The A-Team Blog

The A-Team Has Moved!

Roger — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:24:00 -0700

Hey! What are you doing here? We've moved the blog on to a bigger and better place. Join us at www.ATeamBlog.com!

The A-Team Twitter

Roger — Sat, 02 May 2009 20:04:00 -0700

In a few weeks www.ateamblog.com will take you to an entirely different place. We're packing up our bags and moving on to a bigger and better site. The sequel to The A-Team will go live May 18th. Until then, you can follow our progress on Twitter.

Book Announcement: God and Governing

Roger — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:00:00 -0700

Things have been a bit quite here of late. One of the reasons for that is that I've been editing another book. We're finally to the point where I make the details public, so here it is!

God and Governing: Reflections on Ethics, Virtue and Statesmanship

Abortion. Poverty. Pornography. More than thirty years ago religious conservatives and liberals began fighting these and other problems head on. These past few decades have seen the popularity of groups such as the Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition that support numerous religious politicians and make even more promises. After all the potential for success, why is it that these social problems persist? How is it that evangelicals have been so ineffective at changing the political and social landscape of the United States in a positive way?

Based on a conference put together by Trinity Law School, God and Governing brings together theologians, politicians, law professors and cultural critics in order to examine some of the root causes of evangelical political failure over the past thirty years.

Contents:

Foreword: Charles Colson

Introduction: Roger N. Overton

Chapter One: Why Being Good is So Political by David F. Wells

Chapter Two: The Travails of Evangelical Politics by Paul Marshall

Chapter Three: The Golden Triangle of Freedom by Os Guinness

Chapter Four Lessons on Fleeing Temptation by Patrick Nolan

Chapter Five: The Future of Virtue and Statesmanship in Pagan America by Vishal Mangalwadi

Chapter Six: The Failure of Evangelical Political Involvement by Dallas Willard

Chapter Seven: Practical Ways Forward by Donald McConnell

Chapter Eight: A Trinitarian Model for Political Duty by Stephen Kennedy

God and Governing will be published by Wipf and Stock under their Pickwick Publications imprint as part of their Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Look for it around the end of 2009.

Tweeting For Jesus

David N — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:38:00 -0700

I don't Twitter (or is it tweet?). But I can't claim total purity, since I have facebook, myspace, and I blog. Still, I've been purposefully avoiding the Tweet scene because it seemed to me to represent the worst of the other three. No genuine conversation or community whatsoever, just an endless flow of (mostly trivial) information.

I may rethink this position. Not only did Abraham Piper point out that a narcissist is a narcissist regardless of where he is or how he spreads his narcissism (i.e. the powers of Twitter can be used for both good and evil, it all depends on the person), but the boys at Middlebrow (the podcast of Scriptorium Daily) have brought up a point worth considering: If Christians are called to witness to the world and bring the gospel to the marketplace, and our marketplace is Twitter, isn't that exactly where we should go?

It certainly is. Christians who avoid new technologies and cultural trends altogether are not paying attention to the book of Acts. Meeting unbelievers where they are and speaking their language is essential to evangelism. But there's a danger lurking. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear someone advocating "Twitter church" pretty soon. This would be nothing new, of course. Evangelicals have been advocating a move away from traditional church structures to private religion for years. The point is that God knows what he's doing, and it's not up to us to decide to change the rules of the game.

Dr. Reynolds has noted that Christianity is a religion of a book, not a movie. This means that, however good it is that we are becoming more and more video literate as a culture, we can't allow our normal literacy to decline, because God isn't likely to send us an inspired DVD any time soon. As a Christian, being video literate is important for witnessing to a video culture, but we can't allow ourselves to lose the ability to read and interpret a written text. If we do, we will lose our only direct tie to the foundation of Christianity itself, the Word of God.

Likewise, Tweeting is not preaching. In the Old Testament, the Word of God was delivered to messengers called Prophets, who personally and incarnationally brought that Word to the people. In the Apostolic age, the Word was made flesh and the gospel of that Word was delivered by the Apostles through preaching. It is in hearing the preached Word that God has promised to meet his people, to create and increase faith, and to seal believers with the Holy Spirit. This simply can't happen on Twitter.

Just as we need to become more video literatre while not losing our ability to read and understand written texts, we must be careful not to let our increased Twitteracy diminish our ability to engange in genuine communication with real people in real community. The more we retreat into Twitter and other online communites, the less at home we will feel in true, physical communities (such as church). The body of Christ, like the Son of God Himself, is incarnational.

Prayers for Easter Sunday

David N — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:24:00 -0700

Here are the prayers for Easter Sunday!

From the Lutheran Book of Prayer:

O almighty and eternal God, who through the death of Your Son has destroyed sin and death, and by His rising to life again restored innocence and everlasting life, that being delivered from the power of the devil, I might live under You in Your kingdom, grant that I may be forever comforted by true faith in the resurrection of Your dear Son. Do not let the thought of death fill my heart with terror, but give me the blessed assurance that, just as You raised Christ from the dead, I will not remain in the grave but will rise again at the end of days. And when, by Your grace, I have finished my course, let Christ's resurrection be for me a sure pledge that an inheritance that does not fade is reserved for me in heaven. While I live, guide me with Your holy counsel, and while I die, give me the crown of life, that with all the holy angels and the elect I may praise and glorify You, world without end, Amen.

From The Book of Common Prayer:

O God, who for our redemption didst give thine only-begotten Son to the death of the cross, and by his glorious resurrection hast delivered us from the power of our enemy: Grant us so to die daily to sin, that we may evermore live with him in the joy of his resurrection; through the same thy Son Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.

He is risen! He is risen indeed!

Prayers for Holy Saturday

David N — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:36:00 -0700

Here are the prayers for Holy Saturday.

From the Lutheran Book of Prayer:

Heavenly Father, I am silenced at the gave of Your Son, who knew no sin, yet was made sin for us. You permitted Him to die, exchanging His innocence for our guilt. In love He came to save us, but He was rejected by hate. He taught us obedience, but men rebelled against Him.I confess that a great mystery confronts me at this tomb of sin and death. He was buried behind the great seal of my sin and my death. By faith I know also that He who dies is also the one who unlocked the great secret of Your love. His tomb is my tomb. He carried with Him to the grave my sin and my death, that He might break their hold on me.Trusting in the Lord's promise that He would rise again on the third day, I come not to mourn Him but to confess the sin that He would leave burried. Have mercy on me, O God! Have mercy on me. Amen.

From The Book of Common Prayer:

O God, Creator of heaven and earth: Grant that, as the crucified body of Thy dear Son was laid in the tomb and rested on this holy Sabbath, so we may await with him the coming of the third day, and rise with him to newness of life; who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Longing for the third day!

Prayers for Good Friday

David N — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:01:00 -0700

Here are two traditional prayers for Good Friday. Apologies for waiting until Saturday morning to put them up! There will be prayers for Saturday and Easter Sunday as well.

From the Lutheran Book of Prayer:

O Christ, Lamb of God, slain for the sin of the whole world, with penitent heart I come to your cross, pleading for mercy and forgiveness. My sins - and they are many - have added to the burden of Your suffering and have nailed You to the accursed tree. For me You tasted the agony of the utter darkness that I might not perish, but have everlasting life. Have mercy upon me.O Christ, Lamb of God, embrace me with Your love, and forgive me all my sins. Your death brings healing to my soul, peace to my mind, cleansing to my heart. If You would mark iniquity, I could not come, for my hands are unclean, my lips are sullied, and my heart is blackened by sin. But beholding You bleeding, despised, forsaken, dying, pierced, I come to be cleansed and forgiven.O Christ, Lamb of God, grant that I may hate sin and wickedness more and more as I behold You in Your great agony. My grateful heart today finds hope in Your words, comfort in Your promises, and salvation in Your finished work on the cross, by which You have overcome sin, Satan, and death.O Lord, have mercy. O Christ, have mercy. O Lord, hear my prayer. Amen.

From The Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, we beseech thee graciously to behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to be betrayed, and given up into the hands of sinners, and to suffer death upon the cross; who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, on God, world without end. Amen.

World without end, Amen!

Is Church Necessary?

Roger — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:32:00 -0700

A friend of mine recently asked if I think church attendance is necessary for Christians. Below is my response. I’m sure more could be said, but this isn’t meant to be a theological treatise.

I think the Christian life can be looked at in two inter-related ways: 1) Glorifying and enjoying God 2) Becoming more like God. One of the primary ways we glorify and enjoy God is by becoming more like Him (sanctification) and in order to become more like Him we must seek His glory and enjoy His goodness and beauty.

Within the context of these aims, the fellowship of the body of Christ is a necessity. It is not just commanded, but also explained in Hebrews 10- “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” The whole passage is about our assurance of faith, and encouragement between the saints is seen as a vital part of that. Elsewhere we see that church provides for the use of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12, 1 Pet 4:10), accountability (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13:17), and general love between believers (John 10:34, 17:20-21). These commands are meant to be followed within the body of Christ, and are typically neglected by those who cut themselves off.

There’s no such thing in the Bible as a “Lone Christian.” The letters in the New Testament are either to whole churches, or to leaders about churches. The expectation is that Christians will be meeting together regularly, and thus there is no instruction for those who do not.

I don’t think God has a checklist wherein He marks every Sunday we fail to attend. His concern, I believe, is about our heart in the matter. Why is it some have broken fellowship with others He has redeemed? The only explanation for someone who regularly excludes themselves from the gathering of the saints is sin- be it pride, selfishness, or whatever. Ironically, those are heart issues that are often confronted when people live in genuine community with other believers.

Dallas Willard makes a related point in the forthcoming book God & Governing, “People sometimes ask me why, since I’m such a “profound thinker,” I’m still involved in church. I sometimes reply, “Well, the Bible says you’re supposed to love your enemies and you’ll find a few there.” I mean to be humorous, of course, but I sensed some recognition out there as I say that. Actually, however, that’s what the church is. It’s a place where you can get really mad at people and not run off and leave them. It’s a place where anger and contempt can be unlearned. It’s a place to learn the deep things of a fellowship in Christ that lovingly endures disagreement, anger and injury. “Churchmanship” in that sense is important. It’s vital. It’s in God’s plan and nothing is going to take the place of it. The church is intended to be a school of love.”

The bottom line is that if we’re genuinely seeking after God and seeking to become more like Him, we will desire to be in community with His people, even when it’s difficult. If we lack that desire, then it’s likely that we are no longer seeking after God.

Christianity's Central Theme?

David N — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:24:00 -0700

Allen Yeh, a Professor at Biola Univeristy and tutor in the Torrey Honors Institute, has written an article in which he argues that missions is the central theme of Christianity. The Bible, he says, is a means to an end, and that end is missions.

He offers many reasons for his choice of missions, such as the fact that all of the Apostles were missionaries, Jesus' lasts words on Earth were a call to missions, there is a whole book (Acts) devoted to chronicling missionary activites (and on top of that, most of Paul's letters are written in a missionary context), etc.

Now, I agree with nearly everything that Dr. Yeh says. Missions is an extremely important biblical theme, and it's one that can tend to be denegrated among academic theologian types (like myself). At one point, Yeh comments, "The center of gravity of Christianity has shifted away from the Western world, and most of the Christians in this world are now in Asia, Africa, and Latin America." This is no small matter. Christianity is incurably multi-cultural and this is a direct result of its missional nature. But is "missions" in and of itself really the "central theme" of Christianity? If the Bible is a means to missions, might we ask if missions isn't a means to something else?

Yeh does stop to mention a few other candidates:

scholars have proposed various possibilities for what might be the main theme of the Bible. Some people say it’s the Kingdom of God. Some say it’s God’s sovereignty. Others say it’s God’s love. Still others say it’s worship (one of the most famous proponents of the last is John Piper, as he says in his book Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions, “Missions exists because worship doesn’t”). Other possibilities include: the two Greatest Commandments (love God and love neighbor); the Great Commission (there are actually five Great Commissions, one in each Gospel and one in Acts); the Covenant; the Promise; and the glory of God. While I think all of these are valid, again I would argue that it is only mission that adequately encompasses all of these.

Later on, referring back to the reference to John Piper above, Yeh says:

One of the four identifying hallmarks of evangelicals is a priority on spreading the Good News... The articulation of this Good News is simply this: that God loves you, to the point that he would send his Son to die for your sins, and you ought to worship Him in response. As such, in contrast to Piper’s quote above, I would say that mission is not a predecessor to or separate from worship, but rather it is the first act of worship.

Now it is here that I beleive Dr. Yeh falls into a common error that has plauged evangelicalism for a long time. He places the proclaimation of the gospel exclusively in the realm of missions. It is easy to see, then, why missions itself would become the central theme of the Bible. A few paragraphs later, he says, "In most Protestant churches, the central part of the worship service is the sermon. The original function of the sermon was evangelism, as seen in the Greek word kerygma which means “proclamation” (of the Good News)." Again, proclaimation of the good news is used here as a synonym for evangelism. But this not how the Biblical authors treated the gospel. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, begins (in chapter 1, verse 8) by thanking God for the church in Rome, because their "faith is proclaimed in all the world." They are Christians (and apparently Christians of amazing faith) not pagans in need of evangelism. And what does Paul go on to do? In verse 15 he says, "So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." The first thing Paul does is proclaim the good news, to those who are already Christians. This is how the gospel is treated in Scripture. It is not a one-time bit of useful information that, once responded to, is no longer necessary. It is the heart and soul of all Christian teaching and worship. This is something that the Reformers recognized, which is why the sermon did become so central to Protestant Christianity. Thus it would probably be better to view Missions and the local church worship service as two seperate but equal "pillars" that are the foundation of Christianity. Both are important, both are commanded by Christ, and both are acts of worship that encompass all the myriad themes found in the Bible. Theologians may have a tendency to forget about the unreached (except as an abstract theological concept in their systems), but missiologists can also have a tendency to forget about the reached!

I also think Piper's comment is worth returning to, because I think Yeh may have misunderstood it. When Piper says, "Missions exists because worship doesn’t", I doubt that he's trying to say that worship per se is the central theme of Christianity. Once again, worship is a means to an end, and that end is to glorify God. It seems to me that missionary activity is also a means to an end. It is a means to bringing people to Christ, allowing them to come into his presence and worship Him, and ultimately spend eternity with him. And as Yeh pointed out, missions can itself be an act of worship, which would in turn be an act of glorifying God. Thus missions is not only an act of glorifying God in itself, but a means to the end of furthering God's glory throughout the world. This is probably what Piper is getting at, and it seems to me to be the best understanding of the true central theme of Christianity. Yeh is right to stress how important missions is, but we must always remember WHY it is so imporant (for the glory of God).

2009 Ligonier Conference: Live Webcast

David N — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:46:00 -0700

This year's Ligonier National Conference, The Holiness of God, is being webcast live. It will continue until tonight and pick up again early tomorrow morning. Click here to watch!

3 Reasons Evangelicals Should Accept The Essence-Energies Distinction

David N — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:30:00 -0700

Over the next year or so I will be exploring the concept of the "energies" of God. This is an ancient Christian doctrine that goes back to the Early Church Fathers. While it remains an integral part of the doctrine of God in the Eastern Orthodox churches, it never truly took hold in the Latin West and seems to have been almost entirely forgotten until the Reformers. Both John Calvin and the Reformed Scholastics (such as Francis Turretin) made frequent use of the essence-energies (E-E) distinction in their theology. Sadly, this began to fall out of practice even in Reformed circles, so that today virtually no Western Protestant has even heard of the energies of God.

So, what are the energies? Crudely speaking, they are the "activites" of God. Because God's essence is wholly other, outside of the realm of space and time, incomprehensible, we cannot come into direct contact with it. And yet God is a God who intervenes in his creation and enters into relationship with his creatures. It is the energies of God that we come into contact with. God's glory and love and goodness are all energies. According to Mike Horton:

God's energies are radiations of divine glory, but are no more the divine essence than rays are the sun itself. God's uncreated glory emanates, but the essence does not. ...[The energies are] God-in-Action... They are not God's essence, but a certain quality of God's self-revelation and saving love.
(Covenant And Salvation, 268.)

But we must also keep in mind that the energies are not ontologically separate from God's essence, nor are they parts or pieces of God. They are God.

This may seem a bit confusing, and I have not even begun to do the topic justice. This is merely an introductory post that, I hope, will show that such a distinction is desperately needed in Western Protestantism today. All that is important at this point is that idea that there is a distinction between God as He is in Himself (His essence) and God as He manifests Himself to His creation (His energies).

Now then, three reasons Evangelicals need to start thinking about this distinction:

1) Pantheism (or Panentheism)

There has long been a tendancy in the West toward a kind of Pantheism. Medieval mysticism and its quest for the Beatific Vision was an extreme form of this. If God is absolutely simple and "only" an essence, how do we come into contact with Him without in a sense become a part of Him? What does the Apostle Peter mean when he says that we will "partake" of the divine nature? Do we partake directly of God as He is in Himself? At the very least, this seems to imply some sort of Panentheism, which is the belief that God is contianed within and permeates all of the natural world, as if He were the "world soul." By positing the doctrine of the energies of God, we can explain how it is that we come into direct contact with God and even partake of Him without falling into this dangerous tendency of Western theology.

2) Stoicism

This is not as dangerous of a problem for Protestants today, but it is always a potential. If God is, as traditional Christian theology has always maintained, unchanging and impassible, not affected by his creation (as He says in Samuel, He is not a man that he should repent), one could easily come to the conclusion that God is like the great Stoic philosopher in the sky. After all, impassible could mean "cold" and "unfeeling." Perhaps God is just an impersonal being from which all reality flows, a being who doesn't care about us or love us (certainly not enough to save us from our sin). Again, the E-E distinction saves us from such extremes. God in His essence is simple, unchanging and impassible. But his energies are manifold. Through His energies He comes into contact and enters into relationships with his creatures, and in an analogous way He feels with them, responds to their pleas, etc.

3) Open Theism

I saved the best for last! Of the three reasons I've given, this one is obviously the biggest potential danger for contemporary Protestantism. After considering Stoicism, it should be easy to see how the E-E distinction will help here, since Open Theism is simply the opposite problem. Open Theists want a God who can feel our pain, react to our cries for help, and genuinely respond to our prayers. Ignoring for the moment that the incarnation of Christ solves many of these problems (Hebrews specifically addresses how Christ can empathize with our struggles with sin, for example), the E-E distinction does as well. God's essence can remain unchanging while His energies remain manifold. His essence is simple while His activities in creation are varied.

So, are you interested yet? At any rate, I hope you can see how potentially important this distinction can be for the problems facing modern Protestantism. As I said, I will continue to explore this theme in greater detail over the next year. This is only the tip of the iceberg. If I've managed to whet your appetite, you can hear more on the E-E distinction in Mike Horton's systematic theology lectures (click here), specifically the most recent lectures on the incommunicable attributes of God. For a slightly more detailed introduction to the topic and its relation to the early Reformers' theology, check out the last section of Dr. Horton's book Covenant And Salvation.

Free Audio: Systematic Theology by Michael Horton

David N — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:31:00 -0700

Dr. Mike Horton is teaching a class on systematic theology at Christ United Reformed Church in Santee, California (where he serves as Associate Pastor). The audio of the class is available online for free. Dr. Horton will be coming out with a new, one-volume Systematic Theology for Zondervan next year, and this class is a sneak preview. He's just finished the first section, "Prolegomena", and is now a few weeks into section two, "The Incommunicable Attributes of God."

To have a listen, click here.

(Dr. Horton is also host of The White Horse Inn, a weekly radio show about theology and culture).

The Joy of Being Hacked… for Christ’s Sake

Roger — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:56:00 -0800

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)

Earlier today a hacker took over most of my online identity. I believe they started at www.rogeroverton.com, which was a Drupal-based site. They took out my content and put in a link to a virus. (I have since removed the entire site.)

Using the password from my website, they proceeded to take over my Facebook and Hotmail accounts, and changed the passwords. On Facebook, they deleted all of my picture albums and put pornographic images on my profile. When Amy posted a comment on my wall to warn others that my account had been hacked, the hacker began sending her inappropriate messages.

On Hotmail, they began sending messages to everyone on my contact list telling them to visit my site, where the link to the virus was. They also started deleting my emails (more than 600 of them).

Thankfully, when I got home I was able to quickly get back into my accounts through password recovery options and clear out the garbage that had been posted. I don’t believe anything inappropriate was on my profile for more than 40 minutes or so, though it did take Facebook awhile to cycle the updates out of their news feeds.

The obvious, immediate question is why would someone do something like this? What’s the point of hacking into someone’s accounts and posting inappropriate content? There may be a number of reasons, including total depravity. But there is one particular reason that was given by the hacker. They left me a note in my hotmail account. Among other things it said, the hacker called me a “stupid f**ing religious faggot.”

So as best as I can tell, the motivation for all of this is that I am an outspoken Christian. When I read that, I immediately thought of the promise that we would be persecuted because of Christ, and I take great joy in that. I have many shortcomings, and there are times I wonder about the quality of my witness. But apparently there are those in the world who have identified me with Christ and one person in particular who decided to take their hatred of Him out on me.

I have lost my website (a site I was never satisfied with), my Facebook photo albums, 3 or 4 Facebook friends, a pile of email I probably didn’t need and a few hours of sorting through the damage. All in all, it could have been much worse. Those things can be dismissed and/or replaced. What I have gained is of great value- a better understanding of the importance of web security, and (more importantly) a deeper sense of joy in my affiliation with Jesus the Christ.

PS- If you run a Drupal based website, take extra care to protect your password files.

The Virtuous Case for Christ & C.S. Lewis

Roger — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:35:00 -0800

A couple of years ago I wrote a paper called "The Virtuous Case for Christ: How C.S. Lewis's Theological Virtues Should Aid Christians Living in a Postmodern Culture." I presented it first at the "C.S. Lewis: The Man and His Works" conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC October 27, 2007. I also presented it at "Standing Against the Tide: C.S. Lewis as Philosopher and Critic in the Postmodern Era" conference at Vanguard University in Costa Mesa, CA August 9, 2008.

Each time I promised to post the audio from the presentation. Well, six months after the last presentation, I've finally done it:

"The Virtuous Case for Christ: How Lewis's Theological Virtues Should Aid Christians Living in a Postmodern Culture" (9.32 MB)

I'm planning on developing the "Virtue Apologetics" concept for an ETS/EPS paper this year, and eventually into a book. I welcome your feedback.

John Saw the Light of the World

Roger — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:40:00 -0800

Each of the synoptic gospel accounts begins in a rather historical, matter-of-fact way. One begins with genealogy, one with a brief prophecy and John baptizing in the wilderness, and one with an explanation of how historical it is. The Gospel According to John is profoundly different and the difference runs through more than just his account of the gospel, but also his letters and apocalypse.

In some sense, the other writers said simply, “This is about Jesus. Here’s what happened…” John couldn’t do that. He couldn’t simply say Jesus and go about his narrative. The incursion of God into humanity must have demanded a far more dramatic introduction:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world…” (John 1:1-9)

It’s not until verse 14 that the reader is told that this Word was the Son of God, and not until verse 17 that He’s identified as Jesus. Perhaps that sweet name is not the most important thing about Him.

John did something similar at the beginning of his first letter. Again, he could not simply mention Jesus without expressing a grand vision of what he meant when he spoke of Jesus:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:1-5)

By the way, in case you missed it, John saw Jesus with his very own eyes! He only had to mention it four times. (Erik Thoennes did a great job of addressing this in his sermon on the passage.) So many years later, John still maintained the excitement of having seen God incarnate. He not only saw God, but touched Him and heard from His lips a great message. The message? God is light.

Perhaps even years later, John saw Jesus again. But again, John couldn’t just say he saw Jesus…

“Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long rode and a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as the snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in the furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.” (Rev. 1:12-16)

Sometimes I wonder if those who doubt the same person wrote each of these documents have actually read them. There are a number of similarities, but one especially stands out: God is light. I don’t think any other biblical author speaks to God as light as often as John. In his account of the gospel we learn that darkness cannot overcome this light, and similarly in John’s letter we are told there is no darkness in it at all. Furthermore, in Revelation, Jesus is described as “white as snow” and as “the sun shining in full strength” (neither of these have darkness either).

What would lead a man to speak so dramatically of someone in this way? Who could sustain this man’s interest, excitement, passion, devotion, and adoration for some sixty years? What thought could send this man into a frenzied abundance of joyful recollections, theological metaphors, and zealous praise? I fear that too often I speak of Jesus as theological and historical fact, but not often enough as magnificent light and creator of all things. Father, inspire us, as you inspired your beloved disciple, to speak not so simply about your Son; but fill us with such awe and wonder that we cannot contain it,

We've been digging into 1 John at Grace EV Free and I highly recommend Dr. Thoennes's sermons thus far:

1/11/09: The Word Came and Changed Everything

1/18/09: God is Light

1/25/09: Walking in the Light

The rest of the series will be posted on Grace's mp3 page.

Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson

Roger — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:47:00 -0800

The relationship between biblical laws and the covenants or testaments has been the centered of much debate through church history. Today views range from there being no laws that apply to Christians to the view that every law in the Bible is still enforced. All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson offers a version of the New Covenant Theology view. Gibson contends that “All Old Testament laws are cancelled, and all New Testament laws are for our obedience.” (p7)

In the first part of the book, Gibson entertains nine objections to his thesis that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. These include the notion that the Ten Commandments are the eternal “moral law” of God, that Christ did not come to abolish the law, that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all scripture is God-breathed and useful. The second part of the book provides eight reasons why Gibson believes all Old Testament laws have been cancelled. They include the claim that the Decalogue is the foundational document of the Old Covenant, that the law cannot be divided, that the Jerusalem Council did not require obedience to the law from gentiles, and that the Decalogue had an historical beginning and end.

Part three moves on to the second part of Gibson’s thesis; that all New Testament laws are for our obedience. He responds to antinomian arguments that we’re not under law, but under grace and that the only law is love. He then provides four reasons why Christians must obey the New Testament laws. He cites the mere presence of hundreds of commands given after the cross, points out the sin is lawlessness, and focuses on the praise the Bible has for the law of Christ.

The book’s conclusion centers on the issue of sanctification. Gibson argues that sanctification must by Christ-centered instead of law-centered. At the end of the book are two appendices. One considered that objection that New Covenant Theology allows for beastiallity and incest and the other offers thirteen ways we should still use the Old Testament.

All Old Testament Laws Cancelled makes many good arguments based on the Bible, and these good arguments make the book a worthwhile read for those familiar with the debate. However, I believe there are at least two significant problems with the book, and these are reflected in the title. It really should be “All Old Covenant Laws Fulfilled.”

The first problem is that Gibson is not persuasive that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. In Genesis 9:6 God gives a law against murder to Noah. This law is clearly pre-Sinai and therefore not part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus is the priest of a “better covenant” according to Hebrews, not a better testament. Hebrews tells us that with a new priest there is a change in the law and the old covenant is obsolete. Gibson fails to show how a law (such as Gen 9:6) in the same testament as a particular covenant (such as the old covenant) is subject to the same conditions as laws actually given within that covenant. His logic would lead us to expect God to flood the earth again since His promise to Noah is in the Old Testament and must have been cancelled by Christ.

The second problem has to do with “cancelled.” We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled. Instead, Christ is described as having fulfilled the law and prophets. Christ being born in Bethlehem did not cancel the prophecy that He would be born there- His birth fulfilled it. Changing the terminology in this way does something to Christ’s vicarious death on our behalf. Christ’s fulfilling the law for us is far more valuable and precious than if He were to simply cancel the law. Cancellation often implies incompleteness, and there is nothing incomplete about Christ’s work on the cross.

T4G 08 Video Online At Ligonier.org

David N — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:56:00 -0800

The videos of all speaker addresses and panel discussions from this year's T4G conference are available online for free at Ligonier.org (for a limited time). These conferences are amazing, encouraging (and often humorous) and it would be well worth your time to watch the videos (if you don't have a lot of time, just watch the panel discussions!)

Check them out here.

Young, Restless, Reformed Bloggers

David N — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:00 -0800

Unfortunately this will not be a book review. I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book, though I plan to in the near future. I did however read the Christianity Today article bearing the same title two years ago, and I’ve seen, heard or read several interviews with the author (here's a good one). Here I simply wish to make a few comments in light of a recent study done by ChurchRelevence.com (more on that in a moment).

Basically, a good chunk o’ Christian youth (roughly 18 – 25) are moving away from the Arminian, mainstream evangelicalism of their childhood toward (to differing degrees) classical Reformed theology (the primary motive being, at least according to the CT article, a desire for deeper theology grounded in historic creeds and confessions). The majority of the credit for this Renaissance of Reformed thought is given to John Piper. Because of his passionate preaching and evident concern for world missions, Piper has managed to break into circles (such as the annual Passion Conference) that were previously closed, sometimes even hostile, to Reformed theology. Thus, Let The Nations Be Glad became a “gateway drug” to Piper’s deeply Reformed emphasis on the radical sinfulness of man, the radical holiness of God, and His absolute sovereignty in all things.

All this makes sense to me (and I have no doubt that it’s true), but as a blogger, I can’t help but wonder if the recent advent of New Media has contributed to this exodus into the Reformed promised land. R. C. Sproul was on the cutting edge in the late 80’s and 90’s. Ligonier made use of every available medium of communication, from radio to cassette tapes, to videos. Now Dr. Sproul’s teaching series are available daily on the internet and satellite TV. So, you might ask, why wasn’t there a Reformed Renaissance in the 90’s? I think it has been slowly building. Many today who are in the 18 – 25 bracket could have grown up with Dr. Piper’s or Dr. Sproul’s ministries, or their parents could have been first introduced to it. The use of so many different forms of media mean that some folk who would not have otherwise been exposed to Reformed teaching had the opportunity to see loving, Christ-like pastors and teachers arguing passionately for the clear teaching of Scripture as expressed by historic Reformation theology. Both Piper and Sproul (and others), it must be admitted, break the mold of what most non-Reformed people tend to think of Reformed people (or worse…Calvinists!). The point being, there have probably been 1,000 John Pipers preaching faithfully to their small Reformed congregations over the last 100 years, but no one outside their limited communities knew them. And no one would actually pick up the writings of Calvin or Edwards because of the stigma surrounding “Calvinism.” Godly men like John Piper, in most cases, remove that stigma.

Now fast forward to 2009. ChurchRelevance.com has posted a list of the “Top 60 Church Blogs.” As I looked at the list I was suddenly struck by how many of these blogs are Reformed (some of them are even “confessional”!). Not only are the top 2 blogs Reformed, which really says something all by itself, but of the 60, a total of 10 are definitely Reformed, at least 1 (the Evangelical Outpost, formerly of Joe Carter) was Calvinist, though Joe didn’t wear it on his sleeve, and perhaps 2 or 3 others as well, but I’m not confident enough to say for sure. Now 10 – 12 isn’t a LOT out of 60, but consider that no other single theological strain or movement has nearly so many (the Emergent movement had 3 or 4 by my count).

Now, the correlation-causation relationship is always tricky. Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys? I can’t really say for sure, but given what I’ve seen happen with New Media in other arenas over the past decade, I’m inclined to think the latter.

Has anyone read Hansen’s book? Does he address this issue at all, and if so, what does he have to say?

How Then Should We Do Apologetics?

David N — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:50:00 -0800

The gap that exists between the different schools of Apologetics (Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional) is becoming increasingly narrow. After reading Zondervan's 5 Views On Apologetics, you'll come away wondering what the differences between these views actually are.

In my term paper for my "Christian Mind" class this past Fall, I attempted to narrow the gap even more. Specifically, I decided to look into the relationship between Presuppositionalism and Alvin Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology." In the paper, I argue that neither of these two "schools" is really a unique method of doing Apologetics. Presuppositionalism is actually a critique of theological rationalism and Reformed Epistemology is, well, an epistemology! I beleive that both of these schools of thought can learn from each other and both have strong points that ought to inform our Apologetic method. Lastly, because so many people do think of Presuppositionalism as a unique method of doing apologetics (and indeed those who consider themselves "Presuppositonal" claim that it is), I also offer an argument against Presuppositionalism as an apologetic system which I have labled the "Transcendental Argument against Presuppositionalism."

Read the paper here.

Book Review: Passing the Plate by Christian Smith and Michael Emerson

Roger — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:00:00 -0800

In the wake of global tragedies, citizens of the United States typically step up and donate more money than any other nation. However, it seems that in relation to the amount of money we take in, we don’t have as much to be proud about. This is especially remarkable since America is, more than most countries, a “Christian nation,” and accurate Christian teaching encourages giving to those in need. In Passing the Plate, sociologists Christian Smith and Michael Emerson explore the reasons why “most contemporary American Christians are remarkably ungenerous.”(3)

The authors estimate that in 2005 Christians (who are church members) in the United States had a collective total income over $2 trillion, but they only donated less than 4% of their income. “If American Christians were to give from their income generously—not lavishly, mind you, only generously—they could transform the world, starting right away.” (11) If these same Christians gave 10% of their income, another $46 billion would be available to help people around the world. The authors provide many pages of examples of how this money could be spent effectively.

In the second chapter a number of facts are offered in an effort to reach explanations for the lack of generosity. The first is that 20% of all American Christians do not give a single penny to any church or charity. Next, of those who do give, they give very little, between 2-4%. Another fact presented is that despite the massive growth of average income, American Christians give proportionally less today than they did 80 years ago.

Given these facts, as well as several others, the authors propose nine hypothesizes to explain why American Christians don’t give more. These explanations include high living costs, unperceived needs, distrust, ignorance about what their traditions teach, and failure to make giving a routine practice. They “test” each hypothesis against the evidence they’ve gathered for this study.

The fourth chapter provides anecdotes from interviews with pastors and church goers on the subject of financial giving. Many of the responses they gathered corresponded with the statistical information they provided earlier. These interviews help the reader understand the information from a more personal perspective. In the fifth chapter, the authors provide the results of an “experiment” they conducted during the interviews- they generated responses to a hypothetical situation where 10% giving became a requirement for church membership. Only 7% said they would begin tithing, while 76% they would not tithe at all.

The book conclude with six explanations for the lack of generous giving by American Christians: 1) America’s culture of mass consumption 2) Pastors’ fear of discussing money 3) Ignorance of Christian teaching about financial giving 4) Mistrust for leadership or organizations 5) Lack of conversations about money among Christians 6) Failure to adopt routine methods for giving. The authors provide more than a dozen ideas for how leaders can lead Christians to lead more generously. Appendices provide summaries of various denominational teachings on giving, data sources, and statistical charts.

Overall Passing the Plate is a convicting and interesting book. It’s disappointing to see how little American Christians actually give out of their income, and it’s challenging to see what could be done if we gave only 10%. While I think the conclusions are accurate and helpful, the authors repeatedly explained that more research needed to be done on particular points. Given how often they excused themselves from providing a conclusion for this reason, one might expect them to do more research before writing this book. However, most of these points were not central to their case. Passing the Plate is a very worthwhile read, and I would recommend it to church leaders who feel inadequate when dealing with financial issues.

Calvin The Friendly Reformer

David N — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:03:00 -0800

Casper the Friendly Ghost. The title seems a bit like an oxymoron. Ghosts, after all, are not friendly. The same is often said of John Calvin. He was the "tyrant of Geneva." He was the father of the "frozen chosen." However, according to Dr. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California, Calvin was a lot more like Casper than we think.

In his address at the "Calvin's Legacy" Conference this past weekend, Dr. Godfrey shows us how Calvin was actually quite warm and friendly toward his friends and those whom he ministered to in Geneva. Theodore Beza, Calvin's student and successor, said of the Reformer, "In the common course of life, there was no man more pleasant. In him all men may see a beautiful example of Christian character." This side of Calvin comes out most strikingly in his letters, especially as he tried to ease tensions and solve disputes between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe. When launching polemics against Rome, Calvin could be quite harsh. But when dealing with the struggling churches of the Reformation, even when Calvin disagreed with them, he was a shining example of moderation and flexibility, and showed a great passion for the unity of the body of Christ.

Read the live blog notes from Dr. Godfrey's lecture here.

"Calvin's Legacy" Conference at WSC (Jan 16-17): Live Blog

David N — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:17:00 -0800

In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church. The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm. Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here. The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him).

You can subscribe via RSS feed here.

Also, here is the conference schedule. And here are the speaker bios.

An Anselmian Defense of Hell

David N — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:47:00 -0800

My friend and fellow grad student Nathaniel Taylor has written an argument for the existence of Hell using Anselmian "Perfect Being" philosophy. It is interesting (and sure to be controversial) and worth a read for anyone interested in a defense of the traditional Evangelical doctrine of Hell.

You can read his argument at the blog Reason From Scripture (to which I am also a contributor).

Mark Driscoll And The Paradoxes Of Calvinism

David N — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:44:00 -0800

Molly Worthen has written an interesting article for The New York Times Magazine on Mark Driscoll and his "hip" Mars Hill Church entitled Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

The point of her article seems to be to highlight the "paradoxes" that surround Mars Hill. Not only is it an Evangelical church where the pastor swears and talks explicitly about sex and the members are pierced and tatooed. Not only is it a thriving megachurch in the Country's most secular and unchurched city. But Driscoll preaches a hard-edged, no-holding-back Complementarianism and Calvinism. The paradoxes here being that Complementarianism, which teaches that women ought to be functionally subordinate to men in the church, is helping men in the congregation to treat women better than in their non-Christian days, and Calvinism, which teaches the total depravity and moral inability of all people, is creating a church of passionate activists and evangelists.

I'd only like to make 2 comments and then I'll just let you read the article for yourself. First, Worthen doesn't really seem to know any actual history of Calvin or his work in Geneva. At one point she comments on Driscoll's unwillingness to compromise and how quick he is to "shun" church elders or revoke a congregant's member privaleges when they voice disagreement with him, suggesting that Driscoll is just like Calvin in this respect. She then goes on to say, "John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness." As far as I know Calvin only oversaw the burning of one person in Geneva, and from several sources I've read the general consensus seems to be that he was reluctant (perhaps even unwilling). As to the other charge, I'd really like to know where she gets this story from. Dr. Scott Clark comments,

More to the point, she resurrects the worst caricatures of Calvin. I suppose her resuscitation of them is a good reminder that we have to keep repeating the history. I admit, I don’t remember hearing or reading any story about Calvin making “a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness.” As far as I know the polity in Geneva, he didn’t have that sort of authority. Typically the Consistory fined people. I’ve never seen any instances of this sort of discipline. If everyone who criticized Calvin in Geneva was made to do this there would have been no place to walk!

In any case, my point is that her assessment of Driscoll's Calvinism would be far less paradoxical if she better understood the theology, the history, even the man himself (I noticed that most of her quotes come from random members of the congregation, rather than elders or Drsicoll himself. I wonder why that is).

Lastly, some of the things she says about Drsicoll's disciplining practices are a bit alarming. In traditional Reformed churches, it could take years to officailly excommunicate someone, and in my denomination (URC) the final step cannot be taken until a regional assembly of elders is called. Again, as Dr. Clark (half jokingly) comments, "shunning is an Anabaptist practice."

I'd like to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt for now. I really hope he isn't practicing a dangerous kind of authoritarianism that could backfire.

Read Worthen's article here.

Software Review: ESV Study Bible by OliveTree (Blackberry)

Roger — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:16:00 -0800

I’ve been a fan of the English Standard Version for many years. I currently own 7 print editions for various purposes, one of them being the Study Bible. Our regular readers know that I’m not typically a fan of doing innovative things with the Bible, such as producing “green” or “emerging” versions. However, taking the best study Bible ever produced and making it available on my cell phone- I’m all for that!

OliveTree Bible Software has done this. “The ESV Study Bible on your mobile device includes all text, features, notes, images, and supplemental materials of the print version, plus the easy interface of BibleReader and and the convenience and portability of handheld use.” I should make it clear that I’m reviewing the software for my Blackberry Curve. Every brand of phone is different and users will encounter different experiences depending on their phone. There are even some navigation features I don’t have because I’m on Blackberry.

Installation:

The process for installation isn’t simple, but it’s also not too challenging. First, the user is required to download the free BibleReader software that is phone-type specific. This software is essentially the browser through which the user can view the ESV Study Bible as well as other OliveTree products (some are free!). Then, the user must purchase and download three ESV files to the computer and transfer them to their Blackberry via USB. Once everything is in place, BibleReader should recognize the Study Bible as part of the library and make it available for use.

Functionality:

The three files are the ESV, ESV notes, and ESV Study Bible. When the user clicks on “Library,” each of the files or volumes appears. This can be a bit confusing, since in print form it’s all one book. By clicking on the ESV, the user is directed to the Bible. Annotations are present throughout the text and when clicked take the user to the notes volume. However, I haven’t found a way to access the Study Bible from within the basic ESV volume. The user must go back to the “Library” option and find the volume there. This lack of integration is a bit frustrating, but may be a limitation of the Blackberry OS. Maps and charts are available from the Study Bible’s Table of Contents, but they too are not integrated with the text. So if the user is reading about the Ark of the Covenant, they may have no idea that there is an illustration available.

The software has a thorough search feature that can be defined to the whole Bible or just one testament, and can search exact phrases or partial variations. There is an “Advanced search” option, but when I’ve clicked it a message tells me the option is not supported with this book. I don’t really mind, since the basic search options are more than satisfactory for a cell phone. There are also preference options available to change the fonts, colors, scrolling methods and QWERTY shortcuts.

Support:

Like most new software, there are bugs to be worked out. When I first installed the software, the search feature would not work. I had a couple different error messages that I reported on the OliveTree message boards. The staff there is quick to respond and very helpful- looking through a few of the posted issues will attest to this. I also noticed that after this problem occurred, all of my Blackberry actions slowed down. I uninstalled BibleReader and my Blackberry went back to normal. It took about a week for the problem to be resolved. An updated version of BibleReader was released. After I downloaded it, everything worked as it seems it should.

Overall, the ESV Study Bible software by OliveTree is very worthwhile. For those who have held the Study Bible, it’s a lot of weight to carry. To have all of that information in my pocket is extremely valuable. I expect that other cell phone platforms are better, such as the iPhone, but there really isn’t much more I could ask for on my Blackberry.

ETS 2008 – Jim Congdon “Believers’ Relation to the Law: Not Obligation, but Fulfillment”

Roger — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0800

Jim Congdon is concerned about recent messianic Jewish leaders who have been imposing Torah-centered living as normative on their congregations. He argues that Christ is the culmination of the Law of Moses based on Matthew 5:17-48 and Romans 10:4.

Whether from the Reformed or from the Jewish Torah-observer, attempting to use Matthew 5:17-20 to argue for obligation to the law proves too much. Jesus declares that the entire law remains in force. The Reformed distinctions between moral, civil and ceremonial laws cannot be sustained against the weight of Jesus’ words. For the Jewish insistence on applying all the laws requiring the Temple, priesthood and presence in the land of Israel, this also proves too much, since a number of these commands are explicitly disregarded in the New Testament.

Jesus must be saying that the Mosaic Law remains completely in force in an eschatological sense. “Jesus is claiming that he is the climactic figure of history, and that the Law and Prophets remain in force in Himself.” Just as a student graduates from one grade to another and his past grades are not abolished, so is the Law not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ as he ushered in a new age of salvation history.

In the six commands that follow, Jesus set himself up as the new Torah-giver. He alone is the one who has authority to say of the Mosaic Law, “You have heard it said… but I say unto you.” Jim Congdon points to the Transfiguration as an illustration of this: Jesus met with the only other two men to receive God’s revelation on the mountain, Moses and Elijah. “At Sinai God revealed himself with ‘I am Yahweh,’ and then gave the Ten Words to Moses; but here and now, God introduces his son, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ and then says, ‘Listen to him.’”

In Romans 10:4, Paul declares that “Christ is the end of the Law.” Some argue that end refers to the goal, and so the Mosaic Law points to Christ and is still in force on Christians today. However, Paul seems to be saying that Christ is both the “goal” and “end” of the Law. Paul is saying the same thing that Christ said- Christ is the culmination of the Law.

Paul repeatedly declares that Christians are no longer under the Law (Rom 6:14-15, 7:6, Gal 2:19, 4:5). The new age that Christ brought to bear replaced the age of the Law (Gal. 3:19-4:5). There are examples of believers who follow the Law in Acts, but they do so out of liberty, not of obligation (1 Cor 9:20). Yet, believers are still expected to comply with the Law’s moral demands (Rom 8:4, 13:8-10, Gal 5:14). Specifically, we are called to “fulfill” the Law, but not actually to “do” the Law. We fulfill the Law by walking with the Spirit in love, and it is credited to us as though we had done all the requirements of the Law. “Believers have been set free from the Law (the ‘moral’ law is included, v.7), so that they now serve God in the new way of the Spirit rather than in the old way of the written code.”

Gay Marriage And The Bible

David N — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:11:00 -0800

Newsweek's cover story last week read "The Religious Case For Gay Marriage." Inside, Lisa Miller's article "Our Mutual Joy" attempted to argue that the Bible actually supports gay marriage.

Read her article here.

Two very insightful responses have already gone up from Al Mohler and John Mark Reynolds. Rather than responding myself, I will simply point you to them.

Al Mohler: Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

John Mark Reynolds: An Obvious Truth: The Bible Supports Traditional Marrriage

"Updating" History

David N — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:59:00 -0800

Oxford's latest version of their Junior Dictionary has undergone a major revision. In order to reflect the changing times, many words having to do with religion (specifically Christianity), and with a rural setting (such as certain kinds of flowers and trees) are being omitted and replaced with words like "blog" and "MP3 player." OUP says:

"When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun" would have been in 20 years ago but not now."

So here's the logic: Kids are using blogs and MP3 players now, and they're not going to church anymore. So, they know what a blog is, but they don't know what a Bishop is or what Pentecost is. Therefore we are going to remove the definitions of words they don't know and replace them with the definitions of words they do. This strikes me as one of those examples of someone trying to be relevant and ending up being completely irrelevant. I didn't even grow up on blogs and MP3 players, but I would never think to look in a dictionary to find out what something new and "techy" means. An example from my own childhood in the early 90's might be "CD" or "e-mail." I knew what those things were (even though at the time I didn't have e-mail and I still listened to cassette tapes), I didn't need the dictionary for words like that. I needed the dictionary to tell me what "marzipan" and "budgerigar" mean.

Aside from that, there's also a real concern among educators in Britain about losing touch with their country's long, rich, and very religious heritage.

Read the full story at The Telegraph.

(HT: Heidelblog)

ETS 2008 – William Henard “Sinners in the Hands of the Emergent Church”

Roger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:23:00 -0800

Some people have argued that historical theology has little relevance to postmoderns, therefore the church must reflect the current culture to reach them. William Henard contends that historical theology is still relevant, using Jonathan Edwards as an example. For one, though Edwards did not face every manifestation of sin present today, he did encounter the same basic sins. Second, many of today’s youth and leaders are drawn to the Reformers, as evidenced in Colin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed. Since sinners now seem to be in the hands of the Emergent church, Edwards must join the conversation.

Though no simple definition for Emergent exists, they do have a “consistent model of inconsistency.” Henard makes use of Ed Setzer’s tri-fold definition of Emergent: relevants, reconstructionists and revisionists. His focus is primarily on the revisionists, though he recognizes not everyone necessarily fits into one group or another.

There are several areas where Edwards would affirm the Emergent church. For innovation, Edwards would appreciate the Emergents’s use of music to help inspire people’s relationship with God through experiencing his presence. Edwards was one of the first in his day to make use of hymns as he believed it connects beauty and excellence with our understanding of God.

Edwards saw the value of aiding itinerant preachers in the midst of the revival occurring during his time. Though he warned George Whitefield about emotional impulses, he allowed Whitefield to preach four times at his church and let him stay at his house. Many pastors at the time were uncomfortable with such preachers, but Edwards defended them. Thus Edwards would be in favor of unusual methods of evangelism as long as the Gospel is in tact.

Breaking from typical Protestant hermeneutics, Edwards argued for a spiritual sense of Scripture. He believed that Christians are occupied by the Holy Spirit and therefore spiritual understanding of the Scriptures develops as a product of God’s grace apart from having a simply rational understanding. Thus, Edwards would affirm the desire of Emergents to partake in experiential praise.

One of the reasons Emergents are drawn to Jesus is his narrative preaching style. Edwards also often used illustrations relevant to people’s every day lives for the sake of their understanding. When his preaching changed contexts, he adapted from reading a written manuscript to using an outline that allowed for more extemporaneous preaching.

Edwards would also affirm the missional approach to cultural engagement. Noting the specific needs of youth in his area, Edwards began a Bible study just for the youth- an uncommon practice in his day. He used whatever common ground available between him and non-believers as opportunities to teach the gospel, including experiences of death and suicide.

There are, of course, a number of areas where Edwards would not agree with the Emergent church. Edwards held to the traditional Protestant view of Scripture: that it is inspired by God as His revelation and therefore it is completely accurate. He would caution those in the Emergent church who put the authority of a conversing community above the authority of Scripture. He would condemn Brian McLaren’s suggestions that the Bible has evolved over time and does not hold all the answers.

Edwards’ high view of theology is apparent throughout his sermons and writings and he understood it as the basis for Christian living and our understanding of culture. Some in the Emergent church seem to believe there can be right behavior without right beliefs and that culture should interpret theology. Edwards would stand against them and argue for the centrality of theology.

Some in the Emergent church have shifted from a proclamation style of preaching to one of conversation and dialogue. Though Edwards would agree with much of their narrative approach, he would contend for the necessity of proclaiming the truth as the central element of worship.

Henard claims that the Emergent emphasis on conversation in evangelism is rooted in a fear of confrontation. There appears to be a willingness to let people find their way into the community without a clear commitment to the truth of the gospel. Edwards believed that conversation happened at once and that there are several steps in the process. He regularly invited people to a salvation offered by Christ, recognizing that a decision must be made.

Finally, Edwards held that character is a mark that distinguishes Christians from the world around them. He argued against the notion that Christians should become a part of culture in order to be relevant. He would be critical of those who appear to be influenced by the world rather than having an influence on the world.

Do You Know the Mighty King?

Roger — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:21:00 -0800

The preacher at the church I attended today read this, and it struck me as an excellent meditation piece. It's from a sermon by S.M. Lockridge...

He's enduringly strong. He's entirely sincere. He's eternally steadfast. He's immortally graceful. He's imperially powerful. He's impartially merciful. That's my King. He's God's Son. He's the sinner's saviour. He's the centerpiece of civilization. He stands alone in Himself. He's honest. He's unique. He's unparalleled. He's unprecedented. He's supreme. He's pre-eminent. He's the grandest idea in literature. He's the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of historic theology. He's the carnal necessity of spiritual religion. That's my King.

He's the miracle of the age. He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him. He's the only one able to supply all our needs simultaneously. He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for the tempted and the tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He's the Almighty God who guides and keeps all his people. He heals the sick. He cleanses the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharged debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and He beautifies the meek. That's my King.

Do you know Him? Well, my King is a King of knowledge. He's the wellspring of wisdom. He's the doorway of deliverance. He's the pathway of peace. He's the roadway of righteousness. He's the highway of holiness. He's the gateway of glory. He's the master of the mighty. He's the captain of the conquerors. He's the head of the heroes. He's the leader of the legislatures. He's the overseer of the overcomers. He's the governor of governors. He's the prince of princes. He's the King of kings and He's the Lord of lords. That's my King.

His office is manifold. His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His love never changes. His Word is enough. His grace is sufficient. His reign is righteous. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I wish I could describe Him to you . . . but He's indescribable. That's my King. He's incomprehensible, He's invincible, and He is irresistible.

I'm coming to tell you this, that the heavens of heavens can't contain Him, let alone some man explain Him. You can't get Him out of your mind. You can't get Him off of your hands. You can't outlive Him and you can't live without Him. The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't get their testimonies to agree about Him. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him and the grave couldn't hold Him. That's my King.