume, in the context of the discussion he was having, should be free to make his case. And one cannot help but think that if Hume had recommended that Woods embrace Transcendental Meditation, the philosophy of Deepak Chopra, or the New Age movement, instead of Christianity, Shales would not have been so offended.

I should add that when Christopher Hitchens, whom I like and whose company I enjoy, appeared on television shows promoting his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he was far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism. Yet I don’t recall the Left saying that those criticisms were inappropriate for public debate. In fact, they weren’t — and neither are Hume’s words. Furthermore, those who are unnerved by Hume’s “sectarianism” were untroubled by the aggressive atheism of Hitchens.

Read the entire article HERE

The Unnatural Act of Abortion

"If we take the principles of liberal individualism as axiomatic, we find it possible to think of the fetus and the woman as the parties of the first and second part arguing over their respective rights. We are then able to blind ourselves to the natural fact that they are related as mother and child and that the child is in the only natural place for him to be, his mother’s womb."

From Francis Canavan’s The Pluralist Game:

More Foolishness from Harold Camping

Harold Camping would be easy to ignore. In fact it would be a virtue to ignore him. The problem is that Camping heads Family Radio which is broadcast around the world. The hyper-dispensationalism of Camping and others has been causing division and confusion in the church for years.

Camping has been hard at work calculating the day of the Lord's return. The following, from an article in SF Gate, is a lesson in wildly irresponsible and incompetent biblical exegesis.

By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are discussed.

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days – the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.

Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.

Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.

"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.

"I tell ya, I just about fell off my chair when I realized that," Camping said.

If you have ever met any of Camping's followers then you probably already know that they seem to be impervious to facts (Just a few months back a pamphlet from Family Radio was left on my windshield). They also don't seem to mind the fact that Camping has made previous predictions about the the second coming of Christ. Among Camping's exotic teachings is that "the church age" is over and it is a sin for Christians to remain in churches. Rather, he says, they should be at home listening to Family Radio.

When Christ is taken out of Christianity

Important stuff from Michael Horton

Paul Tripp at COS next week

If you are in the Philadelphia area then plan on attending a conference featuring Paul Tripp at Church of the Saviour.

Have you ever wondered why some Christians grow and some don't? Have you ever been discouraged or confused in your own relationship with God? Have you ever wondered if other people go through the things you go through as a Christian? Have you ever longed for someone who you could share your personal struggles and questions of faith with? If someone asked you what the key to personal growth and change was what would you say it is?

Could it be that you're a Christian but you're missing an essential piece of the life God called you to. Real satisfaction of heart, real growth and change, real effectiveness and purpose is possible!

Your Walk with God is a Community Project

January 10-12
Sunday - Paul will be preaching in the three morning services (8:15, 9:30, 11:00)
Monday Evening - 7:00-9:30
Tuesday Evening - 7:00-9:30

Promotional Video

Register HERE

Brit Hume on O'Reilly

A False Gospel

In the abortion clinic, might makes right

“Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim.”

—Stephen D. Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990), 143.

HT: Justin Taylor

Hearing God Speak

The Bible is not simply an historical account or a literary masterpiece; it is the witness to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and it presents the Deus loquens, the God who uses the Bible to speak to us today. God Himself works through the means of His grace today just as He worked through the prophetic and apostolic preaching. Today again the good news is proclaimed by a preacher standing in obedience to the Word, and it is heard by a congregation that is also dependent on this Word.

— Ernest Koenker, Worship in Word and Sacrament, p. 25.

Tiger Woods, Buddhism and the need for Redemption

Far as the Curse is Found

You can listen to or download my sermon from December 13th, "Far as the Curse is Found" HERE. The sermon begins in Genesis three and traces God's promise to bring from the fallen couple one who would finally crush the enemy.

Science and Faith

I am excited about an upcoming event at Westminster Seminary. It is entitled "Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?" and will be held on the seminary campus March 12th and 13th.

Are science and faith at war? Does science undermine or corroborate belief in God? Does faith suppress or inspire scientific research? Explore these questions and more at this two-day conference to be held March 12-13, 2010 at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

Sessions will explore a Biblical view of science and nature; the role of Christianity in the founding of modern science; the impact of Darwinian Evolution on ethics, society, Biblical studies and theology; and the scientific evidence for intelligent design and its implications for theism.

Speakers will include Westminster faculty Dr. Vern Poythress, author of Redeeming Science; Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, author of Reasons for Faith; and Dr. Jeffrey Jue, author of Heaven Upon Earth. Speakers will also include Discovery Institute Fellows Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design; Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and The Edge of Evolution; Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery; Dr. C. John Collins, author of Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?; Dr. John West, author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science; and Dr. Bruce Gordon, co-editor of The Nature of Nature.

Event Schedule:

FRIDAY, MARCH 12
Registration and Book Table Open (8:00 am)

Morning Sessions (starting at 9:00 am)
Session 1: A Biblical View of Science and Nature
Speaker: Vern Poythress

Session 2: The Role of Christianity in the Founding of Modern Science
Speaker: Jack Collins

Lunch (11:45 am-1:00 pm)

Afternoon Sessions
Session 3: Darwinian Materialism and Its Effects on Culture and the Church
Speakers: John West and Jay Richards

Session 4: Redeeming Science: Biology, Physics and Mathematics
Speaker: Vern Poythress

Break for Dinner (4:30-7:00 pm)

Evening Session (7:00 pm)
Session 5: Understanding the Days of Creation
Speakers: Jack Collins, Vern Poythress, Jay Richards

SATURDAY, MARCH 13
Registration and Book Table Open (8:00 am)

Morning Sessions (starting at 8:30 am)
Session 6: The Role of Worldviews in Apologetic Dialogue
Speaker: Scott Oliphint

Session 7: The Case for Intelligent Design, Part I
Speakers: Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer

Lunch and Q and A with Dr. Behe and Dr. Meyer (11:30 am-12:45 pm)

Afternoon Sessions
Session 8: The Case for Intelligent Design, Part II
Speakers: Bruce Gordon, Jay Richards, and Stephen Meyer

Session 9: The Challenges of Theistic Evolution and Naturalism
Speakers: Jack Collins, Stephen Meyer, Vern Poythress, and Jeffrey Jue

Wrap-up and Practical Resources for Churches

Conference ends at 4:30 pm.

Registration Information

Setting apart Christ as Lord in our defense of the faith

"Where Peter commands us always to be ready to set forth a defense of the hope in us, he also specifies the condition under which this must done: 'Set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts' (1 Peter 3:15). In all our apologetical endeavors we must honor Christ as Lord over our thinking and argumentation. He alone must occupy this unique position of lordship in our minds, for He must be 'set apart' for that function. That which dictates what we think and present in defense of the faith must not be the theories, inferences, and assumptions of secular learning. The content and logic of our apologetic comes from the Word of Christ our Lord...

"Exclusive loyalty belongs to the Lord, and hence His Word must never be doubted or tried. Consequently, when Peter commands us to defend the faith by honoring the lordship of Christ, this means that we must never assume an uncommitted or neutral stance with respect to the veracity of God's Word. Scripture is not on trial, but must always be presupposed as true. To presume to work up to a recognition of its truth by independent argumentation would be to honor some other lord than Christ (whether it be empirical discovery, logic, some scholar's opinion, one's own rational abilities, or whatever). Christ alone must govern our thoughts, and His Word must not be brought into question. In setting forth our reasoned account for the Christian hope in us we are obligated by the word of our Lord to do so without casting doubt upon Scripture's veracity. The Lord's word must be presupposed and obeyed in everything we do--even apologetics. Like faithful Abraham, we must never waver in unbelief (Rom. 4:20). The Word of God should not be treated as a hypothesis to be proved by rational-emperical testing; it must never be reduced to the level of probability. It is the unquestionable Word of Christ our Lord; we begin with its veracity and argue accordingly. It is the thinking of the rebel sinner, not the Word of the Lord, that must be brought into question. Our defense of the faith does not work toward an honoring of Christ's lordship; it works under that lordship!"

- Greg Bahnsen from Presuppositional Apologetics (pp. 26-27)

The final two sentences devestate me: "It is the thinking of the rebel sinner, not the Word of the Lord, that must be brought into question. Our defense of the faith does not work toward an honoring of Christ's lordship; it works under that lordship!"

It saddens me to think about the biblical scholars who, in the classroom and their books, attack the veracity of God's own Word. It's remarkable really. As one Old Testament scholar said to me, "There is not a single page of the Bible that does not bear the taint of human error." His own presuppositions and conclusions have taken on a greater level authority than the Word of God. This is idolatry and rebel thinking.

It should be no surprise then when Christian students, attending "Christian" colleges, reared to believe the Bible as God's Word end up departing from the faith after one or two classes with such unbelieving Bible teachers.

Read the Bible in 2010

As you consider making resolutions for the new year consider reading the entire Bible in 2010.

ESV Daily Reading Plan

M'Cheyne's Reading Plan

ESV Daily Reading Bible

Check out more options HERE.

Christ the Center - 100th Episode

Take a listen to the 100th episode of Christ The Center over at Reformed Forum. Among the issues discussed in this episode is what it means to be Reformed.

Not Just Another Issue...

From Kevin DeYoung:

Abortion is not just one issue among many. We are not just arguing about different means to a shared end. We are arguing about the “right,” pulled out of constitutional thin air, to end a life. Abortion is the deepest social injustice because the human is helpless and innocent. It is the gravest tragedy because the procedure Abby Johnson describes is purposefully lethal and perfectly legal.

Lord, haste the day when the collective ignominy our nation feels toward slavery and racism will be felt concerning this evil as well.

And until that day, let every Christian light a candle and curse the darkness that makes its flame necessary.

Peaceful Coexistence?

From Paul McCain over at Evangel:

Muslims and non-Muslims who live in nations where Islam is not the law of the land talk a lot about how Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Christians who live in Islamic nations tell a different story. I picked this up from Ron Dreher’s blog, who writes: “If you want to know what it’s really like to live under persecution for your Christian faith and culture, listen to this presentation by Bishop Thomas, a Copt who serves in Assiut, an area of intense Islamic persecution of Christians. I met him once, and the man is so luminous, and peaceful. It’s almost humiliating to be an American Christian, with such an easy life despite it all, and to hear what life is like for Christians in Egypt and elsewhere. If you don’t have time to watch the whole nine minute video, start at about 2:45:

Art Therapy for Terrorists?

I know it's not fashionable right now to call terrorists, well, terrorists. Anyway, it seems that those fellas we released from Gitmo were being detained for a reason.

From Brian Ross, etc over at ABC News:

One of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit was released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the terrorist from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where he entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and was set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials. ABC News described his enrollment in the art therapy program in a January report.

Guantanamo prisoner prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari was sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody.

The Saudi national has since emerged in leadership roles in Yemen, according to U.S. officials and the men's own statements on al Qaeda propaganda tapes.

When Evangelicalism is no longer evangelical...

Good article (part one of a series) by Martin Downes on the (almost) 20th anniversary of Robert Brow's "manifesto" on "the new evangelicalism."

It is almost twenty years since Christianity Today published the article "Evangelical Megashift: Why you may not have heard about wrath, sin, and hell recently" by the Canadian theologian Robert Brow (19th February 1990, to be exact).

Twenty years is a long time. After all in Febraury 1990, here in the UK Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was still several months away.

Over the next two months I will make some occassional posts on the original article, and will offer some reflections on the trajectories of what Brow called "new model" thinking. Brow claimed that this was "dividing evangelicals on a deep level." Al Mohler referred to this article, back in 1996, as a "manifesto for evangelical revision."

Indeed it is worth recalling his comments on the subtle progressiveness of this paradigm shift from old to new model thinking:

But now, almost without our recognizing it, another model has appeared...A whole generation of young people have breathed this air, making their thinking very different from that of "old-model" evangelicalism, even where there is shared commitment to Jesus as Savior and the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. This theological sea change, as has so often happened in church history, involved giving new meanings to the ever stable language of the Christian faith.

In particular Brow noted that the words hell, faith, judge, wrath, sin, church, and the title "Son of God" were all being assigned new meanings in line with "new model" thinking:

We have looked at seven key words that have radically changed focus among new model evangelicals. When these words are encountered in the Bible, their meaning is articulated with a different accent.

Many readers of Christianity Today will recognize that they have moved in some of these directions without being conscious of a model shift. And the old model can be modified and given qualifications for a time. But once three or four of the changes have occurred, our thinking is already organized around the new model.

We may still use old-model language and assume we believe as before, but our hearts are changing our minds.

Others have noted that this article was a precursor for the open theist project (although an essay by Clark Pinnock in 1986 heralded this neo-Socinian theology to the evangelical world), and a portent much of the emergent and post-evangelical theology that has influenced evangelicalism in the first decade of the 21st century.

Almost ten years ago Gary L. W. Johnson was right to say that these "new model" thinkers have not lacked "a platform to propagate their anti-Reformational views" (and that not least through the medium of Christianity Today).

Yet, back in 1990, who would have thought that we would see a suprising resurgence of the very "old model" Calvinistic thinking that the "new model" thinkers were to determined to steer evangelicals away from?

Furthermore, however you assess it, this resurgence of the New Calvinists has brought in its wake a bold proclamation and clear articulation of the very words that the evangelical megashift was busily reinterpreting.

More to come...

My Books of the Year

The books published in 2009 that I most appreciated are (in no particular order):

Words of Life by Timothy Ward

Christ-Centered Worship by Bryan Chapell

The Gospel-Driven Life by Michael Horton

When Helping Hurts by Corbett & Fikkert

Ancient Word, Changing Worlds by Stephen Nichols

The Erosion of Inerrancy by Greg Beale

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

The Gospel in Genesis by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

* Books that probably belong on the list but are not because I am still reading them:

The Meaning of the Penteteuch by John Sailhamer

The Trellis and the Vine by Marshall & Payne

Calvin by Bruce Gordon

God's People in the Wilderness by O. Palmer Robertson

Words from the Fire by Albert Mohler

A Praying Life by Paul Miller

Abortion Politics

As Congress and the White House march toward passing massive health care legislation, tax payers face the real possibility of being forced to fund the continuing moral catastrophe of abortion. The only hope of that not happening is for certain pro-life Democrats to steadfastly reject the Senate's so-called compromise language on abortion.

From an article by Pete Winn:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here."

Stupak had contact with the White House last weekend, when the Senate voted 60 to 40 in the wee hours of Monday morning to shut off debate on the Senate version of the bill.

The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language "unacceptable."

"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," said the statement.

In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House "asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.' Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.”

Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care."

Read the entire article HERE.

Blessed Incongruity

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
- Luke 2:1-21

In all of human history there is no birthday that has been celebrated more faithfully, with greater joy, by more people around the world than the birth of the Jesus; the birth of the Saviour. Oddly enough even people who are not Christians acknowledge that there is something special about this season.

What is it about a single birth over 2,000 years ago that so captivates much of the world? It is because whether the world acknowledges it or not that birth was a singular event. There was never before nor will there ever be again an event like it. What Luke recorded for us is his gospel account was not simply the birth of a good man or of a spiritual guru. What Luke records is the birth of the Saviour.

If you read Luke’s account carefully you will find that the birth of Jesus was blessedly incongruous. To say that something is incongruous is to say that it doesn’t fit. This bothers us. We want things to be congruent. We want round pegs for round holes. But throughout the event of Jesus’ birth God demonstrates a reckless disregard for the world’s expectations.

This is often how God teaches us. This passage of Scripture almost screams out to us the contrast between the ways of God and the ways of the world. If we read it carefully, this passage causes us to reflect on our own lives and consider how we do things versus how God does things.

Notice three areas addressed in this passage where God’s ideas and our ideas often clash.

Power
The most ignominious birth in Israel happened under the shadow of the most powerful ruler on the planet. Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the days of the reign of Caesar Augustus. At that time there was no greater contrast in regards to power. What could be weaker than the a new born baby – particularly a new born in the circumstances that Luke describes? And there was no greater power on the planet than that of Caesar Augustus.

Recall what Paul wrote to the church of Corinth:
“But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Cor. 1:27-28).

Status
We learn some lessons about status in this story. The birth of the Saviour was heralded in heaven but it was ignored by the world. The Son of God, the King of Kings, the Prince of Peace was born and all of heaven erupted in praise. But the world slept.

Rome hungered for glory. The Greeks sought after wisdom. Israel desired signs and wonders. But what God sent would represent a stumbling block for them all. The birth of Jesus was not in keeping with the glory of Rome. The birth of Jesus was not in keeping with the wisdom of the Greeks. Nor was the birth of Jesus consistent with the expectations of Israel’s religious leaders.

The three major cultures that converged in that part of the world had certain standards for what constituted true status. And the birth of the Saviour failed to live up to any of those standards.

Salvation
Interestingly enough Caesar Augustus became fond of the title – “Saviour of the world.” The world offers salvation through the exercise of force, political activism, Utopian dreams, or the acquisition of money. But salvation and genuine peace will never, can never be established by individual or national use of force or political persuasion.

Nations do not last forever. Even a power as mighty as Rome decayed from the inside out and crumbled. This is why Caesar’s Pax Romana (the peace of Rome) was ultimately an illusion. The greatest power on the planet eventually ended up on history’s ash heap. Salvation and genuine peace are given by God and that through the means of a suffering Saviour. These incongruities of power, status, and salvation highlight the beauty of God’s humility and willingness to touch us in our weakness and brokenness.

What is Christmas about?

That's Christmas (Short Film) HD from St Helen’s Church on Vimeo.

Thinking Biblically about Bearing the Sword and Turning the Cheek

Does Jesus' command to his followers to "turn the other cheek" mean that the state cannot legitimately bear the sword? David VanDrunen has written an excellent article for Themelios on the difference between the church's responsibilities and that of the state.

Among the many biblical passages that provoke controversial questions about Christian non-violence and cooperation with the sword-bearing state, perhaps none presses the issue as sharply as Matt 5:38–42. When Jesus prescribes turning the other cheek, giving up the garment, and going the second mile as an alternative to the lex talionis—the eye-for-eye principle of strict, proportionate justice—he addresses a key element of justice not only in the Mosaic law (Exod 21:22–25; Lev 24:18–21; Deut 19:21) but also in the Noahic covenant of Gen 9 and in countless human legal systems, such as the Law of Hammurabi and the Roman Law.2 Applied literally and universally, Jesus’ words leave little room for Christian participation in the coercive enforcement of justice in civil society. Yet NT texts such as Rom 13:1–7 continue to speak positively about civil government and its justice and about Christian submission under its regime. Interpreting Matt 5:38–42 in light of the broader biblical witness, therefore, has proven to be an arduous and controversial endeavor.

In recent years a number of eloquent writers have defended a rather literal reading of Matt 5:38–42 and surrounding verses. This often entails a non-violent or pacifist position that avoids cooperation with the civil state, though ordinarily its advocates seek not to withdraw from society but to develop a radical, peaceful, counter-intuitive strategy for effecting social transformation.3 Into the present day, however, most Christian theologians have held that Christians may be faithful to the Sermon on the Mount even while circumspectly supporting the coercive enforcement of justice. They often defend this view through highlighting the hyperbolic character of verses such as 5:38–42, which Jesus did not necessarily intend to be performed literally.4

My sympathies are clearly with the latter line of thought, though I defend the compatibility of the Sermon on the Mount with the continuing legitimacy of civil authority in a distinctive way. In this article I argue both for a strong—even literal—reading of Matt 5:38–42 and for the ongoing legitimate role for the sword-bearing state and Christian cooperation with it. Recognizing the lex talionis as the principle of strict retributive justice is crucial for my argument. Jesus truly decreed that the coercive application of the lex talionis was not to be pursued. Yet in doing so he did not intend to undermine civil authority or to prohibit Christians from supporting the work of the state. In Matt 5:38–42, Jesus announces that the pursuit of retributive justice has no place in the kingdom of heaven. Though the kingdom of heaven is ultimately an eschatological realm, to be fully revealed in the age to come, in Matthew Jesus points to the church as the particular community that embodies the kingdom’s way of life here and now. Many recent scholars argue against interpretations that limit the application of the Sermon on the Mount to the church.5 Christians, indeed, are citizens of the kingdom in all that they do and should always seek opportunities to express the Sermon’s ethic of forgiveness and reconciliation. Nevertheless, I argue that in Matt 5:38–42 Jesus defines the unique character of his church and does not redefine (or eliminate) the state or his disciples’ basic responsibilities toward it. The state is to continue its work of coercively enforcing justice in civil society, with Christians’ support. But the church is a community that shuns the application of the lex talionis. In anticipation of the eschatological kingdom, the church is not only a non-violent community but also, even more importantly, a community defined by an ethic of forgiveness and mercy rather than by retributive justice.

I also claim that a two-kingdoms doctrine as commonly expressed in historic Reformed theology provides an effective theological framework for appreciating these exegetical conclusions. Though most people today do not readily associate Reformed Christianity with a two-kingdoms doctrine, the early Reformed tradition did develop two-kingdoms categories similar to, though also distinct from, the Lutheran tradition. I argue that this Reformed two-kingdoms doctrine better captures Jesus’ teaching in Matt 5:38–42 than does either a Lutheran two-kingdoms doctrine or the neo-Calvinist paradigm popular in contemporary Reformed thought.

Read the entire article HERE.

What exactly does "justice" mean?

The Associated Press has posted an article on a so-called "evangelical church" in Denver. I say "so-called" because of the church's decision to embrace homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As I read the article it was clear that the church embraces the standard liberal positions on important matters. So there is not much of a story here. This is not a case of a truly evangelical church that has now come to embrace homosexuality.

The pastor says the church's decision is not a matter of "lenience but a matter of justice." So my question is, what does he mean by "justice"? I hear that word a lot in certain circles but it never seems to be in reference to God's justice. Usually what I hear described as justice sounds more like mercy. Mercy for the poor. Mercy for the marginalized.

Don't misunderstand. I am pro-justice. Well, I am pro-justice to a certain extent (I'll explain in a moment). God calls his people to do justice. We are to seek justice for the oppressed; for those who have been truly victimized. But I am concerned that there is often times a lack of clarity around what constitutes justice. When I hear it described by certain people it simply sounds like liberal economic policies. For the church in Denver, doing justice is embracing what God has clearly called an abomination.

Justice is receiving what we deserve. Therefore, it seems to me that Christians ought to use the word justice carefully. The good news is that none of us have received what we deserve.

Vacation Reading...

Here are the books I'm taking with me on Christmas break:

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

For the Thrill of It by Simon Baatz

Flannery by Brad Gooch

The Trellis and the Vine by Payne & Marshall

Far as the curse is found - The Promise Fulfilled

3. The Promise Fulfilled

Notice three ways that God’s Word reveals Jesus to us as the fulfillment of His promise.

God in the flesh
To fulfill His promise God would not raise up a more moral man. It would not be enough for him to simply find the best man for the job. God himself would have to come to us. But he would come in such a way that we would know him and see him. He would come in such a way that He would experience all our temptations and pains and frailties and yet without sin or any hint of imperfection. John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” A merely better man would not do. What we needed only God himself could accomplish.

J.I. Packer writes:

“Trinity and Incarnation belong together. The doctrine of the Trinity declares that the man Jesus is truly divine; that of the Incarnation declares that the divine Jesus is truly human. Together they proclaim the full reality of the Savior whom the New Testament sets forth, the Son who came from the Father’s side at the Father’s will to become the sinner’s substitute on the cross…

“The Incarnation, this mysterious miracle at the heart of historic Christianity, is central in the New Testament witness. That Jews should ever have come to such a belief is amazing. Eight of the nine New Testament writers, like Jesus’ original disciples, were Jews, drilled in the Jewish axiom that there is only one God and that no human is divine. They all teach, however, that Jesus is God’s Messiah, the Spirit-anointed son of David promised in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 11:1-5; Christos, “Christ,” is Greek for Messiah). They all present him in a threefold role as teacher, sin-bearer, and ruler—prophet, priest, and king. And in other words, they all insist that Jesus the Messiah should be personally worshiped and trusted—which is to say that he is God no less than he is man.”

The second Adam
Romans five juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the obedience of Christ. And there we are told that just as sin and death reigned through Adam’s fall so now forgiveness and life have come through Jesus Christ. In this sense Jesus has been often given the title “the second Adam.” You see, where Adam failed Jesus succeeded. “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17)

The Lamb of God
What we needed from God was not a good moral example to follow. We didn’t need a good teacher who would give us helpful principles to live by. What we needed was a Saviour. One who could bear away the guilt of our sin.

John the Baptist, the cousin of Jesus and the last of the Old Covenant prophets. He was a bridge figure between the old and the new. Like the prophets of the Old Covenant John called the people of God to repent from their sins. He also told of one who would come from God who would save the people from their sins. But what made John unique is that he was the one chosen by God to introduce the Messiah to the world. And so as Jesus was entering his public ministry John announced his coming by saying, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

“Lamb of God.” Could there have been more significant symbolic language for God’s people? For thousands of years their high priests had entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement with the blood of a spotless lamb.

Imagine a great novel without a final chapter. Imagine not knowing how it ends. It would make the entire story somewhat meaningless. I think we can rightly say that without knowing the final chapter of the biblical story we would not understand the story itself. Not knowing how God’s promise in Genesis three ends; not know where the birth in Bethlehem ultimately leads would keep us from understanding the ultimate point of that birth.

The story of God’s salvation in Jesus does not end with our own personal salvation. My personal experience is not the final chapter. The final chapter is told in the consumation of the ages. It is told in the events of Christ’s return to judge the world. It is told in Christ’s joyful welcome to all his people.

Interestingly enough just as the Bible begins with a creation story it ends with a new creation story. You cannot read the final three chapters of the Bible (Revelation 20-22) without being vividly reminded of the first three chapters of the Bible. The river of life reappears. The tree of life is restored. The heavenly city descends and once again the Lord walks in communion with his covenant people. Creation will be remade. And as far as the curse is found it will be once and for all wiped away.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Revelation 21:1-4

Take and Read

Justin Taylor comments on a book that is on my must read list for 2010:

"Just noticed that for a limited time Amazon has Jay Richard’s hardcover book, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, on sale for 60% off.

"Doug Wilson has written that it’s one of the best books he’s read in some time. Sam Storms says it’s the best book he read in 2009. Kevin DeYoung said it’s the most engaging, readable, and thoughtful Christian defense of capitalism he’s read."
Here’s the table of contents along with list of the myths that Richards sets out to dispel:

1.Can’t We Build a Just Society? Myth no. 1: The Nirvana Myth (contrasting capitalism with an unrealizable ideal rather than with its live alternatives)
2.What Would Jesus Do? Myth no. 2: The Piety Myth (focusing on our good intentions rather than the unintended consequences of our actions)
3.Doesn’t Capitalism Foster Unfair Competition? Myth no. 3: The Zero-sum Game Myth (believing that trade requires a winner and a loser)
4.If I Become Rich, Won’t Someone Else Become Poor? Myth no. 3: The Materialist Myth (believing that intellect cannot create new wealth)
5.Isn’t Capitalism Based on Greed? Myth no. 4: The Greed Myth (believing that the essence of capitalism is greed)
6.Hasn’t Christianity Always Opposed Capitalism? Myth no. 5: The Usury Myth (believing that charging interest on money is always exploitive)
7.Doesn’t Capitalism Always Lead to an Ugly Consumerist Culture? Myth no. 7: The Artsy Myth (confusing aesthetic judgments with economic arguments)
8.Are We Going to Use Up All the Resources? Myth no. 8: The Freeze Frame Myth (believing that things always stay the same—for example, assuming population trends will continue indefinitely or treating “rich” and “poor” as static categories)
9.Conclusion: Working All Things Together for Good
10.Appendix: Is the “Spontaneous Order” of the Market Evidence of a Universe without Purpose?

Theology: Systematic / Biblical Balancing Act

Okay, if you're a theology nerd like me then you will want to read the debate between two of my favorite writers - Carl Trueman and Graeme Goldsworthy.

Now, I tease a bit about being a theology nerd. But don't misunderstand. Theology is a deadly serious thing and a precious thing. So I am thankful for the likes of Drs. Trueman and Goldsworthy who understand that theology must not only be thoughtful but devotional and doxological as well.

A Revolutionary Balancing Act by Carl Trueman

A Response to Carl Trueman by Graeme Goldsworthy

Oral Roberts, Prosperity and the Perversion of Scripture

Oral Roberts died this week. He was 91 years old. Roberts was a bit of a denominational mish-mash. He was a Pentecostal faith healer, a United Methodist, a university president, and a proponent of the prosperity "gospel." I know it is normal practice to say nice things about a man when he dies. However, because of Oral Roberts' position as an influential teacher in the church and the errors he promoted I can only grieve when I think of the stricter judgement faced by all those who teach.

John MacArthur has written a worthwhile piece briefly tracing the emergence of word/faith and prosperity teaching and Oral Roberts' role as a popularizer of those false doctrines.

Oral Roberts died this week and the obituaries have been abuzz with analyses of his life and legacy. The USA Today headline summed up his contributions this way: "Oral Roberts brought health-and-wealth Gospel mainstream." The Los Angeles Times gave a similar snapshot of the man: "Oral Roberts dies at 91; televangelist was pioneering preacher of the 'prosperity gospel'"

But Christianity Today's lead blogger, Ted Olsen, disagreed. He responded with a post titled "Why the Oral Roberts Obituaries Are Wrong." The long subtitle at the head of Olsen's post explained: "The 'faith-healer' (who hated the term) may have done much to mainstream Pentecostalism, but he was no architect of the Prosperity Gospel."

Olsen's argument, essentially, is that the real founder and mastermind of prosperity doctrine was not Oral Roberts but Kenneth Hagin, "who is far more widely recognized as the man who joined Pentecostalism with the Faith Movement (also called 'Word-Faith,' or derogatively, the Prosperity Gospel or 'Health and Wealth' gospel)."

Olsen, however, is wrong. He has evidently confused two categories. It is quite true that Kenneth Hagin is the main prosperity preacher who popularized word-faith doctrine--the notion that the words we speak determine the blessings we receive. Hagin borrowed that doctrine from an earlier, lesser-known preacher--E. W. Kenyon. (A mountain of evidence suggests that Hagin actually plagiarized large portions of his published works from Kenyon's writings.) Kenyon had been strongly influenced by the teachings of New Thought, a 19th-century metaphysical cult similar to Christian Science. So Hagin's word-faith doctrines had deeply cultic roots, but the idea fit perfectly with the prosperity doctrines that were already being taught by A. A. Allen, Oral Roberts, Jack Coe, and other faith-healers. The two ideas were natural complements to one another.

Still, word-faith doctrine and the prosperity gospel are not synonymous. (Even the current Wikipedia entry acknowledges this: "Although [the Word of Faith movement] shares teachings in common with Prosperity theology, they are not the same thing.") Prosperity doctrine is the notion that God's favor is expressed mainly through physical health and material prosperity, and that these blessings are available for the claiming by anyone who has sufficient faith.

Oral Roberts was certainly the 20th century's leading advocate of that idea. His prosperity doctrine laid the foundation for an enormous media-based religious system, and Oral Roberts was indeed its chief architect. It is preposterous that Christianity Today would try to whitewash that fact. Prosperity teaching was what Roberts himself wanted to be remembered for.

Read MacArthur's entire article HERE.

Also, check out this article from the Trinity Foundation.