Baptism Correspondence

Based on an earlier post: http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/my-baptismal-sabbatical-bibliography-say-that-5-times-fast

Joel and I have corresponded and I thought that posting my response in a blog post would interest some readers. Here it is:

joelmartin said

July 23, 2009 at 7:14 am e

I actually embrace infant baptism based on the authority of the Church and the idea that she can decide things for me that I don’t have to decide.

I’m curious as to what you make of circumcision, its function and what it accomplished? IOW, did one have to profess faith to join the OT church? Did their infants?

You might like this:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/cc_1.pdf

Rick Hogaboam said

July 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm e

I can actually respect deference to the Church on the issue of baptism. As a pastor, however, one needs to actually represent the Church and do so in hopefully good conscious…therein my responsibility in studying this issue while preparing for pastoral ministry.

As for circumcision, I think that John Reisinger’s book “Abraham’s Four Seeds” sums up fairly well what I believe about circumcision…essentially that it had a multifaceted function under the Old Covenant:

- it represented God’s promises to an ethnic people (natural seed) and was thus annulled in Christ, who is the true circumcision.
- it represented the internal covenant of grace in pointing to Abraham’s faith, which was a necessary requisite for inclusion in the “Israel within an Israel”. God also commanded His people to circumcise their hearts, showing that the external sign really pointed to the need for faith.
- there are some more nuances to what I have explained, but time permits me to condense it all.

Jesus, as the true circumcision, HAD to be a Jew, from the lineage of Abraham…thus fulfilling the ethnic (promise to Abraham’s physical seed) aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. He is also the truly righteous one, whose heart was perfect in every way, whose faith surpassed that of Abraham, etc., thus truly being what circumcision pointed too: faith.

John the Baptist, who was a forerunner to Christ, and the last prophet of the OT, was purposed by God to do two things: call for repentance and baptize. God was signaling that His people would soon be regarded by faith and no longer by ethnic descent from Abraham. Repentance was a necessary, and had always been a necessary requisite to become part of the “true Israel”. A new sign was introduced, baptism. This new sign would now mark God’s “true Israel”, the Israel of faith.

As such, God constitutes His people today based on faith alone. He is no longer fulfilling promises to a particular ethnic people. Repentance and Baptism was necessary under John and so also under Peter on Pentecost. I would go on more on this point, but will stop for now.

As for children and whether profession of faith was necessary to become part of the “OT church”, well, if you mean by “OT church” the Israel within Israel of faith and heart circumcision, then one truly had to bear such fruit. Ultimately, my soteriology would point to God as the one doing the heart circumcision, but this would inevitable lead to faith. In fact, John the Baptist was urging the people to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Children in the OT could be circumsized, taught everything, etc. but show a hardness towards God and bear no fruit in their lives, thus evidencing that they really don’t belong to God and never did in an internal fashion as part of his eternally elected Church.

There was no confirmation or public profession of faith per se to examine whether one had truly repented…not until John the Baptist, which is significant to understanding the transition of the Covenant in God’s redemptive purposes. I don’t believe that infants were baptized under John’s ministry, nor do I think infants were baptized on Pentecost, nor the household baptisms recorded in Acts. As such, holding loosely to the regulative principle, I only do what is clearly commanded or inferred. In my case, I need more clear proof for the practice of infant baptism as well as a theology of it that I don’t see articulated in the NT.

For others, an assumption is made that God has constituted His people in much the same way from Abraham to us…if children were included then, then why not now? For them, the burden would be to show where children are excluded in the NT Church and they don’t see convincing proof.

I agree with both camps to a degree. What we are left with is “good and necessary inferences” (quoting John Murray). He lands on one side, while I land on the other. I have told people that my ‘credo-Baptist’ position is less like a slam-dunk and more like a 60-40 victory in a presidential election. The other side got many votes, but there is one president who must rule. Therefore I minister within a ‘credo’ paradigm, but am gracious to the opposing views.

My Baptismal Sabbatical Bibliography (say that 5 times fast)

Okay, some folks have wondered what I have actually read on the topic of Baptism…perhaps suspecting that what I consider a worthy examination was something short of it. Such may be the case…that’s for you to decide, but these are some of the main works that I referenced in my reasearch:

There are other books I read like:

Baptism: Sacrament of the covenant of grace by Pierre Charles Marcel…and others, but suffice it to say that it is Scripture which is the final arbiter on this issue and Christians have long disagreed. I don’t have time to delve into all of the lines of argumentation from all camps, but I would say that I am a generous and charitable ‘credo-baptist’. I will say that it was Jewett’s book which argued for ‘credo-baptism’ as a more faithful practice within a Covenantal framework. I am Covenantal, my theology of Children is much similar to my Reformed friends than that of Baptists, I encourage early baptism and communion, am Sacramental in that I believe God confers grace in Baptism, believe that ‘credo-baptism’ is what binds the beleiver to Christ and the Church, and I catechize my young girls (3 & 5) in the children’s version of the shorter catechism. I teach my girls that Jesus DID die for them from a presuppositional and propositional framework, viewing them as recipients of increasing grace through the means of the Word and Prayer. I see God’s grace operational in Kira (5) and am starting to think, “What forbids her to be baptized?”. She is growing in her understanding of the Lord’s Table and is starting to show a desire to receive Christ in that sacred meal. I do weigh heavily in my heart whether I am keeping her from Christ much like His disciples’ did. She is close to coming to the waters and making an appeal from her heart for a clean conscience and to be sealed by the Holy Spirit and brought fully in Christ’s Church (NOT by her relation to myself and my wife as believing parents, nor of the will of man, but by the will of God). Her baptism will attest to God’s saving, adopting, free grace in her. She will be bound to the Church community, to love her brothers and sisters, to care for them, to submit to the teaching of the Word and admonition of the elders. She will be bound to these duties as a full member in Christ’s Church, who by His grace decided to put her into His Body through faith and by faith and unto faith.

Cody, who is 15, has been baptized. For those of you who don’t know…he has downs syndrome and operates at a 5-8 year old level in some things like logic, etc, but he can hit a baseball like an 18 year-old!!! His ‘5′ year old comprehension of the Gospel is not despised, but wholly sufficient to enter the waters of baptism and receive His Supper. He loves the Gospel and is captive to it.

BTW, I need to wrap this up, but I think that the early Church required a profession of faith for baptism and even when they practicied infant baptism, they required a “sponsor” to make a profession on behalf of the one being baptized. I think that this was the exception and allowed for infants in fear that their death without baptism would result in damnation. I know that the views of the early church are much disputed. I think that an allowance would also be made for a severely handicapped individual to be received into the Church, even if they are unable to give profession of faith. Some might not like such a practice, but it would be an inferred practice that accomodates extenuating circumstances. There were also early Church fathers who grew into adulthood unbaptized as the Church thought that one should maximinze the cleansing of sin just prior to death.  The history of baptism is a tragic comedy of sorts as there is hardly a uniform theology behind its practice. I failed to mention that adult converts would be baptized naked after prolonged fasting and demonic deliverance. I know of none who are contending for that pratice today, but it actually started fairly early in the Church. Where does this all lead us? Back to Scripture where we do the best we can with the material given on this issue.

Book Review of “Predestination and Free Will: Four Views”

This book is toooooo short to address this issue fairly from 4 different perspectives. I will only say that I was surprisingly appreciative of Bruce Reichenbach of Augsburg College attempt to define his views, but still reject it at the end of the day. BTW, he articulated God’s foreknowledge of future free events (Traditional Arminianism/Wesleyan). Clark Pinnock (Open Knowledge) was really horrid and was expecting more from this ‘Evangelical’ godfather of sorts for this particular view that God knows nothing of the future.

John Feinberg articulated God’s exhaustive foreknowledge based on God’s decree and tried to define compatibilism in how God’s sovereign decree is played out while consisting of man’s free (uncoerced against one’s will). He sought to define this mystery using some philosophical language and thought some of the categories were helpful, but would be almost impossible to explain to a lay person who inquires about this issue.

Norman Geisler presents what he considers a moderate Calvinist position and I fould him intuitively trying to explain how God is actively working out His will in particular instances while passively allowing man’s free decisions to work within His purposes at the same time. He sounds more like Wesley than Calvin to me. He says that God’s foreknowledge and His predestination occur concurrently and one doesn’t necessarily precede the other or is subservient to the other. I find this logic faulty at many levels.

Anyhow, if one asserts God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, even if based on free decisions of man, one still doesn’t escape the tension the issue of Sovereignty and Free Will have long presented the inquirer. Most assert that God was free to create however He wanted and was not bound to create as he hypothetically foresaw, which means that God chose the path that most accorded with His will while denying what would have potentially been otherwise. I disagree with this logic, but it is one I use with my Arminian friends to show that they are seemingly in the same camp with me whom they accuse. I also grant the possibility that we are completely free and simply ask the questions whether God is completely free to strike dead whomsoever He wills. The minute the Arminian says yes, then I show how they are also in the same camp with me whom they are contending against. If God chooses NOT to strike someone down, then it is ultimately His will that certain people live, etc.

Anyhow, this book was dissapointing and I would instead suggest that people go straight to John Calvin’s Institutes and Jacob Arminius’ theological treatise.

Book Review of “Understanding Four Views on Baptism”

First off, I want to say that I am fairly convinced of ‘believer’s baptism’, having taken a sabbatical leave in my past to study the issue, after having even studied it pretty intensely prior to that. I only say that as a disclaimer so you knwo where i am coming from.

I read this couterpoint book not neccesarily as ongoing investigation so much as to keep up with the line of reasoning that is represented by those who continune to articulate their position.

This book is too brief for my likes and doesn’t allow the sort of exhaustive dialogue I would prefer on this issue. Dr. Nettles presents a familiar case for ‘beleiver’s baptism’ and Dr. Pratt (who I like a lot…Third Millenium Ministries) presents a familiar case for Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant and thus given rightly to infants of beleivers.

The other views represented were: Lutheran (God’s Baptismal act as regerative) and Church of Christ (Beleivers’ Baptism as the Biblical occasion of salvation). I didn’t spend too much time investigating the merits of these views in my previous study because it didn’t have sufficient weight to even be tried in the court of my opinion. The one thing that I do agree with in both of the views represented by the Lutherans and Church of Christ folks is that they ’something’ happening in baptism. It is not just symbolic, but also an act in which God conveys something. As you can tell, I am a bit sacramental. I beleive in both symbol and the conveying of God’s grace.

Alright, this isn’t much of a review, but suffice it to say that if you aren’t familiar with the Lutheran and Church of Christ views on baptism, this is worth your money. If you are looking for substantial debate from the traditional Baptist and Reformed camp, I would reccomend you reading two books:

This is the strongest book I have ever read in favor of ‘pedo-baptism’ within a Covenantal structure. It actually refined my theology of Covenant and it did influence my theology of children a great deal. I essentially understand the child’s relation to covenant in a very similar (almost identical) strain with my Presbyterian and Reformed friends, but I still think that Baptism is a Sacrament that confirms a person’s full immersion into the body of Christ, evidencing their consent to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, namely repentance and faith. I could go on and on but I will do so another time in a future post…maybe. Suffice it to say, I would whole-heartedly reccomend this book to all who are looking into this issue…it will refine you one way or another.

This book is a substantial offering in favor of Believer’s Baptism rooted historically, Biblicaly, and Theologically. it also dialogues with more recent scholarship favoring the ‘pedo-baptist’position.

our mad world

Since we are encased within our society we can sometimes forget how insane it really is. A conversation I had yesterday reminded me of the deep weird that we live in. Our women fill their bodies with chemicals to prevent them from fertility for years and years. Later, when they are older and may decide to have kids they then take fertility drugs which sometimes cause them to conceive five or more kids at a time, several of which may be selectively killed prior to birth.
If children do arrive in our modern childless families, they alternate between being treated as possessions to be controlled and burdens which must be sloughed off to the State. Most kids enter daycare at the earliest possible age so that the mother can be used by our capitalist system to increase our standard of living (plasma TVs, mobile devices, huge cars, and so forth). Daycare costs a lot though, so it is with relief that when the child is older, the free (tax-supported) system kicks in and the kids can go into 13 or so years of state-indoctrination, aimed at making docile citizens who can in turn repeat this cycle.
Young men and women know that what the are supposed to do is go to college, learning from materialist professors how to hate the values of the society (Christendom) that gave birth to our modern enlightened society. This is where people learn the really tremendous value of binge drinking, drug use and casual sex with as may partners as possible for four years or so. They also learn the exalted status of sodomy and the way in which oppressive patriarchalism held women down for millenia until they woke up in the 1960’s.
After getting a BA or perhaps a Master’s Degree, the men and women are now around 22-25, a time at which in the primitive days people had already married and started having kids. We know better than that, and so marriage is still perhaps a decade off for our average Jane. She’s got to see the world, travel, experience different cultures and figure out what to do for work. Besides, how can you start a family when you have 40K in student loans to pay off first? And who really wants to marry a Peter Pan like male who thinks life consists of playing video games, watching ESPN, getting drunk and hooking up as much as possible?
So life goes on until finding the right person in the early to mid 30’s and getting married. You still have to wait to have kids until you get the right house, travel some, and get a promotion. You get the picture, wash, rinse, repeat….The goal is to get rich via real estate or the lotto so you can stop working at that job where they don’t appreciate your efforts. Then you can just fish all day, or shop, or eat, or whatever.
To defeat depression you get hooked on TV shows or watch an endless succession of movies or Twitter or get medicated. This doesn’t even throw in the cheating, “open marriages”, abortions, child support, or simple boredom that are the other norms of our day.
This is what our world has to offer. In the end it is meaningless and futile. It is not the good life and has nothing of ultimate worth to offer us. It is merely marking the time until you die and your existence ceases, in contrast to what religious fanatics think. Welcome to 2009 proles.

Project 86 New Release is Out Now!!!

Music Review: Sintax the Terrific’s “Curb Appeal”

This album is the bomb. I really mean it. The lyrics are relentlessly full of thought and conviction. The beats are tight as well. I must give this album a 9/10 and look forward to more of Sintax future work.

Here is his official website: http://www.sintaxtheterrific.com.

it’s gonna be a lovely day…

“oh the thinks that i can think…” – dr. seuss

“populations that we don’t want to have too many of”

Unbelievable. Read this horrible (and coldly murderous) quote from Justice Ginsburg in the NYT:

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

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.