What this Believer’s-Baptist Believer’s-Communion Pastor Has in Common with Infant-Baptizing Infant-Communion Pastor Robert Rayburn

Robert Rayburn states at his Church’s website:

“We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it. Our little children, having come to the table at five years of age or so, will not remember a time when they did not come, of a Lord’s Day, to eat the bread and drink the wine that Jesus Christ their Savior has provided for them by his body and blood. And in its own mysterious way, that Supper will, by the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, do its work in nourishing their faith in Jesus Christ.”

The irony in all of this is that I serve a “baptist” Church where we would be willing to baptize someone as young as 5. In fact, my daughter was recently baptized at the age of 5. She is a full communicant member of Christ’s Church and entitled to the Supper as a believing member of His Body. While Kira is still my daughter and I have a huge role in nurturing her faith, as do all Covenant parents towards their children, we gather as fellow believers in one household on the Lord’s Day. Yes, there are many household(S) gathered, and yes, God speaks to the Church in respect to our gender and roles, but we receive the Supper as ONE Body. This is why all believers should be served the same portion and in the same manner.

Anyhow, Kira (my daughter) receives the Supper because she herself is a believing Covenant member. She does not receive it because she is born to Covenant parents…she herself is a member who is also accountable to the elders in our Church. I, as her father, am not allowed to use my own discretion from Supper to Supper on whether she is worthy. I can’t unilaterally withhold the elements from her. I would have to bring any concerns I have before the elders. So Kira is still in the jurisdiction of the home, under my care, but she is also individually accountable to the elders as a believing member.

Anyhow, there is some irony in that our kids can potentially be communed as early as the children in Robert Rayburn’s Church. Of greater irony is the fact that children can potentially become baptized communicant members in our “baptist” Church earlier than in most all “Reformed” Churches. It is somewhat comical that I find myself telling paedo-communion folks who visit our Church that there wait in our fellowship would be shorter than in the local “Reformed” churches (go figure), with the exception of one local CREC body. We’re closer to paedo-communion at age 5 than some of the Reformed bodies that are closer to 15 for full communicant status.

I’ll shelf this entry under the category, “The Mysterious World of American Evangelicalism”. I think it fits there

Islamist Terrorism and Middle Eastern States

I just read a really different perspective on this issue that I have not seen before.  Michael Totten recently interviewed Lee Smith (not the former Cubs reliever) about his new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations.  Smith argues that terrorist groups in the Middle East are inextricably tied with Middle Eastern states, who use them to fight other states.  While they cannot ultimately control these groups, they believe that they can use them to deter or harm their enemies.

Here’s how he explains 9/11 in that context:

There’s no doubt that the region is rife with anti-Americanism and an attack on the US, even as it kills thousands of civilians, is apt to win acclaim in too many corners of the Middle East. Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers certainly understood this, but I am not sure the dynamic I am describing is as clear-cut with regard to 9/11. Instead I tend to see 9/11 like this: Middle Eastern regimes, almost all of them, but most notably Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia use various so-called non-state actors to advance their regional interests and deter each other. For instance, Syria’s relationship with Jordan’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front, and Jordan’s friendliness toward the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, means that these two states effectively deter each other—if you use Islamists against me, I will unleash Islamists on you. Al Qaeda, as a transnational outfit, seems to be a group that has been supported, manipulated and penetrated by a whole number of Middle Eastern security services, including but not exclusive of the Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq before Saddam’s downfall. This is not to say that any of these regimes have Al Qaeda or any of these terror organizations under their thumb; when you have a group of people with weapons, money and a deadly ideology it is difficult to manage them very closely. I think this is what happened on 9/11—one of these outfits had the wherewithal to carry its war elsewhere and they did, to the United States.

He doesn’t seem to know exactly what the driving force was, but it’s quite different from other explanations.  His main point is this: we have to start connecting the dots between these groups and their state supporters.  Terrorist groups use states for things like military training and forging documents, and state intelligence services keep in close contact with these groups to protect their states and use them against enemies.  He even argues that the Bush Administration had a good understanding of the situation before the Iraq War:

You see what I’m driving at? Al Qaeda, Islamist terrorism, is a function of states. Yes, it is an ideological movement with its own history and sources and political ambitions that run counter to the current nation-state system of the Arabic-speaking Middle East; but it is a movement that is sustained by Middle Eastern regimes and their intelligence services who use terror organizations to advance their own strategic interests and deter other states from using terror organizations against them.

I can’t repeat this enough because the President needs to understand this. All of us need to understand it. The Bush administration understood it but the lesson seems to have evaporated into thin air with all the confusion and miscommunication that left some Americans with the belief that the White House was claiming Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. But this is not what the administration said, and we know for a fact that Saddam did work with Al Qaeda and with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman Zawahiri’s outfit that constitutes the core of the Bin Laden group. But we’re moving away from this understanding and it spells real danger for core American interests and citizens.

Christopher Hitchens on North Korean Propoganda

Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, tries to update his view of North Korean after reading B.R. Myers’ The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters.  While Hitchens had assumed that North Korean totalitarianism was best understood as a combination of “classical Stalinism with a contorted form of the deferential, patriarchal Confucian ethos,” Myers’ book convinced him that North Korea has actually become a radically nationalist (and therefore far right) dictatorship.  Here’s part of his argument:

Consider: Even in the days of communism, there were reports from Eastern Bloc and Cuban diplomats about the paranoid character of the [North Korean] system (which had no concept of deterrence and told its own people that it had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in bad faith) and also about its intense hatred of foreigners. A black Cuban diplomat was almost lynched when he tried to show his family the sights of Pyongyang. North Korean women who return pregnant from China—the regime’s main ally and protector—are forced to submit to abortions. Wall posters and banners depicting all Japanese as barbarians are only equaled by the ways in which Americans are caricatured as hook-nosed monsters. (The illustrations in this book are an education in themselves.) The United States and its partners make up in aid for the huge shortfall in North Korea’s food production, but there is not a hint of acknowledgement of this by the authorities, who tell their captive subjects that the bags of grain stenciled with the Stars and Stripes are tribute paid by a frightened America to the Dear Leader.

George Bryson and I Continue Our Dialogue on Calvinism

Rick,

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” (John Calvin).

As you are aware, not all Reformed or Calvinist websites are “equal”. Some who claim to be Calvinists do not agree with what Calvin said when he said that some people were create for eternal damnation. What about those on this web
site?

“created for” “eternal damnation”

George Bryson

My response is as follows:

Mr. Bryson,

I would need to write a book in response to that question. Let’s just say that GOD is sovereign, that He chose to create the world as we now know it, fully aware of everything that would come to pass (including the knowledge of those who would reject Him and suffer His wrath) and yet He still chose to create as He did. I do not believe there are limitations on God’s involvement with creation. There are times where He chooses to be passive (though it is according to His will, and His agency is less involved) and times when His agency is interventionist in nature. He can frustrate the kings, raises up leaders, pulls down leaders, is able to kill (Ananias and Sapphira) whenever and whoever He pleases.

Since I believe that God was not constrained and bound to create the world as we know it, and that He freely chose to create the world as we know it, then people being damned is well within His providential counsel. I believe that He could have created a world with no hell, He could have destroyed the Serpent before creation of the world, He could have given Adam no prohibitions, He could have done a lot of things. Such speculation isn’t helpful when we think in constant hypotheticals, but it does show us that God either created freely, or in constrained fashion, or He really didn’t know what was to come to pass and is either voluntarily bound from seeing the future (open theism) or necessarily bound from seeing free acts in the future (process theology). Even non-Calvinists who assert God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, if they believe God was free to create otherwise while hypothetically looking at different outcomes, still must deal with the fact that God created with the knowledge that some would suffer damnation and chose not to create otherwise.

You can say all you want about a person’s damnation being wholly their choice, which I agree with, but the mere fact that they even exist is according to God’s will, unless you’re a deist and deny to God the freedom over even who comes into existence. Anyhow, I don’t think that a person who asserts God’s exhaustive foreknowledge can conveniently pass off eternal wrath to Calvinists. This is why an increasing number of “Arminian” theologians have adopted a middle knowledge position, open theism, process theology, and some forms bordering on deism. You can’t avoid the very things you disagree with in Calvinism if you yourself believe that God foreknew the rejection of many people who would suffer wrath…that he could have created otherwise a world in which there was no potential for sin (which will be realized in New Heavens and Earth); but still chose to create as He did; with suffering, evil, and wrath included. It is what it is and I tremble before this Sovereign God, shut my lips against any accusation, “Why did you make me this way? Why did you crate the world as you did? etc etc etc”. Paul warns us from giving counsel to God or questioning His providential wisdom in all things.

Whether you believe that God is more or less active in the reprobation of sinners is somewhat besides the point if you still believe that God freely chose what we now know, fully aware of everything that would come to pass. If you reserve the right to God to have changed the outcome as we know it, then you are “Calvinistic”. We can bicker over supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, or whether God actively condemns the sinner, or merely passes over the sinner and is more active in the redemption of the elect, but I think such discussions are somewhat vain if the intent is to somehow exclude reprobation from God’s eternal purposes. If the concern is more directed towards understanding God’s disposition and heart in the matter, then that would be a discussion perhaps worth having. Let me know what your intent was in asking my understanding of Calvin’s quote. Thanks.

Brother in Christ,

Rick Hogaboam, Pastor, Sovereign Grace Fellowship of Nampa (ID)

P.S.

For blog readers, George Bryson is the director for the Calvary Chapel Church Planting Mission Ministry and I am grateful for his service to the Kingdom and pray for God’s blessing upon their ministry.

One Reason Why I Am Confident that Believers’ Baptism is the Apostolic Paradigm

I have written much on this topic and only wish to offer here a little tidbit on why I am a convinced “credo-Baptist”, meaning that I believe the Bible to teach that one must actually repent to receive the sacrament of baptism.

In my continued thesis research on Pentecost, it is becoming increasingly clear that Peter believes that the one who repents and is baptized will receive the “gift of the Spirit”. The gift of the Spirit according to Peter and in Luke’s broader narrative is that “which is seen and heard” (Acts 2:33). It correlates directly to the Joeline promise of an “empowering” work of the Spirit, which is part of the broader “soteric” work of the Spirit, but however distinct. One exception of the Spirit not coming in such a fashion is to the Samaritan believers as recorded in Acts 8. Luke records the events in a manner that attests to the events as not being normative, for Peter and John note that the baptized community had not yet received the Spirit. They heeded Phillip’s preaching, received it joyfully, experienced deliverance from demons, repented, and were baptized. Notice that only “men and women” were baptized (Acts 8:12).

Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritan community that they would receive the gift of the Spirit, and though Luke doesn’t record with specificity what manifestations of the Spirit occurred, it does mention that Simon observed something and wanted to buy the power to do the same thing. There was no doubt many Samaritans who were baptized, and they were all prayed for, that they might receive the same “gift of the Spirit” that Peter said would come to all who repented and were baptized. The sub-sequence in Samaria is not paradigmatic for Christian initiation, as some make it out to be, but is a telling proof attesting to an established apostolic expectation of the Spirit coming in an empowering fashion upon the full covenant community…or else Peter and John would not have prayed for such.

Okay, so what does this all have to do with baptism, etc? Well, if the New Covenant community that initially experienced the Pentecostal empowering were made of of actual disciples (not infant children, one would certainly think that if infant children were speaking in tongues and prophesying on Pentecost, that it would have added to the intrigue from the crowd), and that Peter demanded repentance and baptism as the normative requisite for receiving the gift of the Spirit (which is an empowering work), then Peter would not baptize an infant because it would mitigate against the theology of repentance, baptism, and the Spirit that was established. I am aware that Acts contains evidences of the Spirit coming before baptism, which again, is seen as exceptional in Peter’s eyes (Acts 10:44). Luke records that all who heard were recipients of the Spirit and gave evidence of such through inspired speech. Peter contends later that all who had received the Spirit should also be baptized. There is no mention that infants were recipients of the Spirit in such a way so as to speak in tongues and prophesy, and would therefore not be included in the groupd of folks for which Peter contends should be baptized.

Joel, Pentecost, Peter, Ladd, and the Millennium

From Ladd’s “New Testament Theology”

Ladd (1974:344) speaks of the “last days” paradigm that Peter employs from Joel:

The promise given to Israel to be fulfilled at the Day of the Lord, said Peter, has now been fulfilled, not to the nation, but to a group of men who believed in the messiahship of Jesus. Furthermore, Peter adds an expression that gives the event pointed eschatological significance. He substitutes for Joel’s “after this” the words, “and in the last days” (Acts 2:17). In the prophets, “the last days” was an expression designating the time of the Kingdom of God, the messianic era.

Ladd (1974:344) adds:

Peter reinterprets Joel by asserting that the outpouring of the Spirit also belongs to the last days. By so doing he also reinterprets the meaning the meaning of the last days themselves; he separates the last days from the Day of the Lord and places them in history. The last days have come. The last days are the days of the Spirit who has now been given. In some real sense of the word, the messianic era has come, the eschatological salvation is present.

As for the placement of the millennium, Ladd (premillennial) cautions against an unhealthy preoccupation on the matter, “American evangelicalism has placed an unwarranted emphasis on this doctrine of a millennium” (1974:204).

Though Ladd holds to a premillennial position, he is not of the dispensational mold and has rightly recognized that Jesus inaugurated the messianic age in His ministry and in the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Church. Ladd does believe that Jesus will occupy an earthly reign as part of the consummating process, but he does not confine Joel’s fulfillment solely to that earthly reign. I am appreciative that Ladd emphasizes some fulfillment, though he fails to fully qualify what exactly it is. I don’t think I could qualify perfectly what the inauguration is in detail either, so we stand on common ground. We’re clearly agreed that it would be wrong to say that nothing has been inaugurated.

Is it possible that the Joel 2 speaks of Armageddon, and the promised restoration occurs contingently on Pentecost, where blessing now comes to Israel, which awaits yet another day of battle (Gog), whereas the enemies are permanently cut off from the land? We would therefore be in the time of restoration for Israel right now, awaiting the final climatic event. In my preaching series through Joel, I saw this a plausible eschatological scheme. Pentecost inaugurates the restorative age for the “new Israel” (Joel 2:18-27), which will culminate in Christ’s second advent and permanent judgment over the nations (Joel 3), which then ushers in a fully restored age.

Craig Keener on Pentecost’s Eschatolgoical Significance

All excerpts are from Dr. Craig Keener’s volume, “The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts”.

Keener (1997:193) sees eschatological significance in the three Pentecostal signs of wind, fire, and tongues:

The external signs more clearly function as divinely bestowed symbols of the impending kingdom of God. Wind (Acts 2:2) would have convinced the gathered believers that the coming age had arrived, for it symbolizes the breath of resurrection life in Ezek 37…

Keener (1997:193) adds:

Fire, of course, could symbolize the imminent time of eschatological judgment (Acts 2:3)….The fire, therefore, serves as a small reminder of the fire to be unleashed in God’s vengeance at the end of the age.

Keener (1997:193-194) remarks lastly about the significance of tongues:

The clearest sign in Acts 2:1-12 that the power of the eschatological kingdom is erupting into history is the phenomenon of glossolalia in 2:4….the Spirit of prophecy was an eschatological phenomenon, and…Luke recognizes speaking in unknown tongues as a form of  prophetic (i.e., inspired) speech, and uses this phenomenon to mark the fact that in the new era all God’s people would be prophets in some sense (Joel 2:28-29).

Keener (1997:195), though not elaborating on the nature of God’s eschatological reign, does affirm that Peter clearly taught that it had commenced in Pentecost, “Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14-40 clearly connects baptism in the Holy Spirit with prophetic witness and the present experience of God’s future reign.” He later adds, “…this anointing is evidence that the time of Israel’s salvation has come…”

Justin, Trypho, and Spiritual Gifts

Here are some quotes from Ronald Kydd’s volume, “Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church”:

Kydd (1997:27) notes that Justin Martyr (100-168? A.D.), in his dialogues with Trypho, actually taught that Spiritual gifts existed, not due to some “apostolic” pre-canon ad hoc intent, but as part of the ongoing ministry of Christ to His people:

…Justin hurried on to point out that even in the present, some 50 or 60 years after John’s death, there were Christians who prophesied. He also told Trypho very plainly that these gifts had been transferred to the Christians from the Jews.

Kydd (1997:27) notes that Justin understood the transfer from Jew to Christian of the Spiritual gifts to take place through Christ as part of God’s plan, and not because of some lack of divinity in Christ:

What Trypho wanted to know was if Christ needed these gifts of the Spirit, how could he be regarded as preexistent. An absence of these abilities or characteristics would imply that Jesus was something less than fully divine. The answer Justin gives is noteworthy. Christ did not receive these gifts because He needed them but rather because His having them was part of God’s intention to remove all gifts from the Jews, and He carried this out by giving them all to Christ.

Kydd (1997:27-28) continues, “Then, in fulfillment of prophecy (Justin cites Ps 68:16 and Joel 2:18f.), Christ began to dispense these among Christians.”

Kydd (1997:28) thinks that the rationale provided in Justin’s thought on Spiritual gifts presumes that they continued in the Church and would continue in the Church as related to her endowment with the gifts in the first place:

The obvious goals of this material are to show why Christ received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and to explain what he then did with them. This is the first attempt in early Christian literature to account for the presence of the spiritual gifts in the Church. In the process of developing his thinking on this question, Justin, almost incidentally, provides evidence supporting the idea that spiritual gifts were still to be found among Christians of his day….He thought they were still part of Christian experience.

This is an excerpt of the referenced material from Justin’s dialogue with Trypho:

Now, that [you may know that] your prophets, each receiving some one or two powers from God, did and spoke the things which we have learned from the Scriptures, attend to the following remarks of mine. Solomon possessed the spirit of wisdom, Daniel that of understanding and counsel, Moses that of might and piety, Elijah that of fear, and Isaiah that of knowledge; and so with the others: each possessed one power, or one joined alternately with another; also Jeremiah, and the twelve [prophets], and David, and, in short, the rest who existed amongst you. Accordingly He³⁴⁶ rested, i.e., ceased, when He came, after whom, in the times of this dispensation wrought out by Him amongst men,³⁴⁷ it was requisite that such gifts should cease from you; and having received their rest in Him, should again, as had been predicted, become gifts which, from the grace of His Spirit’s power, He imparts to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof. I have already said, and do again say, that it had been prophesied that this would be done by Him after His ascension to heaven. It is accordingly said,³⁴⁸ ‘He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts unto the sons of men.’ And again, in another prophecy it is said: ‘And it shall come to pass after this, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh, and on My servants, and on My handmaids, and they shall prophesy.’^[1]

---

^[1] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (243). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

The Greatest “Mercy” Ministry is and will forever be the Proclamation of the Gospel

Scott Kistler posted some thoughts from a Toby Sumpter article on mercy ministry, doctrine of hell, and the need for good “damns”. Christianity Today had an editorial back in January of 2009 that still sticks out in my mind as a great article reminding the Christian community that the greatest human need is, and always will be, the Gospel. Here is an extended excerpt from that article:

The greatest social need in the world today is not HIV/AIDS outreach. It’s not hunger. It’s not global warming. Not ending poverty or eliminating malaria or tuberculosis. Not clean water. Not racial reconciliation. Not sexual trafficking. Not abortion. And it’s not peace in the Middle East, and not even world peace.

These are not unimportant social issues. They grab the heart of God. God’s compassion has always been focused on the poor and oppressed—something noted all through the Bible. So it’s no surprise that God instructs his people to “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause” (Isa. 1:17, ESV).

And they have grabbed the hearts of evangelicals in a fresh way. One telling example: A decade ago, it was still rare to find an evangelical church with an HIV/AIDS ministry. Today, one can hardly find an evangelical church that doesn’t have or support one.

HIV/AIDS ministry is one book in a library of social action we have written recently. And it’s been noticed. Just last February, we felt our chest swell with pride when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said:

Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria, and genocide in Darfur. … Today, many evangelicals are powerful internationalists and humanitarians.

Other examples abound in politics, foreign policy, and international justice. It’s been quite a ride on the racehorse of social action.

Despite the advances, none of this constitutes our movement’s greatest contribution to the world. None of these good works—nay, great works—deal with the most profound social problem facing humankind.

That social problem is alienation from God.

It is in fact the first social problem. After Adam and Eve eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, the Lord God—with whom they have had warm fellowship—seeks them out. But they hide in fear and shame. From this, the biblical story unfolds to reveal murder, lust, greed, loneliness, pride, oppression, and a host of other evils that plague humankind.

The biblical picture is clear: The breakdown of society is rooted in the breakdown of our relationship with our Creator. And the biblical response is equally clear: The way out of social chaos begins with people being restored to God. This won’t solve all social problems immediately. But transformed individuals go hand in hand with transforming social networks.

Of course, this alienation is much more than a social problem. It is a fundamentally spiritual problem that constitutes humanity’s greatest crisis: billions of men and women who do not know the love and grace of their Creator. Some live in societies characterized by fear of the spiritual world. Others live in religious cultures where people are taught they must earn their way through heaven’s gates.

Many people live in ignorance of life’s richest possibilities—that they can know a loving God, and that his power can move within them. He calms fears, forgives guilt, and instills an unearthly joy. He establishes the lonely in the family of faith and gives life to the dying—life of startling and enduring dimensions, not just for individuals but also in the community we call the kingdom.

We are right to give so much of our energy to relieving social ills, but we must never forget that the greatest social ill has spiritual roots. John Green is the founder of Emmaus Ministries in Chicago, an outreach to male prostitutes. His ministry offers food, shelter, counseling, and an array of social services to help men move out of that degrading lifestyle. Some would think that is more than enough. But Green disagrees, saying, “We do violence to the poor if we don’t share the gospel with them.”

That last quote from Green sticks out in my mind as powerful. This coming from a man in the trenches, “We do violence to the poor if we don’t share the gospel with them.” May I be faithful to minister with two outstretched hands: one holding forth bread, the other holding forth the bread of life…one holding forth water, the other holding for living water.

Toby Sumpter on God’s Interruptions

Toby Sumpter, writing in Credenda Agenda, follows the logic of God’s intervention into human life from the Incarnation to the world to come (following his postmillennial eschatology).  He writes that God interrupts the way that people do things, calling them to a new way of life.  It’s really just worth it to read the whole article, which isn’t too long but covers a lot of ground.  Here is a taste:

Generally, this Commission goes under the twin titles mercy ministry and evangelism: the gospel declared to the poor. These are the two sides of the one blade of the Word. And John Piper has helpfully said that the way we keep these two sides together, the way we ensure that this sword remains unified is through a robust doctrine of Hell. He says in a round table discussion with D.A. Carson and Tim Keller, “We exist to relieve all suffering, especially eternal suffering.” He goes on to describe how a ministry of so-called “mercy” that neglects the reality of the possibility of Hell after this life is an enormous failure. In other words, like Jesus, the urgency of our intervention is authorized by the reality of final judgment and eternal torment. I hereby resolve to increase my use of the words “damn” and “hell.” Jesus interrupts every conversation, every story with a good damn.

A good damn consists of condemning the brokenness, condemning the sin, and pointing to the reality of final judgment. It intervenes to pull, drag, and beg the slaves of sin and brokenness out of the fire that is already kindled in their lives. It offers grace and freedom to every form of poverty. Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett define poverty as a complex breakdown in relationships. “Poverty is the result of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable. Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meanings.” (When Helping Hurts, 62)

Sumpter also wrote an article about the early church creeds and the gospel last month.

Tim Tebow Ad Drawing Protests from “Pro-Choice” Groups

Here is just link highlighting the numerous groups protesting the Focus on the Family ad featuring Tim Tebow. One quote shocked me:

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.

Gagggg. Are you serious? I guess Americans should unite over Beer, collectively lust over the Go Daddy models touting Webhosting,and on and on. But a mom who shares a moving story about giving birth and raising a son in a loving home is anathema? Wow. Forgive me for also being grateful that my mom chose to give birth to me under difficult circumstances. I guess sharing that message inspires “hate” and divides. Whatever.

This shows just how “pro-choice” they are, guess they fear losing some precious money because people might actually be inspired to keep their babies, which is a choice I thought they also support as part of “choice” in their rhetoric. I thought they embraced robust debate and were just as supportive of women who chose to give birth. Apparently not. They are no fans of Mrs. Tebow for giving birth. So, when I say that you are “pro-death”, please don’t correct me. Your hatred and censoring of moms who are actually happy they gave birth reveals your true colors.

That you would protest such under some patriotic pretense of wanting a united America during the Superbowl is simply foolish, and worse yet, exposes your wickedness and darkness…that you would rather Mrs. Tebow have visited an abortion clinic and have Tim slaughtered. If that is not true, then shut up and cease from protesting this ad and instead speak out against the using of women as a mere sex object for the sake of selling beer, webhosting, cars, and everything else under the sun.

If you think that my saying “shut up” inspires hate, then I would counter that your opposition to a mom who wants to give thanks for her son inspires a greater hate for life and the existence of a man named Tim Tebow. Stop using your opposition to a misleading definition of  “hate speech” as a cloak for the darker hatred of your own bias…that you don’t support mothers’ who give birth, but would rather silence them through protest.

Jesus, the Only Hope for Terrorists and International Strife

This is one point of a sermon I intend to preach on 1/31/10. Here is a link to a wonderful testimony from a Palestinian terrorist turned Christian: link.

How to Work Against Roe V. Wade

Justin Taylor posts the text of an interview with Clark Forsythe of Americans United for Life.  Forsythe’s recent book, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, looks quite interesting, and he and Taylor discuss some of the content of the book in the interview.

Forsythe describes the difficulties of undoing Roe by asking the Supreme Court to apply the 14th Amendment to the unborn:

It is not simply “improbable” but almost certainly impossible in our lifetime. That’s because every single justice since Roe has rejected it (the proposition that the unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment), including the most anti-Roe justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. And Scalia and Thomas have rejected it for at least two or three reasons. First, the words “abortion” and “unborn child” are not in the Constitution; they weren’t specifically considered by the framers of the 14th Amendment. Second, Justice Scalia and Thomas believe that the abortion issue was and is an issue for the states to decide, as a constitutional matter. The third is perhaps the most powerful and the one most often ignored by pro-lifers: Scalia and Thomas want the Court out of the “abortion-umpiring business,” which they think has undermined the integrity of the Court as a constitutional and political institution. The declaration that the unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not extract the Court but thrust it more deeply into the “abortion-umpiring business.” So, for both constitutional and institutional reasons, Scalia and Thomas have at least implicitly rejected 14th Amendment “personhood,” and it’s almost certain that any justice nominated by even a pro-life president and confirmed by the Senate in the next 20 years will be heavily influenced by the reasoning of Scalia and Thomas.

On the other hand, Roe could be overturned on less sweeping grounds (which Forsythe considers a more realistic option) and the issue could be left up to individual states, as it was before 1973.  It would then be up to “a majority of states enact and enforce prohibitions on abortion, thereby exhibiting a national political culture that opposes all abortion,” which might eventually create the political climate in which legal abortion would eventually be considered a violation of the 14th Amendment.

What can we do now?

Thoughts on Theonomy, Just Laws, and Living in Two Kingdoms and More from Amos 2:1-3

Amos 2:1-3

¹ Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. ² So I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet; ³ I will cut off the ruler from its midst, and will kill all its princes with him,” says the Lord.

Interestingly, this oracle of judgment doesn’t concern Israel. Moab’s sin against Edom, which God had already pronounced judgment against earlier, is quite telling. While Israel is usually central to the reason why God judges the surrounding nations, here is one example where God’s judgment comes because of how one pagan nation treats another pagan nation. This highlight the sovereignty of God. Essentially Moab was desecrating graves and using the decomposing corpses to possibly make a whitewashing formula. One commentator quotes:

2:1 Moab’s representative crime neither harmed Israel nor concerned them in any way. Desecration of an Edomite king’s remains was Moab’s sin. Border fortifications between Moab and Edom suggest the probability that the two nations engaged in armed conflict from time to time. Warfare may have been the setting for the Moabite atrocity against the king of Edom.53 Either Edom’s king was burned to death, or his corpse was burned, or his skeletal remains were exhumed and burned to lime. The last suggestion best fits the wording, since the specific reference is to “the bones of Edom’s king.”
Burning the bones to lime suggests total destruction.54 The Targum interpreted the term rendered “as if to lime” to mean that the Moabites used the ashes of the king’s bones in a substance to whitewash houses. The treatment of a human being as mere material was reason enough for Amos’s indictment. Moab’s atrocious act disturbed the Edomite king’s resting place and in Moabite and Edomite thought prevented peace in the afterlife and perhaps even immortality.55 As J. Niehaus explains: “Crimes against humanity bring God’s punishment. This observation is a powerful motivation for God’s people to oppose the mistreatment and neglect of their fellow human beings.”56
Smith, B. K., & Page, F. S. (2001). Vol. 19B: Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (57–58). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

By what standard is God judging one pagan nation’s treatment of another? By His own standard. His law applies to pagan nations, even if they were not the particular recipients’ of such. This is one proof text for Theonomists, those who believe that all nations will be judged by God’s law and must conform to the standards of God’s Law. There are nuanced versions of it, and we are all theonomists in one sense and not in another. Sorting through these distinctions is no easy task.

Cause for Encouragement: Increasing Number of Abortion Providers Are Abandoning the Practice and Becoming Pro-Life

Al Mohler notes a recent article in the Weekly Standard noting the impact of Ultra Sound technology in persuading abortion providers that abortion is the murdering of a human being. I’m grateful for the many who have heard the silent cries of the most vulnerable among us and have abandoned the shedding of blood for the sake of profit. If you read the Weekly Standard article and still defend “choice”, then you have no heart. Doctors speak of ripping flesh apart and find a beating heart, ripping flesh apart and the mother feeling a violent kick from the baby. If you respond that this doesn’t occur in 1st trimester abortions and that you support more “civilized” 1st trimester abortions, then you are a coward. A human is a human no matter how big or small, how developed or deformed.

You can read Mohler’s article here.

The article in the Weekly Standard is authored by David Daleiden and Jon A. Shields; and is found here.

Addressing Biblical Illiteracy

David Nienhuis, a professor at Seattle Pacific University (a Christian college) describes his students’ ignorance of the Bible and traces it to a long trend in American evangelicalism that has valued morality and emotion more than knowledge of the Bible and of doctrine.  This, he believes, has led the church to a quite shallow place of consumer-driven religious experiences and widespread “moral therapeutic deism,” quoting Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton’s phrase.  In his conclusion, he describes the weaknesses of a current focus on quoting Scripture and offers a solution:

[The goal of producing “informed quoters”] is part of what I find troubling about what appears to be the dominant model of biblical literacy employed among evangelicals in their attempts to raise children of faith. This approach emphasizes the memorization of discrete Bible verses and “facts,” mostly in the service of evangelism and apologetics. By mastery of passages that are deemed doctrinally relevant and emotionally empowering, it is hoped that believing youth will be equipped to own their faith, share it with seekers, and defend it against detractors. Most of the students in my classes who consider themselves “familiar with the Bible” have been trained to approach Scripture in this fashion….

John Piper on Abortion, “Haiti happens every day in the world’s abortion clinics”

This is from John Piper’s sermon, “Born Blind for the Glory of God (link).

Haiti happens every day in the world’s abortion clinics, where 130,000 human lives are destroyed. In the United States 3,000 die daily, crushed in the earthquake of abortion (more than the 2,976 who died in the 9/11 attacks).

With the advent of widespread prenatal testing availability, a kind of “eugenics by abortion” is growing, as parents kill their disabled offspring at a horrific rate. As Wesley Smith writes, “Americans may heartily cheer participants in the Special Olympics, but we abort some 90 percent of all gestating infants diagnosed with genetic disabilities such as Down Syndrome, dwarfism, and spina bifida.”

The Christian Bible has a message to speak: There is both forgiveness for those guilty of abortion and a whole new way of thinking about disability. God is the one who knits together humanity in the womb, and God has his good and perfect designs in every disability.

Jesus shows us that the man born blind in John 9 was disabled for the glory of God, for his own good, and for the good of countless others. Not only did Jesus physically heal him, but then he pursued him, to perform the ultimate healing: opening his spiritual eyes to see the glory of the Son of God.

In every disability and death, Jesus is at work, for his Father’s glory and for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).

I was thinking along the same lines as Piper in regards to Haiti. I am grateful for the media coverage and outpouring of aid for Haiti. I gathered this past Saturday at the Capitol Building in Boise, Idaho for a “walk for life” and there was no such fanfare or attention. Their blood cries out and very few wish to listen.

Spurgeon on Depression

I am reading a book called Bright Days, Dark Nights on depression which deals with depression from the point of view of the life and writings of Charles Spurgeon. I have only started reading it and have already been impressed with the insights of the author, Elizabeth Skoglund.

Spurgeon struggled mightily with depression. He said:

I am the subject of depressions of spirit so fearful that I hope none of you ever get to such extremes of wretchedness as I go to, but I always get back again by this–I know I trust Christ. I have no reliance but in him, and if he falls I shall fall with him, but if he does not, I shall not. Because he lives, I shall live also, and I spring to my legs again and fight with my depressions of spirit and my downcastings, and get the victory through it; and so may you do, and so you must, for there is no other way of escaping from it. In your most depressed seasons you are to get joy and peace through believing…Do stick to this, dear friends, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.’

I find the simple fact that Christians can admit to depression to be encouraging. As I mentioned in my post on joy, the ‘right up, right downright happy all the time’ type of Christianity sickens me. The veneer that everything is alright when things are really a grind and a bore is not helping anyone. I thank God for honest Christians and for the Psalms.

Spurgeon Quote on His Preferred Creed

“I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist,” he once said. “I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist, but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, ‘It is Jesus Christ.’ ”

Interestingly, Spurgeon preferred to be considered a “mere Christian”.

I share Spurgeon’s sentiments as I seek to rally around Christ and think my faith “merely Christian” or “Catholic” (Universal) in nature. I am not ashamed to note the distinctives I hold too, but they are merely that, distinctives.

Virtual March for Life, Be there!

If you can’t be in DC this weekend, then go to virtualmarchforlife.com and create your avatar that will represent you in the walk beginning Friday, January 22nd.

Join the cause.  Fight a good fight.  Stand for justice!

Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad?

There is speculation that Tim Tebow will be starring in an ad sponsored by Focus on the Family during the Super Bowl (link).

FYI, doctors recommended that Tim Tebow be aborted, but his mother had him anyways, pretty inspiring!!!

Response to George Bryson

Greetings in the Lord George,
I’m honored that a man with so many responsibilities took the time to read and respond to my blog. Let me say that I have read with joy the many articles in Calvary Chapel’s Missions magazine about your work abroad. Like I said in the article, I love Calvary Chapel. In fact I was saved listening to Greg Laurie on the radio. I do have your book “Weighed and found wanting”, and I have read it and remain a convinced Calvinist. I have not had the privilege to read your more current book as of yet. As to what I agree with, I agree with what I find in the scriptures as i’m sure you strive for as well. While I find what Piper, or Sproul might say useful, my theology is not resting on their opinions. When I exegetically go through a passage such as John 6, Rom 9, etc, I am driven to certain conclusions about the Nature of God and of salvation. The thrust of my post however isn’t to contrast our respective positions but to contrast what I have been hearing on the radio form “Pastors Perspective” and from your lectures at various conference (I was a Calvary pastor and have just about every conference up to 2005). I know that some people that become reformed can be a pain in the rear at first. They can cause all sorts of trouble as they evangelize the saved. But that is not only Calvinists. I have met people in bible collage (Calvary Chapel) that came from other back grounds that came to Calvary’s perspective and caused trouble in their former circles as well. Like wanting to see their cessesionist friends speak in tongues and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We are all striving to get it right on this side of heaven. What my heart yearns for is a mutual respect and camaraderie around the banner of Christ. I think that both you and Spurgeon are “soul winners”, and I praise God for my Calvinist and non Calvinist brothers.

Matthew

George Bryson Responds to Calvinism and Endued Blogger Matthew Masiewicz

You never know what will occur in the blogosphere. It is definitely encouraging when someone reads the blog and takes the time to offer some comments. Author George Bryosn responded to Matt’s blog, “4 Reasons Why I Dislike Hyper-Calvinism More than Arminianism“. Mr. Bryson has authored a couple books, that he mentions in his comments, on Calvinism from an Arminian perspective. I personally recall reading his “5 Points of Calvinism” booklet in my Calvary Chapel days and soon realized that  Calvary Chapel wasn’t as neutral as they claimed to be when my Calvinism would not suit my desires to pursue ministry in Calvary Chapel while I was attending Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa School of Ministry and interned at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. I still wonder why they had us read Spurgeon, Bunyan, Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur, brought in Allistair Begg for a conference, if we students weren’t allowed to have any of their “Calvinistic” doctrine . Enough autobiography, here are Mr. Bryson’s kind feedback:

Dear Matthew

I appreciate the respectful tone in which you point out the differences between hyper-Calvinism and what some have referred to as hypo-Calvinism. This approach has shown to be more effective in generating light and less likely to produce heat. If you read either one of my books-The Five Points of Calvinism-Weighed and Found Wanting and The Dark Side of Calvinism you should have noticed that I do not confuse the two but clearly differentiate between them. Some mainstream Calvinists have chosen to use the views of the more extreme Calvinists to duck questions about what Calvin taught and historic and mainstream Calvinism teaches explicitly or implicitly. There is a reason Doug Wilson says that my representation of Calvinism is both fair and accurate. It is fair and accurate. The main reason that so many Calvinists take offense at my books (once they have read them) is that I have this nasty habit of quoting mainstream Calvinists and Calvin himself at length-to insure context. When I ask a Calvinist to point what it is I say that Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, White, Packer, Boice (etc) say that they do not agree with or that they do not agree that they said it, I am usually met with a blank stare. If you do not agree with what I say Calvinism teaches you do not agree with Calvinism. Both books are on line and free. Have a great day. In Christ, George

I’m sure Matt will have some sort of response. Stay tuned.

David Neff on the Restfulness of Liturgy

David Neff responds to an essay from The Anglican Planet by Julie Lane-Gay called “The Liturgy That Gives Rest.”  Lane-Gay writes that: “Instead of feeling that I had to conjure up enthusiasm, I felt like someone had handed me an antique pillow to cradle my weary mind and soul. I didn’t have to think what to say.”

Neff’s response is interesting and discusses liturgy in a way that I’m not used to thinking about it.  I grew up in, and still attend, a church that is fairly liturgical by modern American evangelical standards (at least in our two traditional services), but we don’t talk about the order of service in the way that Neff does:

My own experience was different. I wouldn’t have compared the liturgy to a pillow. But I felt the same relief that I didn’t have “to conjure up enthusiasm.” Conjuring up enthusiasm—and godly grief and glorious rapture and even stillness—all of that was part of what I had been exhorted to do in the religion of my youth, a religion that owed much to American revivalism.

That side of revivalism placed the accent in worship on my feelings. Revivalism fed off of a cycle of duress and release, and it required that I feel the right emotions as we approached the transactional moments of worship. When it came time to (re)dedicate myself to Jesus, the moment was validated or invalidated by my feelings.

The liturgy taught me that there was instead one great transaction. It happened on Calvary. In the liturgy, we celebrate and memorialize that transaction together—together as a local congregation and together with Christians around the globe, together with Christians throughout history and together with those who have gone on to glory. Fortunately, that celebration continues in spite of whatever feelings I may have because the great transaction was completed before I ever experienced my first emotion.

He concludes:

The liturgy must be seen as part of God’s mercy. It is not the words that do “the work for me.” God acts toward me in the liturgy. That is why in Morning Prayer we often say a paraphrase of Psalm 51:15: “O Lord, open thou our lips, and our mouth shall show forth thy praise.” Without God’s help, we can’t even start praising.

When worship loses its bigness, the sense of God’s mercy also contracts. But when we join our voices with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, we also know instinctively that the quality of God’s mercy is not strained.

Neff links to the original essay by Lane-Gay.  It’s short and worth reading too.  Here is her description of her experience in an Anglican church in New England:

Our rector, Sam Abbott, in his early fifties, receding dark hair, thick eyebrows and heavy glasses, as rooted in New England as the Pilgrims, read the liturgy with clarity, gravity and grace. Sunday after Sunday he bestowed something precious. He spoke the truth in love with a seriousness that could not be ignored. His delivery was like the reading of a miraculous will, as we heard of the riches of Christ, as we were told of God’s passion for us.

As I’ve studied church history and become more aware of liturgical traditions, I’ve become more interested in the meaning of liturgy.  It’s still something like visiting a foreign country for me, though.  These articles helped me to understand the language a bit better.

Sick world of ‘abortion’ rights, VA women free to kill their own baby after birth…

I am utterly appalled and disgusted that any law could protect a woman, under ‘abortion rights’ or ‘reproductive rights’ or whatever you want to call it, that kills her own baby after it’s birthed, alive and well, JUST because it is still ‘technically’ stuck to the woman via umbilical cord and placenta still in tact in the woman.  BUT, if anyone else ‘other than’ the mother were to hurt the baby against the mother’s wishes, then it would be a crime.  So, the woman has the sole permission to murder or not, lawfully protected by government.

Where was main stream media when this happened?   Where was- or IS the outrage?    This is just sickly ridiculous!   How can this happen?  How can law allow this, in plain sight?  This makes me so mad yet so sad.  The day is drawing near folks…

Another Pentecostal Calvinist?

I have long thought, from my own experience in a Pentecostal setting while growing up, that Pentecostals must embrace the Sovereignty of God in order for their theology and experience to make sense. While Pentecostals tend to be “Arminian” in their understanding of God’s sovereignty, I have long thought they were functionally “Calvinistic”. Pentecostal scholar David Lim (1993:245-246) confirms the Pentecostal’s high view of God’s sovereignty:

Biblical prophecy implies a sovereign God who is above all and knows all. He is greater than His creation. He commands and it shall be accomplished (e.g., Isaiah 45:18-25). Prediction and its fulfillment reveal His omniscience and omnipotence. He shapes the course of the universe, the destiny of nations, and the direction of individual lives. Yet, because He does speak to human beings through prophecy about their sin and need for repentance, about His hope in the midst of despair, or restoration, encouragement, and blessing, we see God as very near and very involved in our lives. He is both transcendent and immanent. Some say that God speaks to us only from the written Word. Although prophecy must be subject to the teaching and authority of Scripture, God has never stopped speaking to His people. He can break into the midst of any situation with His special word at anytime.

Keith Olbermann and Dan Savage’s Response to Brit Hume, My Appeal to Olbermann and Savage to Embrace the Gospel

Dan Savage is openly gay and a pronounced atheist. Having said that, I do appreciate his qualified criticism of Hume. I don’t agree with everything he said, but I did find insightful his suggestion that Hume’s comments were an offense to Christianity. Savage mentioned Hume’s omission of Jesus as being the Son of God along with other major tenets, and sees Hume as simply offering the Jesus who takes care of adultery, etc. Savage asked where the “moderate, progressive” Christians were who would denounce Hume’s comments. Interestingly, it is the conservative Christian crowd on the blogosphere that was uncomfortable with Hume’s comments coming off as a Joel Osteen version of the Jesus who offers, “Your best life now”. I already posted on my thoughts of criticism for the lack of objective emphasis in Gospel proclamations that often accompany “evangelizing” today (link). I would actually proclaim a loud “Amen”  to Savage’s criticisms if Hume understood the Gospel strictly in a pragmatic paradigm. The fact is, as Olbermann and Savage pointed out, that “Christians” are plagued by marital unfaithfulness, etc. What Jesus did on the cross offers forgiveness, not as a cop out, but as great news.

The Gospel saves imperfect Christians as much as it saves sinners. Christians are perpetually in need of grace, which is why Paul denounced the Galatian heresy of starting in grace, but then proceeding in works for our salvation. The cross also purchases our sanctification, which means that the Christian WILL fight against all sin in their lives, but will never attain perfection in this life. The Christian does receive the Holy Spirit and is called upon to put to death the deeds of the flesh, adultery included, but some will stumble. Though God is grieved, His name brought under ill repute, because of the sins of His people, the good news remains good because it is never predicated upon our performance. The genuine Christian will not view this grace as a motivator or as a covering for sin, but rather as a motivator towards a life that glorifies God in all things. The genuine Christian will plead for grace so that they might NOT sin, so that they might not defame the name of Christ with outrageous sin.

While I appreciate some of the criticisms of Olbermann and Savage, they are trying to define the whole by a few rotten examples. At the same time, Christians invite this sort of criticism when they loudly declare that the major tenet of the Christian faith is, “Your Best Life Now”. When the Christian faith is emphasized for its subjective derivatives, then it will stand or fall based on how rich, how happy, how successful its adherents are. If Christians can reclaim the objective emphasis of the Gospel as being our counted righteous in Christ because of our “Worst life now”, in spite of who we are, then we would do well. Of course, we ought not ever be cavalier about sin, nor excuse our sinful behavior. We, of all people, must have a hatred for sin.

We walk in the footsteps of Abraham, the man of faith, and yet the coward.

We walk in the footsteps of David, who had a heart for God, and yet committed adultery.

We would do well to rejoice with David, who proclaimed the blessedness of not having God count our sin against us (Ps. 32:2) AND we would do well to mourn and grieve with David the sinner who was physically crushed and chastised for His sin (Ps. 51).

Luther taught that we are “Iustus et peccator simul” (Simultaneously a Saint and Sinner). The true Christian, the regenerate man, is at once a saint and a sinner. Therefore, our rejoicing is also mingled with remorse. We rejoice that we are forgiven sinners, but we mourn because we are still sinners. I would dare “proselytize”  this good news to Keith Olbermann and Dan Savage because they both know that they are sinners. While they are amused at the sins of professing Christians and are offended that an imperfect Brit Hume would dare suggest that Tiger Woods turn to Christ, and would even criticize their perception that Hume is offering a Jesus who will give Tiger a pass, these are no excuses for their own refusal to turn to Christ. Jesus Christ doesn’t guarantee moral superiority (though Christians should progress in sanctification), but offers forgiveness. Forgiveness for prior sin, present sin, and all future sin.

Mr. Olbermann, the good news is that you needn’t  be morally superior than everyone to feel forgiven. The good news isn’t that you might be morally superior in unbelief over those who do believe. That, you might be in many regards, but we are all sinners. The Gospel is what God does in us, no doubt, but it rests in what Jesus did 2000 years ago on a cross. It is historical, it is earthy, it is deeply practical, and it happens outside of us, apart from us first, before we enter into it.

Brit Hume Stands by His Words

Here is the latest clip from Hume, explaining his rationale behind suggesting that Tiger Woods’ should turn to Christ. I have a ton of thoughts that I wish to offer, but will simply redact myself in stating that Hume acknowledges that he was trying to be less offensive by initially referring to the “Christian faith” rather that the name “Jesus Christ”, and that it still invites the same reaction of hostility. Hume said that “all hell breaks loose” when one invokes the name of Christ. Knowing that Hume knows this and yet proceeded with such words suggests to me that Hume is willing to suffer reproach for his comments.

I also want to mention that it is far more freeing to me as a listener to hear political commentators, etc, publicly acknowledge their convictions. Even if I disagree with such convictions, I think there is much more credibility to commentary that is acknowledged within a system of some sorts.

There is a double-standard in the media that has long needed to be exposed for what it is. I have watched “news” where people have offered their convictions in opposition to driving SUV’s because it is contributing to global warming, opposition to wearing leather or eating meat because it causes the death of an animal, promotion of animal rights, etc. Why is it that  when someone is critical of a religious conviction, they get grilled for it, but it is seemingly okay to attack people for eating animals. Rather than shutting both down, I want the megaphone to get louder and broader about matters of faith and action. I want PETA to explain why they decry Obama killing a fly, but are seemingly okay with puncturing an infant’s brain in the womb of the mother. And if there is a Buddhist who thinks that their faith offers redemption, I want them to explain it. If there is a hedonistic atheist who thinks that morals are relative and that Tiger is better off single and sleeping around with how many ever consenting women he wishes and that we should shut up about it, let them speak up and make their appeals.

Religion should not be off limits in the free market of ideas. Let it abound, let the masses listen, let the masses discuss, let them decide. And if they hate Brit Hume, then let them. I am not decrying so much the fact that people hate Hume mentioning Jesus, I expect that. What I hate is this awkward deference of religion as being personal and something that should remain private in the public sphere. We can disagree, get outraged, protest, whatever…but let us disagree with what people say while also reserving their right to say it. I guess if your opinion even extends to saying that “Hume shouldn’t have said…”, then there will not be agreement on the parameters of dialogue in the public sphere, however do acknowledge the inconsistency of decrying my eating of animals and yet ruling foul my comments about your philosophical/religious convictions.

We are seemingly moving closer to a society that would punish Hume for “hate speech” and pro-lifers for decrying the murdering of babies, but seemingly hold in high esteem the free speech of atheists who decry the Christian faith as the source of all evils and how things would be better if Christianity ceased to exist.  Keith Olberman can scrutinize Christian “nut jobs”, but Brit Hume cseemingly can’t scrutinize Buddhism and suggest Christianity as a better alternative for redemption?

My Views of the Pentecostal Spirit in Response to the Tensions Presented in G.W.H. Lampe’s Proposals

Turner, M. (2000). Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.

Turner offers 7 major views within historical scholarship on the nature of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. The fourth major view is dubbed, “The Gift of the Spirit Emphasized by Luke as the Spirit of Prophecy and Missionary Empowering” (Turner 2000:56). G.W.H. Lampe is credited with this view. Lampe viewed the gift of the Spirit strictly within the prophetic paradigm offered in the OT. Prophets perform miracles and preach. Lampe therefore sees Pentecost as the bestowing of the Spirit unto preaching and supernatural ministry. Lampe struggled with a Lukan pneumatology as it regards the Spirit being poured out on all in its universal nature. While it appears that Luke does emphasize reception of the Spirit as an empowering work for some, it does not suggest such for all who received the Spirit. This tension forced the positing of two different works of the Spirit, one that is soteriological and one that is missionary in His intent. Lampe suggested that Luke himself was using  “two basically different concepts of the Spirit” (Turner 2000:58).

I respect the contributions of Lampe in seeking to be faithful to the OT paradigm of the Spirit’s work upon the prophet as a paradigm for Christ and the Disciples on Pentecost. He struggled, as do I, in Luke’s seemingly clear expectation that the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit is a universal fulfilling of Joel’s charismatic paradigm. The fact also remains that Luke highlights the fact that Phillip’s daughters were prophetesses, when such mentioning would be rather insignificant if everyone was a prophet of sorts. Traditional Pentecostals view the ‘charismatic’ empowering as normative and plead with the Christian community to life in the fullness of what God intends to bring to us through the Holy Spirit. Christians who lack “charismatic” empowering would be seen as the exception, no matter what the respective percentages are for those who have or have not the charismatic experience.

Non-Pentecostals have instead emphasized the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ as the normative paradigm for life in the Spirit. The charismatic nature of the Spirit is either seen as the exception or serving an ad hoc function for the early church.  In either paradigm, the non-Pentecostal is certainly not encouraging believers to seek the charismatic empowering as the normative paradigm.

I struggle in tension between both views. I have lived and ministered within both paradigms and have the greatest respect for believers in each respective community. I have essentially adopted the view that Joel’s charismatic paradigm is the norm for all believers today. However, I would suggest that this charismatic empowering need not necessarily match the extraordinary experiences that we find in Acts. The empowering might not take the form of prophecy or miracles, but may take the shape of incredible hospitality in the koinonia of the Church. Some would accuse me then of not being faithful the Joeline paradigm, which expects prophecy as a normative experience. I would simply say that there does remain tension in my view, however I would emphasis that we have all been made “prophets” in an objective sense through the Spirit and that our individual manifestations proceeding from our “prophethood” will take on varied and complementing functions within the broader community (1 Cor. 12).  As such, the person who ministers mercy in the Spirit is just as much a prophet as the one who speaks in tongues or prophesies in the corporate gathering. Many Evangelicals have rightly understood the “priesthood” of all believers, which views the church as ontologically one and encouraged to minister in various capacities. Those who hold this view would suggest that all are “ministers” in a general sense, without obliterating the distinct nature of a Pastor/Elder who ministers in an analogous, though authoritative fashion. So also, the “prophethood of believers” affords the same paradigm, allowing for a general application, and yet respecting the more extraordinary gifts that God should bestow on some.

Peter, who preached the Pentecostal sermon sheds some light on the potential variety that the “charismata” may take in the Christian community:

1 PT 4:10-11 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I referenced 1 Cor. 12 earlier and many take exception with that because it is seen as a reading of Pauline pnuematology into Luke. I find helpful the reading of Peter through Peter approach. Peter is the one who preached the sermon and is the one who offers us this passage that presumes that “each has received a gift” and then generalizes two categories: speaking and serving. Peter offers not an “all or nothing” approach, but rather a “both and” approach to the nature of the charismata, but it is clearly within an “ALL” paradigm as to  respective recipients, being the full body of believers.

Boise State, AP Champions?

Hey, it has happened before. My beloved USC Trojans were voted AP Champs back in 2004 while LSU was the BCS champs and mandated in the coaches poll to be #1. Essentially they were co-champions. I think that the AP (Associated Press) can not only challenge the current BCS system, but can also be a sympathetic voice on behalf of other teams that they feel worthy to be champions as well.

I don’t expect Boise State to be voted as the AP champs, but I do hope they garnish some votes, thus confirming what we all want…a playoff system.

One last interesting tidbit. If Boise State’s season is viewed in the big picture, they had two victories over BCS conference champions: Oregon and TCU. So if there was a playoff system, depending on what sort, BSU could conceivably be in the semi-final or finals right now.