30 days, pro-choice in a pro-life world

I happen to catch a show of “30 days” late last night (when I should of been sleeping), a reality show by Morgan Spurlock, about a pro-choice woman to took on the challenge of living 30 days at “His Nesting Place“, a faith-based pro-life organization (a great opportunity for ministry or help).   Watching the show was interesting, sad, joyous for the life-services provided & frustrating.

There was one part where Mr. Spurlock interviews a couple about the death of their daughter who died from a botched abortion obtained illegally somewhere b/c she was under age.  I feel for the grief the parents feel over the loss of their teenage daughter.  I really do.  I have children and I would be stricken with much grief if they had died while I live.  I don’t remember when it was that the daughter died or even when this particular show was recorded. I’m sure if I wanted to search the internet for those details that I’d find it but it’s irrelevant at this point.   But the parents were angry that in Indiana, where they lived, had passed a “parental consent law for minors” which states that a minor under 18 needs written permission from at least 1 parent and accompanied to a pre-abortion visit.  So these parents were mad at the law and law-makers!  Is it really the fault of the government?  They admitted to not knowing that their daughter was pregnant.  The daughter apparently took matters into her own hands, sought an abortion by someone who was apparently unqualified & she paid the ultimate price.  Spurlock just shook his head as in disbelief.  I can see & understand the tragedy of this circumstance as it is a sad one.  But is there no fault with the teenage girl & the guy that contributed to her pregnancy?  Did she do absolutely no wrong?  Is it really “ok” that minors should be absolutely free & able to go and have an abortion all by herself without any knowledge or consent by her parents or guardian?   How is this even fathomable by any parent or mature adult?  My 7th grade son was not allowed to suck on a cough drop at school last year, not even with my consent!  Why is it that our kids in schools can’t have an aspirin or tylenol or any kind of medication w/o either a parent’s or physician’s consent?  Why do I have to sign a medical release for my child at school if he/she were to have an emergency and needed to go to the hospital? Isn’t it b/c those are important decisions that parents should know and be aware of and contribute their voice to these concerns b/c their children are their responsibility?  Are they not?   Why is an abortion any different?  Why are pro-abortionists trying to hard to make this a “right”?  Is it really??  It’s surgery!   Is it b/c the girl or boy will be embarrassed or ashamed or scared or guilty that they did something they shouldn’t have?  In which they now encounter the resulting risks of their behaviors?  It’s like, if you play with fire, you risk getting burned.  Like, if you drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you risk a crash, injury to yourself, whoever is in the vehicle with you and anyone else that may be on the road.  Or, like, if you do drugs, you risk damage to body/organs/disease.  Like, if you decide to steal from a drug dealer, you risk getting killed.  Like, if you draw on a cop, you risk getting shot at.  and on and on…

And then there was this other part where the pro-choice girl, who works in a “women’s clinic” in which she proudly advertised “offers choices”, who also herself had an abortion b/c she simply wasn’t ready, was asked if she came to the realization that the fetus is really a baby and that people are choosing to abortion the baby, hence therefore killing them, then surely she would change her mind about the validity of “choice”.   I was so sad to hear her say that even if she for some reason should change her thinking that a fetus was a living baby being aborted that she wouldn’t think or believe or feel any different than she has been, which is it is still ok to abort a baby if a woman should so choose.   how awful.   It was awful for me to watch her act excited as she greeted & held some of the babies at the ” His Nesting Place”.   I wanted to say to her, “those are the very babies that you say is ‘ok’ to abort!”

Part of the challenge was that she had also experience the ways in which pro-lifers approach or minister to their cause.  Mind you not all pro-life organizations function the same.  One cause of which was outside the famous chinese theater in L.A., where demonstraters were displaying pictures of aborted babies.   She was offended and didn’t like what the protesters were doing, calling them provacative & the beloved liberal title of “fear-mongering”.    I know those images are disturbing and grotesque & confrontational, but why?  Why is it that pro-choicers don’t like people to see them?  She said it was inaccurate.  So you’re telling me all the physicians that declare that it a fetus is in essence a baby, and when it’s aborted, that abortion is killing a life and the descriptions of the way the baby, ‘er I mean “fetus” is sliced and diced and sucked out is all a hoax?  A lie?  A conspiracy to scare people?   And none of the pictures available that show tiny limbs and heads in pieces from an unborn baby being aborted is all made up?   What exactly is inaccurate about the pictures?  Babies are aborted anywhere from the first to 2nd trimesters and even 3rd in some states.  or is it you just want to deny that it’s real for the sake of your own pride and selfishness?

Forgive me for not feeling sorry for someone who chooses a selfish way out to avoid either shame or responsibility.  But I still need to pray for them. Some may think I’m being disrespectful & callous here by talking about a dead girl and her grieving family.   there’s bigger issues here.  Bigger than the girl and bigger than her death and her family’s grief.  LIFE.  Responsibility.  Intergrity.  GOOD “CHOICES”.  RIGHT “CHOICES”.

I”m pro-choice living in a pro-life world too.  I’m just pro-choice for the baby first.  take responsibility.  Give birth.  The other choices doesn’t “usually” involve killing anyone.  The choice for abortion always does.

A Christian’s life…

…is not guaranteed protection from hardships, trials, & pains in this life.  In fact, we are warned about it, that it WILL come, and when it does, to ENDURE.   1Pe 1:6  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7  so that the tested genuineness of your faith–more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire–may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

As my husband reminded me in his sermon this morning, if Jesus was not spared from trials yet persecuted even, then why should we be surprised that we should encounter sufferings?  If the apostles & those of faith of old were not spared suffering, then why should we expect differently?  Who are we?  If we are God’s chosen, we should embrace whatever trials may come our way, especially those choices in which we have chosen poorly or outright wrongly.

Jas 1:2  Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,
Jas 1:3  for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
Jas 1:4  And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Even in this command, there’s a difficult struggle.  But, endure.  Seek Him.  Lean on His understanding, His strength, His joy, His power.

As human nature, a mortal sinful state, and as followers of Christ, of Whom the darkness is contentious & at enmity towards, we WILL be persecuted, ridiculed, criticized, scrutinized.  So do we cowar and remain quiet?  May it never be!   (Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,)

1Pe 1:6  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7  so that the tested genuineness of your faith–more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire–may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I dare say that all have encountered trials in many ways than one, believer and non alike.   But to those who believe, oh the blessed assurance!   This life is tainted.  Seek God in it.  Deal with it.  and praise Him still!   This time is passing.  A new day is coming… HALLELUJAH!

for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am Holy, says the LORD. (1peter 1:16)

1Pe 1:15-16  “but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

What a sobering and wondrous command.  Oh the challenge & complexity of understanding it all!   How many of us struggle with this?  I would dare say ALL!  It gives me shivers just to read these words & how I know the utter need I have of His power to work in me, even working through me.  I struggle to leave the cares of this world at His feet, that I may not have to carry the burdens in life, of knowing lost souls, the physical sufferings of family & friends, the sadness of broken people, the hurts & on it goes…

We are  called to carry one another’s burdens. Gal 6:2  Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. There is this saying out there in Christianity that I so loathe… “holier than thou”, used in a negative way to describe someone of faith who is seeking to be “wholesome” and/or modest or reserved in their expressions or ways they are involved in ‘worldly’ things or limiting their exposure to non-believers.  Some think and say these people are “legalistic”.  Now, I understand that some may have the wrong motives or immature thinking and ways in which they relay their own piety, and then others (naturally all) will feel insecure and offended that another should “judge” the way they live, especially in living out their “freedoms in Christ”.  But I say, if a Christian should revel in living in holiness and righteousness, shouldn’t we encourage them on?  If they should be misguided or misunderstanding something in their piety, then do lovingly guide them.  Pray for wisdom & then pray for them.  Encourage and talk to them.  Understand them & help them understand where they may be lacking.

There are Christians who don’t watch tv or certain movies or listen to certain music or dress a certain way.  Many categorize them as extreme.  I think it great that there is such a zeal to live in such a way as to distinguish themselves from “the world”.  I know, I know.  You may be thinking, “but it’s ignorant zeal”.   Are you saying ALL of those kinds of Christians are ignorant zealots who don’t really understand their pietous freedoms?   Have we spoken and surveyed all of them?  I think not.  I know I’m not as brilliant as many but in my childlike mind, I survey that the sometimes the less “worldliness” we have to influence the rotting of our minds & hearts, the better.

I wish I could have the strong will and convictional strength to live such simplistic a lifestyle & forsake so many of the worldly things I do live with.  My flesh is weak.  Many things in which I really consider luxuries, which in themselves are not sinful, but that I feel sometimes attributes to the rotting my time, spirit, mind, heart & soul.  Distractions, basically.  The desire for more, better things.  “NO!  Away from me you selfish desires!”  I want to just be able to bask in the WOrd all day, everyday.  but the reality of life’s responsibilities demands much of my time.  Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy the things I am able to do, like being at home with my children & all that entails, taking care of my family, time to serve in ministry in & out of church … oh the many blessings that life does offer.  But oh! … the richness of knowing God, prayer time, reading, learning more and more about Him!

Eph 4:17  Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.
Eph 4:18  They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
Eph 4:19  They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.
Eph 4:20  But that is not the way you learned Christ!–
Eph 4:21  assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus,
Eph 4:22  to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,
Eph 4:23  and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Eph 4:24  and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

How beautiful and sacred is the holiness of Christ, in which we are to emulate!  How awesome is His Majesty!

So I ask, is it self righteous for a Christian to live in extreme modesty & promote it?   Why or why not?   I know there are a million ways one may think a Christian should live.  Why is there such a broad gamut of Christian piety and what are other examples of these differences?   What are the struggles?

My thoughts are not completely gathered here in this blog but I wanted to get a start and put this out anyways.

If You Are Around Nampa, Join Us for Joe and Romans

Music in the Womb

Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint reports on a sequence from the PBS documentary The Music Instinct: Science and Song:

The program was an exploration of, among other things, music’s “biological, emotional and psychological impact on humans.”Part of this “exploration” included how music affects babies. If we are, as some scientists believe, “wired for music,” then babies are ideal test subjects since their reactions are, by definition, instinctual.

Part of this research involved the effect of music on fetuses. While we knew that mothers often sing to their unborn children, we weren’t sure that the unborn child could hear them.

We are now. A segment of The Music Instinct featured Sheila C. Woodward of the University of Southern California, who has studied fetal responses to music. A camera and a microphone designed for underwater use were inserted into the uterus of a pregnant woman. And then Woodward sang.

The hydrophone picked up two sounds: the “whooshing” of the uterine artery and the unmistakable sound of a woman singing a lullaby.

Then something extraordinary happened. Upon hearing the woman’s voice, the unborn child smiled.

It was one of those moments that makes you catch your breath. The full humanity of the fetus could not have been clearer if he had turned to the camera and winked.

Apparently, fetal responses to music aren’t limited to smiling. They have been observed moving their hands in response to music, almost as if conducting. They have been soothed by Vivaldi and disturbed by loud tracks from Beethoven. They have even responded “rhythmically to rhythms tapped on [their] mother’s belly.”

The commentary laments that Woodward’s research is not available on the website for the program, and suggests that the pro-choice worldview of PBS blinded them to the significance of this portion of the program.  I don’t know for sure, but I’m glad that BreakPoint put this out there for people to see.  I hope that I can watch the program sometime.

Has anyone else seen it?

Christ’s Triumph over Earthly Powers

Scholars have begun to think about the way that Jesus and Paul called the Roman Empire into question.  I think that it was this Christian Century article from 2005 that turned me on to the trend.  Peter Leithart’s article in First Things also explored the idea of Paul’s assertion of Christ’s triumph over earthly powers:

Paul taught Christians to expect a lot from the gospel, politically as well as personally. He taught that the crucifixion of Jesus had a direct impact on the powers-that-be. He told the Colossians that Jesus went to the cross as the firstborn—the only-begotten of the Father, the new Israel, the heir, the Passover sacrifice—to pacify the powers. The same Son who created the powers (Col. 1:16) has “made peace through the blood of His cross” by reconciling powers in heaven and earth to Himself (Col. 1:20).

Paul borrows from the propaganda of the Roman Empire to make his point. According to Roman imperial ideology, the emperor was a cosmic “peace-maker,” bringing to earth an image of heavenly peace. The apostle says, on the contrary, that God has his own peace-maker, another Lord who reconciles all things. As Paul says later in Colossians, Jesus renovates all things and unites Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free (Col. 3:10-11), extending his empire even to “barbarians” (Col. 3:10-11).

Scholars have debated inconclusively about whether the powers are angels or demons or social “forces” or human authorities, but in the end it doesn’t matter for Paul. If there are visible powers and authorities, the Son who made them subdues them (Col. 1:16). If there are invisible angelic or demonic powers, or more abstract forces in the human world, their fate is the same. The key thing for Paul is not to identify the powers, but to say that they have all been created and they have all been conquered. It’s a universal truth: Whatever rules over humanity has been tamed by the cross of Jesus.

Paul reiterates the same point in more extreme terms in the following chapter. Jesus, he claims, has “stripped” the rulers and authorities and made a public display of them (Col. 2:15). Paul is making an ironic reference to the actual event of Jesus’ crucifixion. If CNN had captured the crucifixion, the film clip would have shown Jesus Himself stripped, crucified naked and exposed. According to Paul, what actually happening was the opposite: Jesus stripped the powers. Paul again borrows from Roman imperial custom in saying that Jesus makes a “public display” of the powers, having triumphed over him in the cross.” By his death, Jesus leads the powers in a triumphal procession, displaying them as the trophies of his conquest, the plunder of Egypt.

Leithart believes that this has indeed happened, and discusses the Christian Church’s victory over Rome’s tyranny and the polytheistic religions of the ancient world.  At the same time, he writes that governments and cultures can be not only defeated, but reconciled to God’s rule, rejecting the Anabaptist idea that Christians must always be opposed to power.  Of the times where the Church has sinned in its triumph, he writes,

Paul also means that through the cross the Church is delivered from everything else that dominates and distorts human life. The true man Jesus redeems slaves to tradition, slaves to blood and nation, slaves to fashion, slaves to public opinion, and forms a community of free citizens, of truly human humans. If the Church has often bowed to the idols of nationalism, traditionalism, or trendiness, it is because we have too often forgotten our exodus and returned to Egypt.

Leithart believes (in my understanding) that the Church can bring Christ’s kingdom here on by baptizing nations and bringing the world under God’s rule, fulfilling the Great Commission.  I believe in the Great Commission, of course, but I’m not yet convinced of the Christendom model that he embraces.  I’m not sure that the Bible teaches that Christians are to set up an earthly kingdom, but I haven’t done a lot of study on the topic.  Nevertheless, I found his reflection on Christ’s victory edifying and the historical context in which he places Paul’s writings to be quite helpful.

Leithart also posted a couple of really deep reflections here and here on the meaning of worship within the last month, which I mostly want to link to so I can recall them.  I hope that you find them helpful as well.  Thanks, Joel, for putting me in touch with Leithart’s writings!

Book Review of Mark Noll’s “America’s God” (Chp. 10)

Chapter 10 of America’s God discusses the cultural consequences of the rapid expansion of evangelicalism.  How, he asks, did evangelicalism come to play such an important role in the culture?

While crediting the interpretations of Gordon Wood, Robert Wiebe, and Nathan Hatch that stress the importance of the destruction of hierarchies by the American Revolution, he also believes that the evangelical churches helped to build the national culture in a way that has been underappreciated by historians.  He agrees with John Murrin’s statement that American society at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1787) was “a roof without walls” (195).  In other words, it had a political framework without the national culture to support it.  Evangelicalism helped to supply this national culture.

This happened in two ways.  Evangelicals built social organizations, and not only denominational networks.  By the 1830s, voluntary agencies like Bible and Christian literature distribution societies contrasted with the local nature of most publishing.  Missionary societies that targeted the frontier and the world represented important means of connection to the frontier and non-European world.  Societies that aided the poor and promoted access to higher education took on roles that had not yet been taken on by any governments.  Noll compares the proliferation of Methodist churches and clergy with post offices and postal employees, finding similar patterns of expansion.  The post office was an important means of unifying the nation, but evangelicalism easily outdid the post office.

Secondly, evangelicals helped to supply an ideological base for the nation.  As Noll described earlier in the book, evangelical theology had come to terms with two pillars of the American Revolution, republican political theory and commonsense moral reasoning.  Noll writes that republican political theory held that freedom required virtue, and many of the founders believed that virtue needed to be upheld by religion.  This religion largely came to be evangelicalism, even though many of the most critical founders were publicly attached to it.  Churches did well in this new environment as they were not formally established but became a critical part of the cultural establishment.

This passage summed up Noll’s point well:

If for evangelicals during the Revolution “the cause of America” had become “the cause of Christ,” as the Pennsylvania Presbyterian Robert Smith put it in 1781, then the achievement of independence meant that, for many patriots, “the cause of Christ had become also “the cause of America.”  The belief that the United States was a land chosen and protected by God for special, if perhaps even millennial, purposes may not have been as widely spread during the War for Independence as is sometimes suggested.  But it did flourish in the decades after the war.  If networks of evangelical denominations and voluntary societies were building national walls under a constitutional roof, so also was the sense of elect nationhood, which was a peculiarly evangelical construction, making a significant contribution as well. (206)

This chapter was quite provocative, providing examples of how evangelicalism integrated itself into the national framework.  As Noll wrote, his explanation needs more than a few pages to be completely persuasive, but he seems to provide at least a plausible explanation for this process.

After this, I will be posting shorter entries on each chapter.

Book Review of Mark Noll’s “America’s God” (Chapter 7-9)

In Chapters 7-8 of America’s God, Mark Noll shows himself to be a careful historian as he documents how traditional and “innovative” theologies did not become “American” theologies during the period of the American Revolution.  In other words, even as “commonsense” moral philosophy and republican political theory became more accepted by evangelical Christians, they did not produce a paradigm shift in American theology.  Evangelicals like Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists became comfortable with the republican and commonsense language, though.  Noll intends to show that after the 1790s, American evangelical theology would be transformed by these ideas.  But the American Revolutionary period was not the period where this happened.  Even the nonevangelical theologies of liberal Congregationalism (marked by rationalism and universalism) and Deism did not fully acclimate themselves to American society after the Revolution.

For Noll, the transformation of evangelicalism goes along with the evangelical transformation of America.  Chapter 9 shows the amazing growth of evangelical denominations, especially the Baptists and Methodists, in the late 1700s and early 1800s.  Interestingly enough, evangelicals had not been a major force during the Revolutionary period, certainly not at their level during the Great Awakening in the 1740s.  Revivals were a local rather than intercolonial or national phenomenon.  But in the new climate after 1790, evangelicals returned as a major cultural force, bringing new members into the fold and expanding along with the American population into the western frontiers of the nation (at this point not very far west from our perspective).

Noll notes that American evangelicals’ “attachment to Scripture was also accompanied by a bias — sometimes slight, sometimes intense — against inherited institutions” (174).  An important part of the climate was that the American religious scene was being transformed from the European model of established Protestant churches (like Congregationalism in New England) to the familiar model of nearly complete religious freedom.  Furthermore, American evangelicals did not feel bound to traditional interpretations of Scripture either, believing that the individual was capable of interpreting Scripture outside these traditions.  In this way, American evangelicalism looked very different from the European (including British) Protestantism from which it had descended.

Noll notes that four “polarities” help to explain differences within American evangelicalism.  Formalist denominations (Congregationalists, Prebyterians, Episcopalians, and Dutch Reformed) were the old established churches that had a tradition of theological education and writing, and they contrasted with the antiformalists like the Methodists, Baptists, and members of Restorationist movements.  Formalists tended to be Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans from the Northeast, while the antiformalists tended to be Jeffersonians and Democrats from the South and on the Western frontiers.  The formalists tended to have a national vision, while antiformalists were more associated with local community independence.

Racial divisions also formed a polarity, as white and black Christians began to develop different church cultures after the conversions of slaves, largely by Baptists and Methodists, began to take off.  Going along with this, slave and free states developed differently as well, as the leading theologians in the North were often Congregational while in the South they were Presbyterian.  Finally, evangelical Christians tended to accomodate to 19th-century ideas of separate spheres for men and women, showing a belief in the polarity of male and female roles.

After 1830, Noll writes, evangelicals began to divide.  Their remarkable expansion had not resulted in a fully transformed and converted nation.  Baptists and Methodists split in 1844 into southern and northern groups over the issue of slavery, and slavery also helped to divide Presbyterians into New and Old School in 1837.  Even the American Anti-Slavery society split in 1840.  New groups like the Restorationists and Millerites appeared, and Joseph Smith introduced the new religion of Mormonism.

Now that Noll has chronicled the expansion of evangelicalism, he intends to show what role in played in creating the culture of the new nation.

Beale on the OT in the NT

Writing in the journal Irish Biblical Studies [Volume 21, November 1999], Greg Beale talks about the use of OT scripture in the NT and says:

I gave the analogy of picking an apple off a tree and making it part of a decorative table arrangement of fruit. The new context does not obliterate the apple’s original identity but it must now be viewed not merely in relation to its original context but in connection to its new context. Old Testament references gain “new significance” but not “new meaning” when placed in a new context. The original “meaning” does not change but the “significance” of that meaning changes.

2 Kings 11-13 “God Thwarts the Plans of the Wicked”

2 Kings 11-13 “God Thwarts the Plans of the Wicked”

Athaliah killed the entire royal family, or so she thought. There was a baby name Joash, who was taken and hidden in the house of the Lord. He later became king and Athaliah was eventually killed.

How can you not believe in providence? God chose Moses before time, spared him as a baby and providentially guided his life as a vessel for His glory. God also thwarts the plan here of Athaliah. Did she really think that she could overpower God and all His covenant promises? Apparently so…to her death.

Herod also thought he could thwart God’s plan by killing the baby Jesus. Again, no one, absolutely NO ONE can thwart the counsel of God.

So it is today. His plan will stand against all the fury hell will throw at Him. The gates of hell will not stand. They will crumble as His Church advances. Take heart believer!!!

Prayer-

Lord, thank You for Your Sovereign hand which accomplishes all the good things you have ordained. Forgive me for doubting Your hand or inquiring of Your secret counsel. Help me to simply trust in Your plans and submit myself to Your will, whatever it may be. Thanks you that your plans are to prosper those whom You love and that You will work ALL things for my good. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will NOT fear. I will trust in YOU.

Excerpt from St. Patrick’s Prayer:

I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me:
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak for me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s way to lie before me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s host to save me
From snares of demons,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

Basketball Star Vying for Sole Custody of Pre-Born Baby….but what does it matter if mom can unilaterally murder the baby?

Story is here. Dirk Nowitzki’s girlfriend has some issues…you can read about it. As such, if she is carrying Dirk’s baby, He wants sole custody. While I disagree with lifestyle choices that brought them to this point, I give him props for wanting to raise the child.

I post this because the irony in our law system is that he can want the child, long for the child, is responsible for the child once born, but really has no say in the matter until that point as the mom is entirely free to kill the baby and move on. Those who know me know that I believe the baby deserves the right to life regardless, however I would support laws that make abortion permissible only if it is consented by both parents. Again, I am NOT for abortion. I am just saying that this would be a reasonable revision to our existing abortion laws.

I realze that fatherhood may be impossible to establish while the child is in embryo so that this stipulation could be bypassed, but I just do find it ironic that a father can want a child, but has no say. It is up to mom. At the same time, a father can not want the child because of not wanting to support the child, etc. and a mom could have the baby with the sole intent of binding the father to child support, etc.

Argggggggh. God’s way is the best way. One man marrying one woman and happily raising their children in a loving and nurturing home. Call it archaic, but it works. So many people use children in a manipulative fashion these days, either for child support, or for state support, etc. or they are murdered, or whatever. God’s heart grieves over the many children who are not born into stable homes. Anyhow, just some thoughts on a tense societal issue…and a vindication of God, who knows best and actually wants our joy. His way is full of joy.

1 Peter 4:12 “Deal With It (Suffering)”

1 Pt. 4:12 Deal With It (Suffering)

1 Pet. 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.

Is it just me or does it seem like most believers are perplexed when trials befall them? Do we not try to find the root of the trial and get rid of it as soon as possible? Often times we think along the lines of Job’s ‘friends’ who concluded that his trials must have something to do with hidden sin.

While certain trials may in fact be a result of sin that needs to be dealt with, many are simply ordained by God for our sanctification. Doesn’t sound like fun, does it? Doesn’t sound like, “Your Best Life Now”, does it? Yet, listen to what Peter tells us to do in the midst of suffering:

13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Rejoice? Really?

I think we all need a good dose of BIBLE and stop acting like it is the end of the world when God serves us up a bit of suffering. We are told not to be surprised and act like something strange is happening. This mindset is almost foreign in American Evangelicalism and we need to regain a Biblical theology of suffering or else we might whine ourselves out of God’s Kingdom. Think of how God felt about the whining wilderness generation…He could barely stand it. I know that it seems impossible to rejoice or be thankful for the testing God’s providence leads us through in this life, but your other alternatives are whining or anxiety, which are both condemned as responses unbefitting the believer. Let us not mind a little suffering.

Prayer –

Forgive me for the many times I have failed the tests set before me, either by whining or complaining or distrusting you with sinful anxiety. Help me to embrace the tests Your providence deal me and may they ever increase my joy for that day when Your glory is revealed in its fullness. Amen.

Psalm 137 “When Worship Music Becomes Entertainment”

No, I am not mocking contemporary worship or dealing with the regulative principle or any of that. Instead, I am responding to what Israel’s captors asked of them in Psalm 137:

3 For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

Babylon is making a mockery of Israel’s worship be requesting it be played for their mockery or entertainment. Well, how did Israel respond?

8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

I know that this beatitude pronounced upon Babylon’s avenger and the Psalmist’s desire that the Babylonians be destroyed may seem harsh…well, because…it is harsh. As harsh as it is, the point to be taken is that it is the proper restitution for belittling the worship of God. He won’t stand for it and will crush all who despise the worship of God.

Prayer-

Lord, may I never cease to worship You. May I be zealous for your glory and the hallowing of Your name. May Your name be worshipped forever and ever. Though captors seek to mock and belittle the song on our lips, may we worship you nonetheless and may sinners be converted. Amen.

2 Kings 1-2 “Fire From Heaven”

King Ahaziah sent two groups of 50 soldiers to apprehend the lone prophet Elijah and were destroyed by fire that Elijah called down on them. The third group of 50 begged for mercy and Elijah was permitted to go down with him where he subsequently prophesied the King’s death. In 2 Kings 2, the ascension of Elijah and double blessing upon Elisha dominate the chapter. It also ends with that interesting story where 42 youths were devoured by bears because they were mocking the prophet. Anyhow, I really want to focus on the fire from heaven.

There is a similar NT parallel in Luke’s Gospel:

Luke 9:51-56 (ESV)
51 When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him.
53 But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”
55 But he turned and rebuked them.
56 And they went on to another village.

I’m sure that James and John were craving a raw demonstration of power from their prophet, but they were rebuked rather than commended. Why? God had sent fire on His enemies before, why not now? One can’t also claim that God is just plain nicer in the NT, after all Acts does record cases of God striking people dead.

I think that God is showing that He will do what He so wishes and retains the freedom to do whatever His hand pleases to do, BUT He would rather we love and pray for our enemies than wish their harm and destruction. Our God doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked. May we never forget that. Though He will destroy the wicked, He doesn’t have a sadistic pleasure in such acts and warns us against developing such ill-will towards others. Well some might be wondering, “What about the imprecatory Psalms?”. “Can Christians pray for God’s harm on others?”. There are appropriate times to pray for the destruction of a leader, but it must be in conjunction with prayers for their repentance. I pray for Kim Jong Il to repent of his wickedness, but could also see the good of God taking him out of office. I wish God to send fire down on Him, I really do…just as I am sure Bonhoeffer wished the same for Hitler.

Anyhow, this post is developing into more areas than I had intended. Needless to say, there are times when we can pray for one’s repentance and God’s vindictive justice and revenge to be carried out in the here and now of things. We must NOT, however take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Our feelings ought to be conflicted. When we captured Saddam, I was joyous that he was brought to justice. When he was hanged, I wasn’t giving high fives with a grin on my face. I stood speechless at the news, silent and humbled before the God who can raise kings up and bring them down. If not for God’s grace, we would all be like the youth who were mocking Elijah. We were God’s enemies…children of wrath.

Prayer-

Lord, thank you for your longsuffering with me and not striking me dead in judgment when I rebelled against You and mocked Your Word. You won me over with Your love and I am no longer your enemy. Grant me with this same love for others. Rather than calling down fire from heaven, may I weep for the lost and all who wish me harm and do me harm. Amen.

Congrats to Brian Andrews!!!

Brian, my buddy I met in Rochester, NY, who then got sent to TX, just won secondary teacher of the year!!! Much props are due him. You can read the article here.

Jesus on the Cross = Penal Substitution AND Sanctification

My evening readings were in 1 Pt. 1-2 and there is so much precious truth in it all, however 1 Pt 2:24 sticks out  for me today:

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

I had the chance to visit with a dear brother this morning who is a missionary to the Ukraine and we ended up spending some time talking about the work of Jesus upon the cross. I informed him that the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus satisfied our penalty for sin on the cross) is under attack today. He was shocked.

“How could they do that? Why did Jesus come to die then?” he asked.

I gave him the reasons and he was appalled that people have a problem with the idea that Jesus actually took our sin, its filth, the Father’s wrath against it, everything with Him into His body on that cross. You are left with an empty cross… a most unfortunate martyrdom that the Father had nothing to do with. How is this glorious?

Anyhow, Peter tells us plainly that Jesus bore our sins in His body. That is glorious in and of itself, however the good news doesn’t end there. Peter adds a purpose clause following that great statement, “…that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Jesus not only satisfies the penalty and wrath for our sin, but purchases on the cross sanctifying power for the believer to die to sin and live for Him. This is great news!!! He not only forgives us, but empowers us to live a life pleasing to Him for His glory. 1 Peter has several important imperatives that help shape exactly how the ‘justified’ believer is to live out ’sanctification’. Let us praise our Lord that He truly “healed” us on that cross through the wounds He endured.

Prayer-

Thank you for saving me and not appointing me to destruction, but rather unto newness of life. Thank you for choosing to come and carry out the mission that the Father gave you to purchase me. Thank you for enduring every stripe and wound for my sin. As I ponder your wounded body, may I see in it the death of my own flesh and the power to live for You. I live for you Lord…for Your glory. I am not ashamed of the cross…it is a stumbling block for many, but you have made it precious in my sight. I have tasted Your sweet goodness and I long for more. May Your goodness shape me as a vessel to be used for Your glory. Amen.

Psalm 136, “His Love Endures Forever”

My afternoon reading today was from Psalm 136. The refrain, “His love endures forever”, occurs in all 26 verses of this Psalm and was recited in responsive fashion before the congregation.

I know that some folks don’t like ‘7-11′ choruses in Church (7 words sung 11 times), and I would be the first to say that there can be too much redundancy in our liturgy at times, however this Psalm is an apologetic for reiterating one magnificent truth over and over again. The redundancy ought never to invoke boredom, but rather an ever increasing joy in the truth proclaimed that is ever more true each time we declare it. We can declare forever that, “His love endures forever”, and would be inspired to eternally increasing adoration and appreciation for His love.

If God says something 26x in 26 verses, me thinks He is trying to get something in our hearts…do we get it?

Prayer-

Lord, I thank you for your covenant-keeping love towards me in spite of my sin and ingratitude. Thank you for loving me with a love that neither death, famine, or foe can quench. Thank you for your promise to love me for all of eternity and your promise to work all things out for my good. Your love brings me to my knees with ‘woe’ from my lips…Your love lifts my head and beckons me to go and do your will…your love abounds much more than my every sin…it is your love in Christ Jesus that has adopted me and saved me…it is your eternal love that will forever bind all your children in perfect fellowship now and in the age to come. Help me to declare of your love and to love with your love…all for your eternal glory. Amen

Free Biography on John Calvin

Link here for the free PDF OR go here to purchase a copy.

Ahab and 400 Apostate Prophets

I am reading through the following Bible plan. I read through the OT passage in the morning, the Psalms at midday, and the NT in the evening.  Anyhow, I thought I would offer some brief thoughts on each reading throughout the day.

In 1 Kings 22, we are introduced to the story of the evil king Ahab, who was a complete coward and threw a fit because he couldn’t have Naboth’s Vineyard, only to have his notorious wife, Jezebel put Naboth to death for it…anyhow, he was also a coward in that he surrounded himself with 400 prophets who would simply tickle his ears with good counsel.

BUT,

there was one prophet who spoke the Word of the Lord:

1 Kings 22:7-8 (ESV)
7 But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here another prophet of the Lord of whom we may inquire?”
8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” [1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001

PRAYER -

Lord, guard my mouth and my heart. May I never shrink back from declaring Your Word. If even I should stand before a king, may my words be faithful and true. Also, be with Your Church…grant them ears that delight in Your Word. Guard us from apostate pastors who peddle Your Word to please itching ears. Amen.

New Exodus, New Gift, New Restoration, New Zion

Just a few brief thoughts as I continue to engage my studies for Seminary.

• - Luke 4 portrays Jesus as the Messiah, leading His people in a ‘new’ Exodus, delivering them from bondage, etc.
• - The Gospel of Luke shows how Jesus leads His people to salvation.
  
• - Acts 2 portrays Jesus as the Davidic king and a greater-than-Moses prophet who pours down the greatest gift (Holy Spirit)
• - The book of Acts then proceeds to show how the Kingdom of God is present…restoring, refreshing, expanding.

I see in Luke’s paradigm a program much like that of Israel, but in newness:

• - The old Exodus is fulfilled in the ‘new’ Exodus that Jesus leads
• - The passover is fulfilled in Jesus’ who secures our safe passage from our bondage
• - Jesus undergoes a ‘wilderness’ journey in his 40 day fast and He triumphs, incurring God’s blessing
• - The already delivered people of God enter the promised land and are given the ‘law’ as a gift to guide the nation of Israel…whereas the already ’saved’ followers of Jesus receive on Pentecost a new gift from on high, the Holy Spirit, which is intended to empower and guide this ‘new Israel’
• - This ‘new Israel’ experiences God’s promised times of refreshing and restoration…and global expansion, thus fulfilling what the former ‘Israel’ was to be to the surrounding nations

These thoughts aren’t new or novel, but it is quite remarkable how the ‘historian’ Luke develops a finely nuanced Christology and arranges his material in such a way so as to parallel the former Israel’s history.

N. Korean Quandary

I happen to be half Korean for those who don’t know. My mother came from South Korea when she was a young adult. Though I don’t speak Korean, I have an interest in its affairs. I have also served as an English Pastor at two Korean Churches in my past and have a certain kinship with such folks.

Anyhow, I am glad to see that Obama has granted to S. Korea assurances that we will protect them if assaulted by the North (link). We are certainly in volatile times as Iran and North Korea seek to flex their muscles. I have my thoughts on diplomacy and the course that should be taken, but I will leave them to myself. The most important thing that we can do is pray. A united Korea would be a most joyous thing!!!

On the Justice Journey

From Monday through Saturday this week, I will be going to some of the famous civil rights movements sites with about 40 white and black Chicagoans from several different churches.  We hope to learn about the history of the movement and also work on racial reconciliation.  I hope to have some interesting experiences to write about when I come back.

Of course, the Cubs and Sox have their first series against each other this week, so I hope that won’t create other reconciliation issues as I’m sure that the group will include fans of both teams.  For what it’s worth, here’s some research on the characteristics of Cubs and Sox fans that appeared in today’s Chicago Tribune.

You may or may not know about the stereotypes of Cubs and Sox fans.  The Cubs’ Wrigley Field is in a trendy part of town (Wrigleyville on the North Side) and the Sox’ US Cellular Field is on the South Side, near the old public housing project corridor.  I like to think that Wrigley is great but not nice (it was built in 1914 and isn’t in the best shape) and “the Cell” is nice but not great (it was built as a sterile new stadium in the early 1990s but looks a lot nicer now).  The two groups of fans have stereotypes about each other: Cubs fans often look at the Sox fans as low class, and the Sox fans often look at the Cubs fans as privileged, soft frat boys/yuppies who don’t care about the game that they’re watching.

I root against the White Sox at almost every opportunity, but I do like their fans.  The average serious Sox fan is pretty hardcore and hates the Cubs.  You see some Cubs fans who will root for both teams, but almost never a Sox fan who could ever think of rooting for the Cubs.  Talking with knowledgeable fans of the other team can be a lot of fun, although the fact that the Cubs haven’t won a World Series in over 100 years and the Sox had one lucky year a great run in 2005 means that the Sox fans always have a trump card.

Go Cubs!

Calvin and Cheney

My friend Rick from Endued sent me an article from Christianity Today that addressed the unitary executive theory advanced by Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration, and tried to put it in the perspective of Calvin’s political theory.  Here’s how the author, David Neff, defined the unitary theory:

But one young staffer in the Nixon administration, future Vice President Dick Cheney, became a champion of expansive executive power. Serving in Congress and in subsequent administrations, Cheney helped promote the theory of the “Unitary Executive,” the idea that, in [author Charlie] Savage’s words, the White House should exercise complete control over everything in the executive branch, which could be conceived of as a unitary being with the President as its brain. Attorney General Ed Meese, then-Representative Dick Cheney, and others pushed that notion in order to reclaim the de facto presidential powers that were squandered by Nixon’s overreach.

But after 9/11, the push to consolidate presidential power over national security issues took on new momentum. Sometimes Cheney’s rhetoric has gone to extremes. For example, he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that because the President always has at his side a military aide carrying the nuclear “football,” and because the President therefore has the ability to launch a nuclear attack at any time without checking with Congress, he is free of any responsibility to check with Congress in exercising his national security duties.

Neff argues that Calvin saw the law, not a government, as supreme.  In fact, he believed that tyrants sacrificed their legitimacy.  It’s no surprise, I suppose, that Calvinists often resisted governments in France, Austria, England, and Scotland.

The first thing that struck me as I read the article is how much more I need to know about Calvin’s time in Geneva, in which he attempted to set up a godly government during the Reformation period.  I’ve heard it alternately characterized as a proto-Taliban state and as a “woman’s paradise” for the strict laws against men who beat their wives.  Neff writes that Calvin saw a balance between responsibility and liberty:

Calvin used the Reformation idea of church and state as separate and distinct spheres to foster liberty. For every duty God imposes, whether spiritual or temporal, there is a corresponding freedom that is required. If we are commanded to give our families material support, for example, economic freedom and the right to private property are essential. If we are to rest on the Sabbath, we must have the liberty to stop working and not be perpetually at the beck of employers. Each duty implies a corresponding liberty, and it is the duty of rulers to protect those liberties.

Because these duties come from God, religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of political liberty. Witte continues: “Political liberty and political authority ‘are constituted together,’ said Calvin. … When political officials respect the duties and limits of their office, believers enjoy ample political liberty to give ‘public manifestation of their faith.’?”

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

In this part of the article, I wondered if there was some Americanization of Calvin.  It’s my impression that there wasn’t “religious liberty” in Geneva.  You wouldn’t necessarily expect to find religious liberty there, as the scorned and persecuted Anabaptists were the only ones really talking about it much in Calvin’s day (to my knowledge).  The church in Geneva, in my understanding, was to govern the moral aspects of people’s lives while the state maintained order.  One of the most famous cases in Geneva’s history was the buring of Michael Servetus at the stake for denying the Trinity.  There’s a tendency to think of the Reformers as the pioneers of our liberties when they seemed to be in a very different situation and time period from our  founders.

But as for Neff’s main point, I agree that law must above its enforcers.  He does well in painting a brief historical picture of the development of a powerful executive so that people know that it didn’t start with Nixon or Bush.  Part of the problem is that it’s unlikely that a president would give back power.  Some of the powers that the Bush Administration claimed are being claimed by the Obama administration, and certainly the recession has provided the justfication for further economic power for the president.

One of the troubling things about this is how results-oriented the political process has become.  Many people seem to be all right with expanded executive, legislative, and/or judicial power as long as policies that they like are enacted.  There don’t seem to be strong voices calling for the principles and limits found in the Constitution to be followed.  Sometimes I think our Constitution is almost worn-out from years of being asked to do things it was never meant to do.  In a free society, we have to be willing to tolerate things that we don’t like.

America’s God, Chapter 6: “Theistic Common Sense”

In Chapter 6 of America’s God, Noll continues in his exploration of how American Christianity became so connected with two streams of thought that were often associated with heresy or liberal theology in Europe: republican political thought and common sense moral philosophy.

Protestants, and especially Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants, had usually embraced an Augustinian view of man: there was a huge difference between the saved who had received God’s grace and spiritually dead who had not.  The damned did not have the same capacity to perceive morality that Christians did.  On the other hand, common sense moral theorists believed that all people had an innate moral sense that could discover true morality.  This goes along with the more optimistic view that the Enlightenment thinkers had of man’s nature: no matter how pessimistic some Enlightenment thinkers were that people would embrace reason, Enlightenment thinkers believed that people could embrace reason and make the world a better place.  The common sense moral theory is associated with Scottish thinkers like Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid.  Noll makes an interesting point about this theory: while it was in many ways a “liberal” idea that went against convention, it also was deployed against skeptics like David Hume who said that people really couldn’t know anything.  So it both criticized the traditional paradigm and tried to fend off something more radical.

Why did Americans come to believe that all people had the ability to discover moral truth, and why did Christians latch on to this system?  Noll admits that the evidence for his thesis is “circumstantial,” but he argues that the assault on traditional authorities that took place from the 1740s-1780s necessitated a new basis for morality and religion.  This was found in common sense ideas of morality.  For evangelicals and others, this meant that they could rest the American political, social, and religious order on principles that anyone could perceive through their natural common sense.

The challenges to authority had been many.  The Great Awakening preachers encouraged individuals to judge the purity of their churches rather than accept tradition.  Westward migration created new communities that people feared were devoid of order.  And of course the American Revolution overturned the political order.  The use of reason to order society could solve these problems.  Noll summarizes the appeal of common sense moral theory for traditional Christians as well.  For Protestants, it would:

preserve the hereditary position of Christianity that was turning against the structures of traditional religion (like the political episcopate or the Congregational establishment in New England) as actively as it was turning against other inherited authorities.  Moreover, patriots, both political and religious, needed not merely moral and intellectual justifications but justifications untainted by old world traditions associated with the corrupting forces of “tyrrany.” (109)

This makes logical sense to me, although I would have liked to see more evidence to be truly convinced.  Perhaps the evidence is coming later in the book.  For now, I wish he had followed up on this sentence:

Explicit in the lectures and textbooks of the nation’s leading intellectuals was the Enlightenment belief that Americans could find within themselves the resources, compatible with Christianity, to bring social order out of the rootlessness and confusion of the new nation. (112-113)

Given Noll’s careful work in the book so far and his reputation as a respected historian, there’s no reason to doubt him.  But I wish there had been some examples.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these come later in the book.

The marriage of Christianity and republican political theory in America

Noll’s fifth chapter analyzes the American combination of Christianity and republican political ideas, which was a rare combination in the 18th and 19th centuries.  You can see my notes on his previous chapter, where he explained more about this, here.

Noll argues that the most powerful influence in combining Christian beliefs and republican political principles was the period of conflict with France in the 1740s-1760s, the two wars known in America as King George’s War (1744-1748) and the French and Indian War (1754-1763).  French political and religious (i.e. Catholic) tyranny were contrasted with English liberty.  After the wars with France, religious Americans calling for religious freedom (as opposed to established churches) and the end of slavery used the republican language of rights and liberty.

Noll argues that during the time of resistance and open rebellion against British taxes and laws republican and Christian language were intermingled, so that Christianity was a “disinfectant” that sanitized the republican ideas that were so often connected with heretical ideas.  He gives the great example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which presented biblical examples in support of a republican form of government and against monarchy.  Paine had probably personally rejected Christianity at the time, but presented a very persuasive case that Christianity and republican ideas went hand in hand.  Noll calls this “Christian republicanism.”

Noll gives a plausible account of how “Christian republicanism” emerged.  He states early on in the book that he intends to do a history of theology that pays attention to high culture rather than a social history that looks at popular culture, while recognizing the necessity of histories that do the latter.  So the question remaining is how this worked at a popular level.  He contends that Americans in general tended to accept the synthesis hammered out in the theology that he explores, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

Noll closes with a great account from the always quotable de Tocqueville:

The character of the country that de Tocqueville visited in the 1830s seemed compounded of what he called “two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere have often made war with each other, but which, in America, … they have succeeded in incorporating somehow into another and combining marvelously.  I mean to speak of the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.” (92)

Christian orthodoxy and republican ideas: the American puzzle

Noll’s fifth fourth chapter in America’s God describes the unusual agreement between traditional Christians and republican political ideas in late 18-century America.  First, we have to define republican ideology.  Here’s how Noll does it:

American republican language returned constantly to two main themes: fear of abuses from illegitimate power and a nearly messianic belief in the benefits of liberty.  It presupposed, in the succinct summary of Blair Worden, that “man is a citizen, not (like Hobbes’ man) a subject.”  Moreover, “his citizenship is dependent on the free exercise of his virtue and of his reason, and upon his participation, as an elector of representatives and as arms-bearer, in the communal affairs of his country.” (56)

After the American Revolution, clergy from all Christian churches (whether Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic) spoke highly of American political ideas, while their peers in Europe and Canada often decried the values of the new American Republic, especially in the face of war against the French Republic.  Philadelphia’s Jewish community even protested their exclusion from Pennsylvania’s government using American political dialogue.

Noll believes that this phenomenon needs explanation because for more than a century before the American Revolution, those who held republican ideas were usually suspected of heresies such as Arianism and Socinianism (which denied the full divinity of Christ).  Republican beliefs often assumed a more optimistic nature of human beings, believing that they could be independent and virtuous by nature, opposing traditional Christian teachings on man’s sinfulness.   Making sense of the American combination of evangelicalism and republicanism is the task of Chapter 6 5.

Jonathan Edwards and the Decline of the Puritan Covenant

In Chapter 3 of America’s God, Noll writes that while Jonathan Edwards ably defended the doctrines of Calvinism in a way that understood the Enlightenment, his conception of the church represented a break with the Puritan ideal.

The Puritan covenant bound society and church under a covenant with God, using biblical Israel as the model.  In Puritan Massachusetts, the official theology taught that the society was truly a covenant community.  One needed to give a convincing testimony of being born again to join a church, and men needed to be church members to vote, but all society was to be under God’s law.  Of course, there were tensions:

• Only church members could take communion, but by the terms of the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 the children of baptized nonmembers could themselves be baptized.
• Roger Williams argued that the faith could not be compelled, and set up a colony in Rhode Island to set up a colony with religious liberty.
• Anne Hutchinson denied the responsibility of believers to keep the law and held private religious meetings, and she also left Massachusetts.
• Edwards’ grandfather Solomon Stoddard argued that communion was a sign of the covenant with New England society and therefore allowed all church attenders to take communion, regardless of whether they had made a profession of faith.

These point to the central difficulty that the Puritans faced.  They held to the ideal of Christendom, a godly society ordered by Christian principles.  But they also were Protestants who believed that faith alone began the new birth of the Christian, unlike Catholics who believed that regeneration began with baptism.  So the number of true Christians was fewer than the number of baptized Christians.  But all people were under the covenant of God with society.

Noll argues that for all of Edwards’ defense of traditional doctrine, his writing and revivals of the 1730s-1760s (the Great Awakening period) helped to destroy the Puritan idea as a comprehensive system.  Edwards saw the church as a gathering of born-again people only, and eventually argued that only Israel was a truly covenanted nation with God.  In this vein, he only allowed church members (who had given testimony of their conversion) to recieve communion and only church members to have their children baptized.

Noll writes that the Puritan ideas of a chosen nation continued in their influence after the Great Awakening, but the convenant as a systematic way of looking at life lost its considerable influence.  This opened theology in America to new influences.

The Roots of American Theology

I’ve finally gotten a chance to begin, for at least the second time, Mark Noll’s America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.  He’s set out an interesting task for himself: answering the question of how theological ideas in America became so thoroughly integrated with American cultural ideas.  Specifically, he is exploring how evangelical religious beliefs, “republican” political ideas (arguing for a representative government without a king), and commonsense moral ideas (the idea that all people, not just Christians, possessed a strong sense of and ability to discover true morality) became so connected in American culture.  Noll draws an interesting contrast in his first chapter to illustrate this mixing of religious and political ideas in American thought:

Why did [Abraham] Lincoln, though never a church member, use the Bible more frequently in [his Second Inaugural Address] and also address questions of theological significance more directly than his near-peers as heads of state in other Protestant lands who were dedicated members of Christian churches like William Gladstone in Britain or Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands? (6)

In Chapter 2, Noll argues that none of this fusion was evident in the writings of the theologians of the first half of the 1700s.  American church groups like the Congregationalists (Puritans), Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Quakers were very traditional, affirming the historic doctrines of their various traditions even more than some of their European counterparts (beginning to be influenced by rationalism) were.  Puritans and Presbyterians articulated the doctrines of Calvinism, arguing that man could do nothing to save himself and that human nature was damaged by the fall and therefore did not have a strong moral sense.  Therefore, only God could convert sinners and impart a true sense of morality to those he chose to regenerate.  Even Jonathan Edwards, conversant with the Enlightenment ideas of the day, concentrated on defending the traditional Puritan doctrines while stating them in contemporary terms.

As he notes at the end of Chapter 2, even the very disruptive Great Awakening showed “the continuing power of a religion with scant room for the intensely this-worldly preoccupations of republicanism or the optimistic universalism of moral-sense philosophy” (29).  The main figures of the Great Awakening were traditional Calvinists, and the strongest theological tradition when it was all said and done was still Puritan Calvinism, which had just received Edwards’ forceful defense.  Yet Noll hints that Puritan theology would break up soon.

If you’re confused by idea of the “commonsense” moral ideas, I still am too, but I believe that he will be explaining it further.  I hope that I’ve summarized his point accurately so far.  I’m going to blog my reaction to each chapter as I go to help me remember what he writes.

And finally, if you’ve never read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address that Noll referred to in the quote above, it’s really short and at the same time packed with profound ideas.  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Another perspective on the growth of Chinese Christianity

Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint from yesterday quotes from Pastor Hong Yujian, who argued that the Tiananmen Square crackdown helped the growth of the Church.  This was the key passage for me:

“Many people are beginning to realize that they in themselves have nothing praiseworthy,” Pastor Yujian said. “The end of human efforts is the beginning of God. . . . The only way out is coming to the throne of grace of God and surrendering to Him.”

How has God used the Tiananmen tragedy to build his Church? Before the massacre, the house churches were mainly in the countryside, Pastor Yujian noted. But after June 4, the churches “spread to urban areas and into intellectual circles.” In these arenas, in the aftermath of the massacre, students were suffering from a sense of passiveness, depravity, and loss—but then they began to listen seriously to what house church pastors had to say.

In other countries, Chinese churches and Bible classes had previously been attended mainly by immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan. But after Tiananmen Square, people began to reach out and show their care and love to students from mainland China. “As a result,” Pastor Yujian said, “there was an upsurge for God among the students from mainland China.”

Out of the ashes of Tiananmen Square, and the failure of the student movement, its leaders began a search for truth—and ultimately have “found hope and reality in Jesus Christ.”

This post discussed another Chinese Christian’s perspective, focusing on the growth of Reformed (Calvinist) Christianity in universities in China.

Combined Book Review: Evangelism, Racial Reconciliation, and Community Development in Mississippi

• John Perkins, Let Justice Roll Down (1976)
• John Perkins, With Justice for All (1982)
• Dolphus Weary, I Ain’t Comin’ Back (1990, 1997)

On June 15, I’m heading down Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee with members of 9 different Chicagoland churches.  Organized by Willow Creek Community Church, the idea of the “Justice Journey” is to get white and black Christians together to visit prominent sites from the history of the Civil Rights movement and to discuss racial reconciliation in the church.  One of the speakers along the way will be John Perkins, and his autobiography (Let Justice Roll Down) was assigned reading.  Since I had some time, I decided to read two other related books, one by Perkins and another by someone who became part of his ministry, Dolphus Weary.

Let Justice Roll Down is a really powerful story of Perkins’ ministry in Mississippi through the mid-1970s.  He had grown up in rural Mississippi and seen his brother shot and killed by a policeman.  When his family moved to California, he eventually became a Christian in his mid-20s.  As he shared the gospel in the Los Angeles area, he eventually felt called back to Mississippi to spread the gospel and knowledge of the Bible in his native state.  With the early financial support of California churches that included Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, pastored by John MacArthur’s father Jack MacArthur, he returned to Mississippi to begin his work.  He named his ministry Voice of Calvary after MacArthur’s radio broadcast.