RCA's Call and Baptists

Funny how similar the Baptists and the RCA are at the top...

"Go to a meeting of Southern Baptists and you will hear endless talk of President Bobby Welch's quest for One Million Baptisms. Telling Southern Baptists at this point in their history to get one million baptisms is to create a free-for-all. Anything that works will be praised. If a local church finds a way to use Judgement House to get 500 decision cards signed, it will be trumpeted as a move of God; a "revival" (a word that SBCers can't get enough of.) If it turns out that only 40 of those decisions ever show up for Baptism, it won't cause any pause for reflection or evaluation. It will simply give us permission to have more manipulation and decisionistic tactics next time. Evangelism in the SBC today has all the characteristics of the shallow zeal of the salesman. The theological foundation for evangelism has eroded, and the current atmosphere has allowed pragmatism to take over the driver's seat."

We all want to grow, and the pressure for more numbers pushes us to accept superficial spirituality. We wouldn't want to offend anyone, or ask too much of them - they might not like us; they might not stay. People liking us can be more important to us than God's desire for those very people. That is very dangerous to our souls.

More than just "the preacher"

Alternate titles for this one:

It ain't just preachin'
We work more than one day a week!

Moving from Bivin back to Baxter (nasty habit I have of starting and finishing a whole book while half-way through another one!):

In chapter 2 he begins talking about what oversight of the flock means, saying you have to have a small enough flock to actually watch over. This is something I think mega-churches are starting to realize - maybe.

Anyway, this section caught my eye:

"Is not government of great concernment to the good of souls, as well as preaching?... If only preaching be necessary, let us have none but mere preachers: what needs there then such a stir about government? But if discipline, in its place, be necessary too, what is it but enmity to men's salvation to exclude it?... The general that will command an army alone, may as well say, Let it be destroyed for want of command..." (pg 89).

Romans 1 on homosexuality

Here's Ann's defense of certain homosexual relationships.

This is my brief, uncomprehensive (but hopefully comprehensible), one-point reply:

Romans 1 cannot be contorted to be arguing only against a certain KIND of homosexuality.

"God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural..." 1:26 NRSV

What is against nature and degrading - and the result of God giving sinners over to judgment - is homo-eroticism itself. The Greek "gar", not translated in the NRSV before the phrase "Their women," is an explanatory gar, describing what the unnatural intercourse is: women with women. Not the natural use/intercourse of women with men, but same-sex erotic desire. The homoios at the beginning of vs 27 functions the same way, explaining what is unnatural: men with men, instead of with women. Paul doesn't discuss fidelity to one person; this isn't on his radar at all - the unnaturalness is the homoeroticism.

The passions aren't degrading because they are overly lustful or non-monogamous, but because they are same-sex.

The Bible certainly is not silent regarding homosexual, monogamous relationships.

The Heavenly Optometrist

Today was "spoil Sara" day - no I didn't spend it at a day spa, but rather at a women's conference in the morning and with long time friends in the afternoon. Sans children! The conference's keynote address called our attention to what it means to abide in God's presence. Surprisingly, no Brother Lawrence comments were made - but several great quotes from Augustine. I was challenged to remember how Adam and Eve stopped seeing God thru creation to simply focusing on His creation as an end in itself. As a result, we've inherited our parents' bad vision. God, in his infinite grace, started working on fixing our myopia right away, using pictures to do so. Our speaker pointed out that the tablernacle/sacrificial system is a picture of our standing with God - that he is holy and we are not, and there is a process for us to go through to become holy in his sight. A tabernacle gate to enter, washing, sacrifice & blood, lamps, bread, incense, and lastly a heavy curtain to pass through for us to be in his presence. And a special man was needed to assist in this, someone who wore the names of God's people on his shoulder and had "holy to the LORD" written on his forehead, just in case we forgot that we weren't.

But our speaker was quick to point out that these things were not where our vision is to stop. No, our vision is to go through these things to see the Redeemer God sent - Jesus. He is described as the gate, the living water, the lamb, the light of the world, the bread of life, a fragrant offering, and the One who tears apart the curtain allowing us to enter God's presence... he welcomes us into his home and asks us to abide there with him. We're not weekend guests.

It is here, when we show our love by obeying his commands, that our vision is corrected and we see Him in all parts of life. As the disciples couldn't recognize Jesus walking on the water because of their fear of the storm's waves, we often don't see Him through the battering waves we personally face. Circumstances will still be around us, but Christ is always there. Perhaps you have spiritual astigmatism, where you see problems doubly or quadruply, multiplying them. It's hard to get a clear picture of how to live as a Christian and abide in Christ when everything's fuzzy. Put on the lenses of loving obedience to Christ. We'll see the big uglies with better definition, but we'll also see Christ through all that.

It made me consider: How's my vision?

-Sara

Come to Me...

This new book of compiled essays by David Bivin is great.
"New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus."

Couldn't find it at Amazon yet - try the En Gedi link on the right - it's published by them...

The gem so far is the Scripture related to Jesus' words in Matthew 11:28-30.
See Jeremiah 31:25; Exodus 33:14; Numbers 12:3; and Jeremiah 6:16.

Our Father Abraham

Went to a talk by David Bivin, of Israel, this morning. Rekindled some things related to the Hebraic roots of our Christian faith.

See the VanderLaan link to the right. And here's a good book by him.

Marvin Wilson's Our Father Abraham book is another great resource.

The gist: to understand Jesus, the Gospels, the Old Testament, and much of the NT letters, we have to know the Jewish context in which they were written. If God revealed His Word to eskimos, we would have to learn some things about seals, penguins, whale oil and blubber. Since He revealed Himself to Jews, we need to learn the history and culture of this people in order to plumb the depths of Scripture.

I think this approach can be overdone and stretched too far, but it IS part of standard exegesis to look at the text in its historical context.

Related texts:
Galatians 3:29 - And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 1:16-17 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Romans 3:1-2 - What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

To whet your appetite further:

1. When Jesus cleanses the temple, make sure to read Isaiah 56:1-8 with it, and Jeremiah 7:1-11.

2. When you read Ezekiel 34:1-16, don't forget about Luke 15:1-7 and 19:10, and the times that Jesus feeds thousands on the hillsides of Galilee, having them sit down first (Mark 6:39 and Ezekiel 34:14-15).

3. I just read Isaiah 29:11 for devotions a few days ago, and remembered Revelation 5:1-4...

4. Several parables Jesus told were part of the story culture of Torah teachers before Jesus came to us. The standard formula was an ethical issue with a priest and a Levite getting it wrong, and a Pharisee getting it right. Jesus would substitute a Samaritan (Pharisees' worst enemies) instead of a Pharisee. This would be like us telling a moralistic story about a doctor, lawyer and minister, but then substituting prostitute for minister -- and she is the hero of the story! (See Joshua 2:1 and Matthew 1:5) Jesus did this to jolt them out of their self-righteousness and make them realize that even their worst enemies weren't beyond the grace of God.

5. This is just the tip of the iceberg. And we think we know our Bibles...

Baxter

In 5 words: good for the pastor's soul.

Very convicting, too. His first point: if you're going to shepherd a flock, you've got to be able to shepherd yourself. So are you?

"Take heed to yourselves, lest your example contradict your doctrine... lest you unsay with your lives, what you say with your tongues" (pg 63).

Mental ruts

Funny how our minds find grooves and stay in them, running the same worn thoughts and paths over and over.

I've been a one-string violin, too focused on the homosexuality issue. Time to branch out again. I'm declaring a personal moratorium on the subject for a few days, at least...

Traditional Scriptural exegesis on homosexuality

From Al Mohler again - excellent stuff - the rest of this post is him at

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-10-05

First, as Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." God has implanted all humanity with the knowledge of the Creator, and all are without excuse. As Paul continued: "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." [Romans 1:22-27]

The broader context of Paul's rejection of homosexuality is clear: Homosexuality is a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation, a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. What Paul makes clear is that homosexuality is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with a desire which in itself is degrading and dishonorable.

The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment.

Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.

Here the confessing Church runs counter to the spirits of the age. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities," vestiges of patriarchal past.

Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders were different, and the distinction transcended mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" [Genesis 2:23].

The bond between man and woman was marriage. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" [Genesis 2:24-25].

The text does not stop with the mere creation of woman. Rather, God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh." This biblical assertion, which no revisionist exegesis can deconstruct, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.

Few theologians have given this critical issue its due attention. Indeed, throughout the history of the church, this pattern was seen as axiomatic and unquestioned. Only in the modern period, when social experimentation and radical protest movements have sought to push a wide-scale rejection of this pattern, has the issue come to light.

Significantly, it is Karl Barth who has most seriously addressed this biblical pattern of gender complementarity. Writing in 1928, Barth asserted: "What do we really know about the male and female except that the male could not be a man without the female nor the female without the male, that the male cannot belong to himself without also belonging to the female and vice-versa?"

The male and female only have meaning in relation to the other. Barth refers to Genesis 2:25, and suggests that the man and the woman saw each other naked and were not ashamed, "Because the maleness of the male and the femaleness of the female rightly become an object of shame….only when the male and female in their maleness and femaleness seek to belong to themselves and not to each other."

Horribly confused, Barth asserted, the sexes turn inward to an "ideal of a masculinity free from woman and a femininity free from man." This false ideal, which is a rejection of the Creator and His command, culminates in "the corrupt emotional and finally physical desire in which--in a sexual union which is not and cannot be genuine--man thinks that he must seek and can find in man, and woman in woman, a substitute for the despised partner."

Hey RCA, how do we handle conflict?

***Reposted from 9.19.05 - check out new comments!***

I just got the RCA's General synod minutes in the mail a few days ago, and our General Secretary's report was in there, which I hadn't seen yet, so I read it. When it comes to the unity and purity of the Church, I think his theological priorities are out of whack, but I think they reflect a significant number of RCA people's priorities, as well. He says he wants to deal with the issue pastorally, not judicially. But we need to do this precisely because of the classis' failure to pastorally hold a potential minister accountable in lifestyle and morality. It IS true, that the judicial route is the less preferred, though it is a legit stop-gap.

In the long run, I agree with Wes that dealing with these kinds of issues judicially is insufficient. We need to be committed to keep God's Word in our hearts, not just in our rule books.

Homosexuality acceptance = Bible rejection

Great article by Al Mohler today. Refreshing clarity and truth.
Must reading for all who are wondering about this "complex" and "controversial" issue.

Happy New Year!!

What am I talking about? Click on the link for the answer. Hint: you should know, since "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29).

Except for a few sentences on the rapture and national Israel, this is a really good page. More on those exceptions another time!

RC Sproul, Jr.

I just got my first issue of "Every Thought Captive" in the mail (July/Aug 2005), put out by the Highlands Study Center. Good stuff. Here's from "A Culture of Crows," on the parable of the sower, seed and soil...

"The notion that we should create shallow and rocky soil to attract the lost, and then when they spring up we transplant them has been a miserable failure, just as the parable teaches. Shallow soil may create many budding plant, but death is just around the corner.

"Which means, in turn, that we must deply cultivate the ground, building His culture. We seek to build godly cutures not simply for the sake of the godly, but also for the sake of the lost, to drive away the crows."

And this from "How to Read the Good Book."

"We will only find [Jesus in the Bible] when we understand the big stories, when we admit that the Bible is full of tyupes that give us a unified story. Jesus is the second Adam. Jesus is the bread which comes down from heaven. He is the Groom, the Shepherd, the Gardener, the Door, the Word, the Image.... we are the Bride, the Sheep, the vies, the Body. We are the beloved.... The goal here isn't to escape an ordered understanding of God's Word, but to enter into it, to see that that order is three-dimensional. The Word, don't forget, took, on flesh. To put it another way, we need to read the Word of God like Trinitarians. We reject the cacophony of the many. We reject the lifelessness of the one. We embrace the beauty of the harmony. And we dance with the Groom."

Are we morally superior to slave-owners?

I love provoking moral and theological self-examination. Of course, that gets me in trouble sometimes...

This quote's context is an historical analysis of USA southern slavery, pre-Civil War. Why do we assume we are morally superior today?

"Perhaps we should just limit this question to children in the wombs of black women today. If you were a black fetus in Atlanta, Georgia, what were you[r] odds of ever seeing the light of day in 1858? What are your odds in 2005? A lot of kids died back then, but not because the vile democracy they had the misfortune to be conceived in had somehow taken to the belief that to suck someone else's brains out with a vacuum cleaner was a high and noble constitutional right. When and how did the Constitution come to mean that? . . . So here it is. No, we are not better off. We murder lots and lots of people, just like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao did. On the bright side, we have lots of flat screen plasma televisions and cell phones readily available" (Black and Tan, pp. 106-107).

www.dougwils.com

How do we reach out with Jesus?

This is an excellent post by Phil Johnson.
What defines us? Our interests in classical/punk/CCM music? Or Jesus?
Our style of dress? Or Jesus?

Should we conform our lifestyle to the world, to gain an audience for Jesus?
Or be(come) who we genuinely are in Jesus and let the difference from the world attract on its own?

Why is it so many introductions to the latest Christian sub-culture thing end with the strained argument "But it's a Christian song/movie/sports-event/school/club/dance/etc"?

Why is it when I ask our teens what music they're listening to, they flee the scene saying, "Well, it's not Christian," as if that makes it automatically bad?

We do not contextualize the Gospel, but the world. The Gospel is meant to change the world; why are we conforming to the world so people will listen to the Gospel? That's all backwards. At some point, when you're in Athens, you've gotta mention the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17). At some point, you have to challenge the world's false assumptions. At some point, the genuine article is going to have scoffers...