Dr. Craig Hazen, Director of the Masters of Apologetics program at Biola University, is currently a leading candidate to become President of the university. Unfortunately, this has brought attention back to some controversial things he's said about Mormonism over the past few years. Most of the current controversy is being inspired by Jill Rische who has accused him of blasphemy. The responses by Francis Beckwith and Greg Johnson on that blog (multiple posts) are well worth reading. Greg Koukl has also offered his thoughts on the situation. Amy has already sent a supportive letter to Biola, here is the one I just sent:

To Whom It May Concern,

Dr. Craig Hazen has come under renewed criticism by certain Christian apologists due to his candidacy for President of Biola University. As a friend of Dr. Hazen and student at Talbot School of Theology, I would like to express my support for him and his candidacy.

Over the past few years, Dr. Hazen has been involved in two controversial events having to do with Mormonism. The first was a “dialogue” event at the Mormon Tabernacle where Ravi Zacharias was the main speaker and Craig Hazen offered a prayer. The second was the publishing of a book by Mormon theologian Robert Millet which was endorsed by Dr. Hazen and published by a supposedly Christian press.

Jill Martin Rische has been the most vocal critic against Craig Hazen claiming that his remarks constitute blasphemy. While I don’t agree with every word Dr. Hazen used in those of these instances, but the accusation of blasphemy is completely unfounded. Frankly, I wish Dr. Hazen had not endorsed Robert Millet’s book, but nothing he said promotes or encourages Mormonism. Dr. Hazen’s words do promote the search for truth and he has been uncompromising about what the truth is. Mrs. Rische has even acknowledged this stating, “In his own defense, Dr. Hazen argues he has spent his life telling people that Mormonism is a false religion.” While I occasionally disagree with Dr. Hazen over his methodology, to my knowledge he has never compromised the Gospel or backed down from identifying Mormonism as “an achievement of the devil.”

Mrs. Rische has cited 2 Cor. 6:14-18 in support of her apparent view that Christians should not build relationships with non-Christians in an effort to evangelize to them. However, following her logic, Jesus was wrong for dining with prostitutes and tax collectors, and the Apostle Paul was wrong for addressing the Areopagus as he did in Acts 17:22-34. In fact, Dr. Hazen’s prayer at the Tabernacle even bears striking resemblance to Paul’s address in that they both appeal to the non-Christian’s religious in order to point them to the truth.

Through all of the criticisms that have been directed his way, Dr. Hazen has maintained an attitude like that which Paul exhibited in Philippians 1:15-18. Regardless of what is said about him, Dr. Hazen has shown that his greatest desire is that the Gospel go forth into the world and rigorously defended.

I know nothing of the other candidates for President of Biola University, so I can say nothing of them. But of Dr. Craig Hazen I can say that he is an incredible visionary who exemplifies what it means to act with wisdom, knowledge, and character, even in the midst of harsh and slanderous criticisms. I believe Dr. Hazen would make an outstanding President and it is my hope that the accusations being made against him would not be held against him.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Roger N. Overton

I guess it's A God Entranced Vision of all Things week.  I want to share something with you from Donald S. Whitney's chapter, "Pursuing a Passion for God Through Spiritual Disciplines." 

Several years ago at a church I formerly attended, I went to someone in leadership for prayer and for some help and accountability in being more disciplined.   My times praying and reading the Bible had slowly become less regular and less frequent, and I could tell this was negatively affecting my life.  I desperately wanted the spiritual fruit and closeness to God I had previously enjoyed when I had been disciplined, but my soul had become fat and lazy, and getting started again was proving to be difficult. 

After opening up my heart to this leader about my need, he responded that I shouldn't seek to be disciplined with my prayer and Bible study--that is, I shouldn't try to develop a schedule and stick to it--because that would be "doing things in my own strength."  Stunned, I went away without help.

Obviously, I would need God's strength to be disciplined--that's why I was asking for prayer!  I think he meant something more, though.  He thought there was something wrong with my wanting to put regular, structured effort into seeking God because he saw this as a form of legalism.

I think the following passage--particularly the last paragraph--from the chapter cited above speaks well to this concern, defining the purpose of the disciplines, God's part in our spiritual growth, and the need for our effort:

How shall we satisfy these ever-thirsty longings for the ocean of God?...If I wanted to go to the Pacific and enjoy its beauty and immerse myself in it, what should I do?  I could stay in my house all my life and express my longings to experience the ocean but never feel its water on my skin.  I must get on the highways that will take me to the ocean.

 

God has built highways by which those he has made alive can come and be satisfied with the ocean of himself....These highways are the personal and interpersonal practices revealed in the Bible by which we may find and enjoy God.  The highways do not exist for themselves.  Our souls do not find satisfaction in the highways, but only in the ocean to which they take us.

 

It is God who makes us alive.  It is God who has graciously built these highways to himself.  It is God who gives us the ongoing thirst that this crystal-clear ocean alone can satisfy.  It is God who entreats us with the invitations to come to him on these royal highways.  It is God who gives us a spiritual affinity and enjoyment for the highways that take us to him.  But we must get on the highways (pp. 126-127).

The following is an argument against slavery given in a sermon by Jonathan Edwards, Jr. in 1791:

Should we be willing, that the Africans or any other nation should purchase us, our wives and children, transport us into Africa and there sell us into perpetual and absolute slavery?  Should we be willing that they by large bribes and offers of a gainful traffic should entice our neighbors to kidnap and sell us to them, and that they should hold, in perpetual and cruel bondage, not only ourselves, but our posterity through all generations?  Yet why is it not as right for them to treat us in this manner, as it for us to treat them in the same manner?  Their colour indeed is different from ours.  But does this give us the right to enslave them?  The nations of Germany to Guinea have complexions of every shade from the fairest white, to the jetty black:  and if a black complexion subject a nation or an individual to slavery; where shall slavery begin?  Or where shall it end? 

 

(Quoted in A God Entranced Vision of All Things, p. 158.  You can read the entire sermon, Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade and of the Slavery of Africans, here.)

Edwards does an excellent job here of showing that the color of your skin is irrelevant to your personhood.  Choosing the point on the scale of colors after which a person would lose his rights as a human being would be a completely subjective and arbitrary enterprise.  Would someone on the other side of that arbitrary line suddenly become a non-human without rights?  Why?  If the characteristic of color is truly relevant, then anyone with lighter skin is more deserving of rights than someone with darker skin.  Am I more human than someone with a tan?  The notion is ridiculous.

In the same way, those who advocate abortion rights often cite similar irrelevant characteristics such as size (the fetus is so small!) or level of development (the fetus can't do everything I can!) to disqualify the unborn child as deserving of rights.  (I'm indebted to STR for their clarification of this in the SLED Test.)  But if those characteristics were relevant to our rights and humanness, why should the line be arbitrarily drawn at birth?  If they're relevant, then Andrew Jones ("Tall Skinny Kiwi") should have more rights than I, and I should have more rights than a young child who has not yet learned to walk.

The truth is that, as with slavery, our culture is defensively protecting its sin with some very weak arguments about irrelevant characteristics.

I've always had a certain bizarre fascination with things that annoy me, and now, it has happened:  Someone has finally succeeded in bringing together everything that makes me crazy into one amazing conglomeration--including (but not limited to) certain New Age ideas (we're our own god, there's an impersonal base behind the universe, we should blame victims for their situation); Marxist theories; conspiracy theories; infomercials; historical revisionism; pseudoscience; narcissism; hoaxes perpetrated against lost, hopeless people; putting feelings in charge; and even the use of quantum physics to support dubious philosophical claims.  (It would achieve total perfection if only it were set to the music of the Electrical Light Parade and hosted by the dancing Six Flags guy.) 

 

Ahhh.  It's so beautiful in its (near) perfection of all things annoying, I can only stand in awe of...The Secret.

 

[Warning:  You probably should not watch that whole video in one sitting.  You will not know whether to laugh or cry at any given moment, and various points may cause strokes and/or exploding heads among viewers.  Too much of it at one time is likely to bring on all of these things at once.]

But seriously, I don't mean to make light of this.  Real people--including some of my friends--are into this, and it's frustrating because God is so much better than the impersonal "universe" the video is offering, but people settle for this cheap imitation!  The Secret offers health, wealth, love, and power?  Big deal!  God is the one for whose sake people endure painful physical persecution, lose all their possessions, suffer rejection from their family and friends, and become the servant of all.  Which, then, is greater?

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 

 

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matthew 13:44-46).

I hope you'll go out there today and tell people this good news.

I'm currently reading A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards and have come upon the chapter titled "Trusting the Theology of a Slave Owner."

Even as Edwards argued against the slave trade, saying that it was wrong because we are all of the same human race, made by the same Maker in His image, and we ought not steal human beings and tear them away from their families, nor should we profit from others who do so--even as he argued this, Edwards continued to own slaves.

It's a scary thought that a man who knew God's word far better than I do and who spent far more time in prayer, study, and meditation than I do was blinded enough by his own sin and culture not to see a sin that is now glaringly obvious to us--that a man of such incisive and precise thinking could not see that he condemned himself with his own arguments against the slave trade.

His son, who was able to follow the logic of Edwards's arguments and the implications of his theology to the end, argued eloquently against slavery and not just the trade.  But it took those of that next generation to finally work their way completely out of the blinders of cultural complacency. 

It's difficult to see clearly and then fight against a sin you're already participating in.  How much more so if your culture condones it!  Our sin blinds us and distorts our perception (a frightening reality that ought to make us more careful about giving into temptation).  Edwards had slaves, so he was not able to see the wrongness of it, and while he was ahead of his time morally in many ways, including in his arguments against the slave trade, his treatment of his slaves, and his inclusion of slaves as members of his church, we can see now how far he was from God's standard of perfect righteousness.

If this doesn't point out the need of all of us for a savior, I don't know what does!  We are all desperately in the "sinner" category (a category which includes everyone but God) in ways of which we haven't even a clue.  Edwards fought so hard for holiness in himself and mastery over his sin, and people around him would have considered him a very good man.  Some who misunderstood the gospel probably thought he was good enough to get to heaven based on his works.  But they could not even see the sin of slavery.

In the same way, as best as we try to conquer our own sin, there will be sins in our lives that we will never even recognize.  This is a humbling thought to which we are forced to respond like Paul:

Wretched man that I am!  Who will set me free from the body of this death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!...Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....For what the Law could not do [i.e., make us righteous], weak as it was through the flesh, God did:  sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Justin Taylor has noted the passing of New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos.  Be sure to read about his life and work if you're unfamiliar with him.

The blogsphere has practically irrupted with reaction to John MacArthur's recent comments regarding Calvinism and eschatology. Most of it has been worthwhile discussion about Amillennialism: Dr. Scott Clark answers with what John Calvin actually said regarding the millennium. Fide-O provided some clarifications about Amillennialism (among other great posts on the controversy). Sadly, some of the discussion has degenerated into a Sola Institutio flogging of those of us who don't believe in every jot and title of certain Reformed confessions (such as the Westminster).

Dustin Steeve at The Right House wrote one of my all time favorite blog posts. It does a great job of explaining my childhood love for Legos and fiscal conservativism. Check out the picture!

So far as I can see at this point, Congressman Duncan Hunter is probably the best candidate for President in 2008. It's too bad he likely won't make it past the primary, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to not vote for him.

Wm. B. Eerdmans is continuing down the path of losing its Christian identity (maybe it never had one and my assumption that it was a Christian company was wrong all along?). The last symptom was the publication of an explicitly Mormon evangelistic book (A Different Jesus? by Robert Millet). This week they've released another book by a Mormon author, Muhammad, Prophet of God by Daniel C. Peterson. I wouldn't make as big a deal about it except for the endorsement: "The best scholarly text on the prophet Muhammad written by a Christian. Parviz Morewedge — Global Scholarly Publications" Either Eerdmans can't tell the difference between Christianity and Mormonism or they don't care about the factual integrity of what's printed on their books.

N.T. Wright wrote an "interesting" article on C.S. Lewis in the latest issue of Touchstone.

The Roots of Endurance is the third volume in a series of biographical books by John Piper called “The Swans Are Not Silent.” Each book covers three figures from Christian history under a common theme. In this book, Piper looked at the lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce, each of which endured to their ends facing remarkable adversity.

Piper set the stage with an introduction connecting the three men together in history, spiritually, and theologically. As usual, his words are salted with spiritual wisdom and worth meditation. From the life of John Newton, Piper explored “habitual tenderness” and what it means to have “a tender heart and a theological backbone of steel.”

The biography of Charles Simeon is one of my favorite from the series so far. For the first twelve years of his service at Trinity Church his congregation resisted and rebelled against him, and yet he remained there for fifty-four years! And as many now know due to the recent movie, "Amazing Grace," William Wilberforce also maintained his service through many years, though for him it was in Parliament fighting slavery. Piper told the stories of these men’s inspiring lives along with great academic footnotes and insightful practical application.

Unlike the other books in this series, I thought the concluding thoughts to The Roots of Endurance were a bit shallow (compared to Piper’s other reflections) and perhaps rushed. However, the book stands well enough on its own without the conclusion and I would recommending reading it if only for the biography of Charles Simeon.

Tomorrow morning I’ll be leading the catechism reading at my church. Each week, we recite a few questions from the catechism written by Benjamin Keach. As Reformed Baptists, we hold to the Confession of 1689. Keach wrote his catechism in an effort to further explain the theology of the Confession.

Unfortunately, at least for us today, there are parts that still beg further explanation. The question I have in mind deals with the sacraments:

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

I think the phrase “effectual means of salvation” can be confusing. It could easily be taken as referring to a way in which we earn salvation, such as a means to an end. We may even be encouraged to take it this way when reading the first supporting passage: (1 Peter 3:21) “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

The problem with this interpretation of the question is twofold. First, Reformed Baptists believe baptism and partaking in the Lord’s Supper are the appropriate actions of someone already saved, and we are saved by grace alone- not by works. So we would never say in a catechism that practicing sacraments are ways to become saved. Second, I know of no Reformed theologian (Baptist or otherwise) who believes that such a view is taught in the Bible, or specifically in 1 Peter 3:21*.

So what do we mean by referring to the sacraments as “effectual means of salvation?” The answer is found in a previous question of the catechism:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)

The benefits of redemption begin first and foremost with our justification before God due to Christ bearing the penalty for our sins on the cross. But that is not the only benefit, and the benefits are not confined to the moment we acknowledge Christ as our Lord and Savior. Rather, the benefits of redemption are applied to us throughout our lives. Paul said in Philippians to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” This doesn’t mean we work toward salvation, but that we are to participate in the results (benefits) of our salvation.

To the point, the sacraments are ways in which salvation is worked out in our lives as a result of already being saved. The sacraments are especially “effectual” because they are ordinances that were instituted and commanded by Christ and the Holy Spirit makes special use of them in our process of sanctification.

*For a good explanation of this verse, see Matt Slick's article.

There is much discussion these days about the dangers of confidence.  Those who think their beliefs are true are feared and even hated.  Evil of all sorts has been traced back to confidence, and confidence is declared its root and source.  The remedy for evil in this view, then, is for everyone to reduce their confidence in their beliefs.  It's commonly thought that this would make the world a better place. 

On the other hand, on this blog (see here and here, for example) I've argued that confidence is a morally neutral trait.  Instead, what matters is what you're putting your confidence in.  If your confidence is well placed in the true and the good then great good will follow.  But if your confidence is wrongly placed in false and evil ideas, then great evil will follow.  The problem, therefore, is the false beliefs, not the confidence which can serve either good or evil.  The remedy for evil in this view is for everyone to address the actual beliefs people hold, encouraging others to reduce their confidence in false beliefs and raise their confidence in true ones.  The greater confidence people have in good, true beliefs, the better off this world will be.

If this second view is correct, then seeing confidence as the root of evil and pressuring everyone to have less confidence will have the unfortunate effect of causing a net loss of not only bad things in this world, but also a great deal of good.  To do good is a very, very difficult enterprise--one that is often met with ridicule and intense opposition (just look at Jesus).  Confidence is an absolute necessity for anyone who would persevere through this.

William Wilberforce is a perfect example of the blessings of confidence.  How was he able to fight for twenty years, enduring scorn and personal attacks day in and day out, to put an end to the slave trade in England?  Listen to his own explanation:

The grand object of my parliamentary existence [is the abolition of the slave trade]. . . Before this great cause all others dwindle in my eyes, and I must say that the certainty that I am right here, adds greatly to the complacency [i.e., the settled, peaceful confidence] with which I exert myself in asserting it. If it please God to honor me so far, may I be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty as never before disgraced a Christian country.

Wilberforce was certain that he was right about what was wicked and cruel, and he was certain that the right thing for him to do was to stop that wickedness.  That is what drove him steadily on to end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people.  Would you have chided him for his confidence?  If so, what if he had listened to you?  What if all the abolitionists had listened to you?  The world would now be a much uglier place.

Let's work to end evil, not confidence.