John Newton: the anti-Prosperity gospel

[What I love about John Newton (the author of Amazing Grace), among other things, is: He's a dead theologian. He is unincumbered by our modern belief that Christ died to give me a big house, a BMW and health. How offensive: the idea God has us suffer on purpose?! Roger Olsen says the "Calvinist God" scares him. Me too. Well, at least I fear Him, I think I am supposed to. I may think Piper pushes it too far sometimes, by not connecting purpose with suffering, but I also think he is right."I Asked the Lord" has been put to modern music in this album.]

"I asked the Lord" by John Newton:

I asked the Lord that I might grow

In faith, and love, and every grace;

Might more of His salvation know,

And seek, more earnestly, His face.

’Twas He who taught me thus to pray,

And He, I trust, has answered prayer!

But it has been in such a way,

As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,

At once He’d answer my request;

And by His love’s constraining pow’r,

Subdue my sins, and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel

The hidden evils of my heart;

And let the angry pow’rs of hell

Assault my soul in every part.

Yea more, with His own hand He seemed

Intent to aggravate my woe;

Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,

Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this, I trembling cried,

Wilt thou pursue thy worm to death?“

’Tis in this way, the Lord replied,

I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ,

From self, and pride, to set thee free;

And break thy schemes of earthly joy,

That thou may’st find thy all in Me.”

I have a problem with authority: an essential problem in Protestantism

[A blog to ask a question to the reader:]

Sola Scriptura means: Scripture alone. It is one of the five solas of the reformation. It means that Scripture is the final authority on matters of truth. Yet, in regards to Scripture, there are two levels:

Revelation: What God says
and
Doctrine/Interpretation: What we say revelation means.

So "Sola Scriptura" says nothing about who has the right doctrine/interpretation. Here's a test case:

Does baptism save?

What does Scripture say?: "baptism now saves you" 1 Peter 3:21.

Thus, when speaking about this passage, we have no disagreement over what Scripture says, Scripture says "baptism now saves you," even mentioning the water in particular. We do have a disagreement over what Scripture means.

But here is the question: Who decides what it means? Catholics appeal to the See of Peter as authoritative interpreter, Orthodox appeal to the Seven Ecumenical Councils as the collective interpretation of the Church, Protestants have:

1. The clear testimony and reading of Scripture? [the clear reading is "baptism saves"...]

2. The internal testimony of the Spirit? Whose internal testimony? Mine? My Protestant Lutheran brother who quotes the Augsburg Confession that says "Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation" [link]? Or my Protestant Reformed brother that quotes the Westminster Confession that says "salvation [is] not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it" [link]? [both the Lutheran and Reformed brother claims Sola Scriptura]

3. Human Reason? That same "reason" that Luther called a, ahem, prostitute? Again, whose reason? Mine? Yours? If they contradict, who decides? If reason, why do we need revelation which is "foolishness" to those reasonable Greeks?

My answer: I have none, that's why I am throwing it out there. I do not believe water baptism saves [I side with the Reformed brother in question 2, as I believe most people reading my blog do] just as I believe justification is by faith alone though the "plain words" of James say differently. But how do I as a Protestant escape taking the Pope's hat off the Bishop of Rome, and putting it on my head? How do I avoid making my self and my personal interpretation the only council I listen to? Or do I have no such assurance?

[This post is not meant to imply Catholics and Orthodox have no problems here as Orthodox have no means of addressing new theological questions after the Seven Councils and the fact that the doctrine of Papal Supremecy did not develop until the 5th Century and many would say their answers have contradicted each other. I'm merely concerned with the Protestant problem here.]

This Too Shall Be Made Right

On the theme of present evil and God's sovereignty, I submit for you a song Derek Webb wrote titled: This Too Shall Be Made Right. There is a free live mp3 version available for download here. (If you like it, buy one or all of his albums here.) Derek Webb wrote it in response to others making the case that war in and of itself is a good thing based on:

Ecc 3:3-4

(To everything there is a season)

A time to kill, And a time to heal;

A time to break down, And a time to build up;

A time to weep, And a time to laugh;

A time to mourn, And a time to dance;

Derek Webb juxaposes the present reality of Ecclesiates 3 with the future hope that killing, weeping and mourning are not good things and will some day be made right aluding to Rom 8:19-24 and Rev 21:4. No matter if we support a particular war as necessary, it is also terrible, heartbreaking and a thing to mourn and hate. Here are the lyrics with the Scripture below:

This Too Shall Be Made Right:

people love you the most for the things you hate

and hate you for loving the things that you cannot keep straight

people judge you on a curve

and tell you you’re getting what you deserve

this too shall be made right

children cannot learn when children cannot eat

stack them like lumber when children cannot sleep

children dream of wishing wells

whose waters quench all the fires of Hell

this too shall be made right

the earth and the sky and the sea are all holding their breath

wars and abuses have nature groaning with death

we say we’re just trying to stay alive

but it looks so much more like a way to die

this too shall be made right

there’s a time for peace and there is a time for war

there's a time to forgive and a time to settle the score

a time for babies to lose their lives

a time for hunger and genocide

this too shall be made right

I don’t know the suffering of people outside my front door

I join the oppressors of those who i choose to ignore

I’m trading comfort for human life

and that’s not just murder it’s suicide

and this too shall be made right

Romans 8:19-24
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?

Rev 21:4
4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Why John Piper sometimes annoys me

The other night, my wife and I started to read John Piper’s Pierced by the Word. The first devotional's title was “How strange and wonderful is the love of Christ.” Piper’s demonstration of Christ’s love? The story of the death and resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. Good so far! Definitely one of the greats! But how does Jesus show His love?

1. By letting Lazarus die.

2. Pointing that fact to God’s Glory.

3. Motivated by a love for Mary and Martha.

Huh? Ok, all those things happened (though #3 doesn’t seem to fit as it is the thesis, not a reason). The rest of the “devotional” is analogous to saying “because I said so” and “Quit crying or I’ll give you something to cry about.” NOWHERE WAS A REASON GIVEN!!! How is announcing God’s power letting Lazarus die saying anything about “the strange and wonderful love of Christ”?!

Piper never gets to after Lazarus dies, how Christ:

1. Gave the hope of the resurrection (John 11:23)

2. Pointed to Himself as the source of that hope (John 11:25-26)

3. He wept (John 11:35)

Ultimately, Christ displayed not His mere power, but His power over death which pointed to God’s Glory. Christ did not flaunt His power for the heck of it. Frankly, if someone just lost a loved one, I would not give him/her Piper’s devotional. Piper’s devotional (which ignores the ending of resurrection!) says: “God killed your loved one because He is power drunk and wants you to know it.”

The whole of John 11 displays the strange and wonderful love of God, but in a way that says says “Death tells us this world is not as it will be, but Christ has power over death.” Christ gives us hope and comes along side of our experiences with us. This demonstrates the Glory of God, not the mere announcing of it. I think some Calvinists I’ve heard (Al Mohler, John Piper) wish to communicate that God does not conform to our ideas of what is “good.” While this is true, death is not good, I'M SURE OF THIS (for the Bible tells me so:) because it is a curse (Gen 3:19). Death announces the sin and rebellion of humanity, not the Glory of God (in and of itself). Death announces that creation is "not as it should be" or is ultimately purposed to be.

What is the point of brow-beating people with the "Glory of God"? God's sovereignty promises “All things work together for good” (Rom 8:28) for believers, NOT all things that happen ARE good. It is an eschatological hope. Going to the dentist is good because he drills out cavities for the end of healthy teeth, not to merely torture you with his power. While letting go of our conceptions of “good” as the standard to judge God, we should not point to God’s power without pointing to His love (not that we can see or understand it at a certain moment).

I believe this, not because I am not a good enough Calvinist, but because if we only point to God's power and call this His love, God is made out to be a despot and a Machiavellian, not Love as God defines it:

"God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

(UPDATE: yeah, I think Piper believes all of the above, I guess I would just like to see him connect it more often. Perhaps my criticism is more on presentation than theology. Soli Deo Gloria!)

N.T. Wright’s gospel of “being put to rights”

I just listened to N.T. Wright's talk on Romans at Calvin College. After listening to it, my verdict is…mixed. Wright picks up on two important themes:

1. Our poor eschatology of heaven as floating spirits (which is a gnostic, dualistic or Manichean idea coming from the concept that matter is somehow evil and a detour in creation).

2. Our lack of concern for greater new creation rather than just personal eternal life.

Then one gets to where N.T. Wright talks about justification as a “putting of the world to rights.” Wright has a system looking towards the restoration of the world in new creation. Thus, Judgment is restoring the rights of creation.

Ironically, N.T. Wright talks about how our understanding of Paul is too focused through Enlightenment concepts. Yet, Wright uses "rights" in a similar way as Enlightenment thinkers, in a modern idea of rights. “Right” becomes a positive claim, or an inherent birthright. This was conceived in some of William of Ockham’s ideas, birthed by the lawyer Grotius (the person who invented the idea of governmental atonement) and reached a whiny, violent adolescence in the French Revolution, the culmination of the Enlightenment.

A true pre-Enlightenment thinker, Thomas Aquinas, defined “right” (or "ius" in Latin) as DUTY. This idea was developed in explaining Romans 2:14-15:

for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith

Thomas Aquinas explained this “law written on their hearts” as “lex naturalis” (natural law). Specific precepts of natural law are “ius naturalis” (natural right[s]), in other words the law has specific duties.

We have ALREADY been put to rights or duties: we have been given the law. Our problem is not being “put to rights“ or properly speaking “being put to the law’s duties” but that we do not do our right/duty, we do not keep the law (Rom 3:10-11). The “right” thing to do (a better understanding and use of the term) is for God to do His duty as Judge to the law and now destroy us, as the law demands. The declaration that we are to “be put to rights!” should make us shutter! If the Judgment means everyone will be put to rights, then everyone is damned. The declaration that we have unmerited favor, or vicariously merited favor, is the good news.

To put it in classical terms (the right definition of right) is:
Christ has done our duty/right on our behalf. Christ was put to death for our trespass of rights.

To put it in modern terms (I rather use birthright than right):
Our birthright is death. Christ’s birthrite is life. Christ takes our birthright, and we take His birthright.

More important than justification by faith is justification by grace. We have no birthrights to restoration, only duties we cannot perform, but have been performed for us and a reward confered on us by shear grace.

But don’t be put off Wright altogether [Here is a balanced evaluation in Christianity Today]. He is great on the resurrection and generally on the new creation. Piper is putting out a book specifically targeting N.T. Wright, which I can only hope properly separates the good from the bad [as Piper does not have a reputation for gentleness in rebuke, ask any Free Grace adherent or Arminian]. Wright is a friend to orthodox Christianity, not an enemy. Wright tends to be about 90% correct in his teaching, a great leader against liberalization on homosexuality in the U.S. Episcopal church and a defender of the doctrines of the resurrection and the Bible as the Word of God. That's actually a big deal for someone in the Church of England.

Some good N.T. Wright:

Wright on resurrection (great sermon!)

Wright on the sacraments.

[a tip of the hat to Solus Christus for first posting the Christianity Today article]

Pop Quiz!

Peter Kreeft starts out a short lecture with a pop quiz. Here are five of the questions:

1. Name the living person with the greatest influence on your life.

2. What is the church's gospel?

3. What is God like?

4. What is the meaning of life?

5. What is truth?

You can listen to the talk on mp3 for the answer. Here's a hint: This post is a defense of my post: The Golden Key. And, there should only be one answer for all the questions above. We have the answer, now we seek the questions.

All Good and All Powerful

I was thinking about this the other day when I was talking with a friend about how God’s purpose in everything is to reveal his own glory. My friend joked and said “Yeah like with the Holocaust”. I joked about that taking some nuance. It made me think of Rabbi Kushner though. I always thought he had written his famous book in response to the Holocaust. Obviously a stereo type on my part because he is Jewish. Actually he wrote it in response to his son’s death. His reasoning I believe goes something like this; ‘God can not be all good and all powerful and let something like this happen. So he must not be all powerful.’ But the sacred writing of his own religion testifies to God being all powerful. I have never read his book, but I have read Job. My wife bought the Rabbi’s book when she was young. Thank God she never read it at such a young and impressionable age. Pain is not meaningless as John Piper discusses so well so often. Read his latest response to Rabbi Kushner here. Why would I find comfort in believing pain is just a bunch of meaningless stuff that happens? Or that God has no purpose or plan because he can do nothing about it. Not much of a God to worship. Sounds like any old friend down the street would be better.

August 6, Day of the Transfiguration

August 6 is the commemoration of the Day of Transfiguration, a day Peter told the Church to remember in 2 Pet 1:17-19, and Luke records here. Calvin said of the Transfiguration: “the disciples could taste in part what could not be fully comprehended.” As it was a precursor to the resurrection, we remember it because we too, with the whole of orthodox Christianity (i.e. those that adhere to the Apostles' Creed at least), look forward to the resurrection of the body. Perhaps then we will be given greater ability to perceive and experience God's Glory: our resurrection bodies, able to fully taste what we now cannot comprehend. Christianity Today has a slideshow showcasing different artists attempting to convey the event. My favorite art in commemoration, however, is Sufjan Stevens' beautiful acoustic song "the Transfiguration," (sample here) especially the end:

When he took the three disciples
to the mountainside to pray,
his countenance was modified, his clothing was aflame.
Two men appeared: Moses and Elijah came;
they were at his side.
The prophecy, the legislation spoke of whenever he would die.

Then there came a word
of what he should accomplish on the day.
Then Peter spoke, to make of them a tabernacle place.
A cloud appeared in glory as an accolade.
They fell on the ground.
A voice arrived, the voice of God,
the face of God, covered in a cloud.

What he said to them,
the voice of God: the most beloved son.
Consider what he says to you, consider what's to come.
The prophecy was put to death,
was put to death, and so will the Son.
And keep your word, disguise the vision 'till the time has come.

Lost in the cloud, a voice. Have no fear! We draw near!
Lost in the cloud, a sign. Son of man! Turn your ear.
Lost in the cloud, a voice. Lamb of God! We draw near!
Lost in the cloud, a sign. Son of man! Son of God!

I Suck: Why I Need Hope.

I wrote this post, then found this essay which captures the idea much better than I could. Here's the point in better prose.

Eph 1:13-14 - You were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

I am saved. But I still sin, hurt others, hurt myself and I am going to die.

We often talk about the work of salvation as a past event. “When were you saved?” A popular answer is “when I asked Jesus into my heart at age ___.” Yet, we still sin, we still hurt, we still hurt others and we all die. Why? This is what the Bible says: Because we are not yet saved.

While we have been saved, and are presently saved, if that is all we have in “the finished work of redemption,” then salvation is a disappointment. We are not yet glorified and the problem still exists: we all hurt, sin and die. What is so great about that?

Paul, however, tells us by God sealing us in the Spirit, we have an earnest (or down-payment) of our inheritance. Paul reminds us of the necessity of hope. We hope because salvation is not finished and we look towards “the redemption of the purchased possession.” We have been bought and we will one day be saved.

John tells us:

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

The next verse floors me. The final two chapters of Revelation pull back the curtain and flood our mind with hope and Christ declares:

Rev 21:5 And He who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."

We have been told Christ is done. It is finished. He sat down at the right hand of God. While the payment has been made, He is not done. He tells us so. This is not as good as it gets. Hallelujah for that.

The Golden Key

George MacDonald wrote a children’s story called “The Golden Key.” The children in the story are sent on a reverse quest, they are first given the golden key, and then must find what it unlocks. MacDonald used this as a metaphor for Christ. We see bumper stickers that declare “Jesus is the Answer” which begs “What is the question?” That is the paradox of the Christian spiritual journey. While philosophers ask their questions and then seek the answer, Christians have an answer and seek the questions.

I used to be a little embarrassed by this fact. It seemed faith was not rational, not the product of reasoned inquiry, but a logical fallacy in search of justification. One may read with Enlightened condescension a definition of faith as “belief seeking understanding.” Then how did I figure it out?! What foolishness. What foolishness to us Greeks.

Our search lacks perspective. Humanistic philosophy looks at the ground, illuminated by light and asks how each thing here on earth provides its own light and knowledge. To the elect, God lifts their vision to the Sun, no, God provides the Sun. We see all things physical by an apriori (before the fact) reality: the Sun. This is why God must seek us, and not the other way around. We have no means of sight. We must first be given the light, the Sun, the answer, the key: Christ. Then our journey begins and illuminates all other things along the way.

But we are proud. We tell God we want to find Him ourselves. To one who wants to find the way themselves, to credit their own insight and powers for finding God, God tells us:

I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices;
a people who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens and making offerings on bricks; …
who say, "Keep to Yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for You." These are a smoke in My nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.
Behold, it is written before me: "I will not keep silent…”
Isaiah 65:2-6

We, who did not seek God, but were sought by Him now have light.
We have a key. Happy journey in looking for the doors it unlocks.

Christianity is African.

You may have heard the thesis: The "center of gravity" in Christianity is moving South. Stories abound of Africans in the Anglican denomination resisting the liberalization in the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion. In the public mind, this thesis gained popularity in the works of Philip Jenkins, namely his work The Next Christendom, and his newer work New Faces of Christianity. One of my favorite stories from the later book tells of an African and American bishop sitting down for a Bible study over the issue of homosexuality. Finally the African bishop exclaimed in disbelief: "If you don't believe the Bible, why did you bring it to us?!"

The statement above displays a common misconception of African Christianity, even by some products of Western missions. Lesser known scholar Andrew Walls fills in some gaps. He was recently interviewed by Christianity Today as the "most important person you don't know." His work is not limited to the strange contemporary events, but the long history of African Christianity. From the story of Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts, Africa has not just played a secondary role in the grand Christian narrative, but, Walls argues, a primary part. Walls, an Oxford grad and professor, in a series of lectures delivered at DTS in 2003, lays out how all roads in the Christian narrative do not lead to Rome, and how African Christianity was the mind of early Christianity, the arms of the missionary movement throughout history, and, perhaps, the soul of future Christianity when "Envoys will come out of Egypt; [and] Ethiopia will quickly stretch out her hands to God"[Ps 68:31] Give a listen:

Part 1: Two Thousand Years in African Christian History

Part 2: A Tale of Three Continents

Part 3: Tales of the Unexpected

Part 4: Africa as Leader in World Missions

Apostolic Father: Ignatius of Antioch

or Sanctification by the Church.

Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, another member of the generation after the apostles.
Protestants all know, one can have too high a view of the Church. But another sin Protestants forget, is having too low a view of the Church. Ignatius introduces us to a very foreign topic to Protestants: Sanctification by the Church. While we know the primary agent in sanctification is God (1 Pet 1:2, 1 Thes 5:23, 2 Thes 2:13), we may forget that sanctification is also mentioned in a group context (1 Cor 1:2).

Ignatius develops this thought further, in lines such as:

“He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, ‘God resisteth the proud.’”

“I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus.”

“being subject to the [Church leaders], ye may in all respects be sanctified.”

So Ignatius might say to the modern Christian: Just you and Jesus? A Christian without the Church? No such thing. God may alone sanctify, but he does by means of the Church and if we take Rom 6:22 seriously, sanctification must precede eternal life. And if the Church is the means, either here or in the next life, we have to learn to love the Church, and be sanctified by it.

Ignatius wrote seven letters which survive. His letter to the Ephesians is best for a one letter introduction to his thought.

Ignatius also ended his life in martyrdom, fed to the lions in Rome.

Apostolic Father: Polycarp

Polycarp, a leader or bishop in Smyrna, was a direct student of John. Some speculate that if the angels in Revelation are bishops, he is referred to in Rev 2-3. Reading his epistle, one can see the similar simplicity with John. He quotes Scripture as much as he uses his own words. He says little profound, but has a loving spirit towards the believers in Philippi. The account of his martyrdom reveals his wittier side. The Roman officer gave Polycarp an opportunity to avoid death by his association with the ‘atheist‘ Christians, telling him:

“Swear by the fortune of Caeser; repent and say, Away with the Atheists.”

"Polycarp…looked up to heaven, [and] said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Adding later, “if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and thou shalt hear them.”

Polycarp was burned alive.

Read Polycarp's Epistle to Philippi here.

Read his Martyrdom here

And about him here.

Apostolic Father: Clement

For most evangelicals, The early church consists of the book of Acts, and it picks up in the Reformation, or with Billy Graham, or perhaps when they were born. But Paul, Peter and John had their own disciples, many who died for their faith. They are a rusty treasure of the church.

I begin with Clement. This may very well be the Clement mentioned in Php 4:3. A man who knew Paul and Peter. Clement is identified by Irenaeus as one of the Bishops of Rome. His only surviving work is his letter to the Corinthians. Though we may think the Apostolic Fathers may merely confirm our perception of Scripture, often they challenge it. For instance, see how Clement explores the tension of justification by works and by faith:

“Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord in humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words…does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteousness?…Let our praise be in God, and not ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves Let testimony to our good deeds be born by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers.”

Clement juxtaposes works and words. Clement talks about praising our own works, indicating he is talking about our faith in the presence of others. We are shown justified (in the right) before men by our works, not our words. Though modern evangelists may object, Clement tells us the gospel is confirmed as true, not by our words (logical, apologetic, rational, or whatever our approach) but, as James said, by what we do. But then if we might think our relationship with God is of works, Clement continues:

“[The Levite priests were] great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to Whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.” (Clem XXXII)

Check out Clement for yourself.

Celebrating Dependence: Calvin and Communion

From a Baptist background, the ministers always explained the "only" or “merely” aspect of the Lord’s Supper. “This is MERELY a symbol of the forgiveness of sins.” It was only described in the negative: Not Catholic. One begins to wonder if this tradition is so minor, so mere, why do we do it at all?

This “mere” idea comes from Zwingli and dominates the sacramental theology of Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and otherwise. Yet, Calvin’s mind in Soteriology is acknowledged as far superior. Why not entertain some of his thoughts on the Lord’s Supper?

Turns out Calvin’s Institutes find little “mere” or “minor” in the symbol of Christ‘s blood and body. Some selections:

“As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ.”

Calvin invites contemplation on the “similitude” of bread and wine to the “giving daily” of the benefits of Christ. I find Psalm 104:15 lists both and their function:

Bread:
“Bread to strengthen man's heart” (ESV)
I may surmise that Christ continually is to be our strength.

Wine:
“wine maketh glad the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil” (JPS)
Christ is to be the gladness of our heart, making our face beam more than oil.

While Christ’s sacrifice for sin was once for all, the Lord’s Supper reminds us of the continual nature in which Christ is the source of our strength and our joy. Our sustaining Providence and the source of our delight. Thus, while we may see baptism as our death and new life with Christ, done once, the Lord’s Supper is the continual coming to Christ for strength and joy. Calvin does not leave the symbolism to the past grace of Christ, but the present and future. We are continually given the benefits of Christ’s “wonderous exchange.” What does Calvin mean by this phrase? He tells us:

“the wonderous exchange…having become with us the Son of Man, He made us with Himself sons of God. By His own descent to the earth, He prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, He has bestowed on us His immortality. Having under-taken our weakness, He has made us strong in His strength. Having submitted to our poverty, He has transferred to us His riches. Having taken upon Himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, He has clothed us with His righteousness.”

In the Lord’s Supper, perhaps we ask the wrong question of “Does the bread and wine become Christ?” Perhaps we should ask “Does Christ become our bread and wine?” Our strength and delight.

Medication

Ok Time for another Derek Webb post. I just love this song. And the Piper video Jared posted just got me thinking about it again.

Medication words and music by derek webb
don't lie to me
tell me something true
'cause i'm only free
when i look at you
and you look so good it hurts
and love, i come undone
chorus
but i don’t want medication
just give me liberation
even if it cuts my legs right out from underneath
don’t give me medication
i want the real sensation
even when living feels just like death to me

don't paint my face
i need to see the scars
so i don't forget
the back of my tutor's arm
'cause i just can't keep it straight
which kills and which one saves

Chorus
but i don’t want medication
just give me liberation
even if it cuts my legs right out from underneath
don’t give me medication
i want the real sensation
even when living feels just like death to me

bridge
‘cause the truth is i need you just like the air i breathe
just like a freight train needs the tracks beneath
so i’d rather suffer my whole life and be this rich man’s wife
if loving you means suffering

Chorus
but i don’t want medication
just give me liberation
even if it cuts my legs right out from underneath
don’t give me medication
i want the real sensation
even when living feels just like death to me

Fun timeline of world religions

Piper on the Prosperity Gospel.

Update: Why this is important

The Coming End of an Era: Will Evangelicalism Survive?

The passing of Billy Graham's wife left me thinking: will "Evangelicalism" survive post-Graham? One definition of Evangelicalism I've heard is "anyone that likes Billy Graham." Billy Graham represented a new chapter when Fundamentalism moved from huddled shivering to partial engagement. But what institutions has evangelicalism built to proliferate itself? The National Association of Evangelicals seems doomed. It's failure would be on the same basis that many evangelical churches fold: it was based on one man, Ted Haggard.

In my analysis, I believe just as the last 50 years witnessed the split between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, the next 50 will see a splinter into evangelicals, emerging church, and denominational realignment.

If the last 50 years witnessed a trending away from denominations, could the next 50 be the opposite? The previous generation of evangelicals were ecumentical (J.I. Packer, Billy Graham, John Stott, Chuck Colson, Bill Bright etc.) while the next seems polarizing (John Piper, Michael Horton, Albert Mohler, Mark Driscoll, etc.). As this older generation passes off the scene, don't be suprised if older denominations (such as the growing Southern Baptists and PCA) and newer networks (such as the Emergent Villiage and the Act 29 network) fill the void for a new sectarianism in conservative Protestantism in America.

Piper vs Wright

Mark Driscoll revealed a few weeks ago that John Piper is working on a book that specifically takes on N.T. Wright's position on justification. Another blogger has put together their writings in a faux interview to explore their thoughts on the issue (in Part 1 and Part 2).

Both these men have done major work for evangelicalism, Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God and Simply Christian and Piper's Desiring God are all works which have made Christianity a reality for many people. Piper recovering Joy and Wright recovering the Resurrection. Wright, along with Alister McGrath, may be one of the most evangelical Anglicans in England.

One hopes this does not split evangelicals, as each of these men have avid admirers, as am I of both.

[To get a feel for these two great preachers, just right click and download Wright's sermon on the Resurrection here or for Piper download here.]

UPDATE 6/16: I think either some of this is over my head, or Piper may be defending a particular Reformed definition and nuance to justification. N.T. Wright wrote a paper in 1980, here, that details his view of justification, using the evangelical buzz words such as "a declaration" and "forensic." He defines justification as "God's righteous declaration in the present that the person who believes in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is a member of the covenant family, whose sins have been dealt with on the cross and who is therefore assured of eternal life."

So to find out what exactly Piper is attacking, we may have to just wait for the book...

Caedmon's Call reunion CD and Tour!!!

So they are not dead, but they are probably better theologians in their lyrics than some pastors: Caedmon's Call brought back Derek Webb to record a new CD with them and a Tour to follow! I am so there!!!! [give Caedmon's Call a listen here and Derek Webb here] :

CAEDMON’S CALL ANNOUNCES BIG YEAR WITH NEW ALBUM, NEW LABEL AND FORMER MEMBER DEREK WEBB RETURNS FOR PROJECT AND TOUR

NASHVILLE, TN…May 22, 2007… Caedmon’s Call will be releasing their 15th project Overdressed on Aug. 28. The group invited former member turned solo singer/songwriter Derek Webb to take part in this project and upcoming tour.

“It was definitely a no-brainer to record with Derek again, especially when we [Caedmon’s Call] joined INO, which has been Webb’s label for years,” says Cliff Young. “We all sat down one day and thought ‘I wonder what it would be like to make an album together’.” “We have all grown so much over the past six years, and I know for me [and I’m sure the others] it was a natural process to switch to INO and then have Derek re-join us for this project and upcoming tour.”

Overdressed is an 12 song cd collection that is unlike any other Caedmon’s Call record, being organically acoustic with emphasis on rhythm while maintaining cleverly-written lyrics. All songs were co-wrote between Andrew Osenga, Randall Goodgame, Derek Webb and Webb’s wife, musician Sandra McCracken.

...Also, There will be an exclusive limited edition 14-song version of the cd that will be offered as a pre-order only. Pre-sales for the record will begin on June 15th so check back for more details on how to get your copy!

Owen on Grace

From, Communion With God (Puritan Paperbacks: Treasures of John Owen for Today's Readers)

"Grace is a word which has various meanings. But chiefly it means three things:
(1) Grace can mean grace of personal presensce and beauty. So we say, 'He or she is graceful and beutiful person'. The Song of Solomon deals mainly with the grace and beauty of Christ's person. See Psalm 45:2
(2) Grace can mean grace of free favour and acceptance. 'By grace you are saved'. That is, we are saved by the free favour and merciful acceptance of God in Christ. So the expression 'If I found grace in your sight' is often used. The person using this expression hopes that he will be freely and favourable accepted. So God 'gives grace', that is, favour, to the humble (James 4:6; Gen. 39:21; 41:37; Acts 7:10 I Sam. 2:26; II Kings 25:27).
(3) Grace can mean the fruit of the Spirit sanctifying and renewing our natures, enabling us to do those good things which God has purposed and planing for us to do, and holding us back from evil. 'My grace is sufficient for you,' says the Lord Christ. That is, the help which God gave was sufficient for Paul (II Cor. 12:9, 8:6,7; Col. 3:16; Heb. 12:28).
The last two meanings of the word grace, as relating to Christ, I call 'purchased grace', being purchased by him for us. And our communion with Jesus in this purchased grace is called 'a fellowship in his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection' (Phil. 3:10).

What we sing

Just some thoughts on hymns with a nice article to go along with it. I was thinking about how most evangelicals do not have a liturgy that goes back hundreds of years as a tie that binds them to our sacred past. Very few traditions, no liturgy. They have had two great things going for them, preaching and hymns. Both are not what they once were. Many of the old hymns are so rich and so well crafted. They have been sung in Protestant churches for hundreds of years in some cases and now they are being cast aside without a second thought. Keep hymns alive! Also check out this cool slide show about hymns from Christianity Today.

Solus Christus

In a Bible study class, I remember being given an assignment where 10 or so Bible verses were given and we were instructed to elaborate on what they said about the importance of the Bible. It was obvious the verses were found by concordance by locating any verses containing the phrase "word of God." As I looked for the context, it also became obvious that many of these verses explicitly referred to Christ, not the Bible. When I emailed the T.A. who gave the assignment, they instructed me to do the assignment as if they referred to the Bible, even if I knew they did not!

A hot topic lately on Christian blogs has been the tension between being bibliocentric (Centered on the Bible) and Christocentric (Centered on Christ). While slamming the wheel to the other side might be an over-reaction, I can sympathize that we sometimes may be too focused on the book, rather than what the book is about:

Svigel on the Fringe.

A British Pastor on "Why I am not a Bible Teacher" (& Part 2)

Solus Christus on Solus Christus

Jerry Falwell: Interesting Legacy

It is surprising how many interesting stories have come to light about Falwell after his death. My favorite was by students at Liberty who talked about seeing him at a restaurant. They didn't even think he knew them, but at the end of the meal, after Falwell and his friends had left, they were informed Falwell had paid for their meal. So when people as diverse as Rick Warren and Larry Flint have had good things to say, at least personally he must have been a good guy.

The reaction from the current evangelical movement was well observed as having lost a grandfather that they may not have agreed with all the time, but were kinda fond of.

R.I.P. Falwell

History of War

Ok I do not have this totally developed but I liked this commentary by Fred Thompson on an important thing of the past to study… war. He asserts that warfare is no longer taught at our Universities. I can say while I am sure he is correct I did have a run in with this at Illinois State University. I was a Social Science Major which is basically the same as a History major. The hardest class I ever took at ISU was “U.S. Military History”. This is to ISU’s credit and the woman teaching it is a first rate scholar.
If Fred is right I do think what he asserts as part of the reason has to be true. He states “The post-Vietnam antiwar movement tends to see all wars as mutual mistakes — with both sides in a conflict equally wrong. Some of these folks think war can be avoided by refusing to have anything to do with it.” To true and I think this has infected a lot of the Western Church which is so heavily influenced by our Anti-war at all costs culture. Meanwhile true evil may go unchecked to the point of no return. Perhaps we could use a good study not only of the History of warfare but the view of warfare (for better or worse) of the Church throughout history. Some stones would not be plesent to turn over but I do think we will find that Christians in the past were not as afraid to die as we (me included) are.

My view of what we are missing as we talk and talk about identifying with our enemies is summed up much better by Victor Davis Hanson when he writes, “The hundred years of talking about slavery was not as important as two days at Gettysburg. The success or failure of Normandy affected Hitler more in an hour than had years of pleading with him in the 1930s.”

The down trodden and oppressed are best helped when we are willing to fight for them.

Beckwith fully resigns,

Beckwith officially resigned as a member of ETS as well as the presidency today. Seems James White originally "broke" the story while Beckwith was trying to keep ETS off the radar screen by handling it quietly. White has tried to lead a few ETS-ers in going after Beckwith hard. I think Beckwith is wrong, but James White is not the guy I want talking about this subject. Even when he is on the right side, he doesn't know how to argue rhetorically and logically. I found myself disagreeing with a few foundational points in Geisler's Chosen But Free. Then James White came out with The Potter's Freedom that so poorly and angerly argued against Geisler's book that Geisler used the opportunity to instruct on poor logical agruments (Non Sequitur, Ad Hominem, etc) . Even though White was on the right side on some of the points, I still cringe when I see his name in a debate.

5/10 Update: Interview with Christianity Today

ETS President converts to Catholicism

The former President of the Evangelical Theological Society Francis J. Beckwith converted to Catholicism. ETS has had problems in the past when they would not bar Open Theists like Clark Pinnock, prompting Norman Geisler to resign. Pinnock in, Beckwith out. Just interesting to ponder.

Clarification: meaning, if they kick out the Catholic, then why do they keep the Open Theist?

Orthodox Church

I attended an Antiochian Orthodox Church this week. While my Protestant principles find a few problems with the Orthodox Church, it is always good to experience the other traditions for a sense of what others may emphasis that we do not.

The liturgy had one main focus: Christ. Christ incarnate, Christ our Savior, Christ the Resurrected. It is hard not to meditate on the person of Christ in the service. While we Protestants may look at Christ through the lens of faith or grace, it is helpful to also take a minute to look at the Christ as the one who incarnates Truth (who became what he wished to save) and Resurrects (completes, does not destroy).

The Eastern Orthodox talk about Icons. Icons signify something else. They are very similar to sacraments in that they remind us of some truth that is greater. Did we Protestants over-react to Icons in the past?

What would the culture look like if we did not run from culture to our safe walled garden, but incarnated truth in that culture? What would it look like if we looked to redeem all of creation? What would it look like if we saw life as a sacrament, if we could find more icons or types of Christ in art, culture and nature?

Sure, having Icons may tempt us to worship them instead of Christ. Anyway, we Protestants have enough to worship instead of Christ already: materialism, the pastor, the sermon, the Bible…

The Pearl

I was just thinking of how interesting it was that Boris Yeltsin had a full Orthodox funeral when I saw the same observation here on The Corner. Communism tore down churches and turned others into public rest rooms. Today the country is in need of rebirth as desperation, alcoholism and suicide are all out of control. May the Lord have mercy on Russia and indeed help “the Russians find the pearl that was viciously taken from them”.

The Emerging Church

An interesting movement lately is the Emerging Church. My initial reaction was resistance. But then, the "Emerging Church" is merely the church of my generation, so to be totally resistant to it is merely to be resistant to my generation. In "They like Jesus, But not the Church" Dan Kimball, in trying to target 20-somethings, noticed the number one question was not "what denomination are you?" but "what are you doing for the poor?" We like our minimall churches, our "blessings of wealth" but do not realize a rich church does not look like Christ. If the body of Christ does not look like Christ, why would or should anyone be attracted to the church?

If you only knew of the church by Jerry Falwell calling the Teletubees gay, or Pat Robertson lusting for judgment of homsexuality in Florida by huricanes, or James Dobson calling Spunge-Bob gay (interesting pattern here), would you see the Christ with the woman at the well, or the Pharisees ready to stone a similar woman caught in adultry? Would we "marvel" that Christ would dare speak and love a homosexual?

Some interesting resources for keeping an orthodox theology, but a liberal orthopraxy in the Emerging church (just click the underlined links):

Dallas Theological's audio discussion on the Emerging Church. (starts with part 3, click part 1 on the right)

Relevant Magazine (yeah, I hate the name too, but great magazine)

Dan Kimball's "They Like Jesus, But not the Church"

Mark Driscoll's "Confessions of a Reformissional Rev."

Don Miller's "Blue Like Jazz"
(not explicitly Emerging, but a good intro to narrative thoughts of Christ, rather than purely systematic)

Obama and "Christian politics"

There are many items that makes Obama appealing as a candidate. He professes Christ and has some great Biblical imagry in his speeches. He reminds Christians of the terrible state of Republicans on social justice issues and global poverty (or at least of conservative loud mouths like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage).

Yet, he places himself on dubious ground in his response to the ban on partial birth abortion. One thinks of Wilberforce needing to bring MPs on board slave ships to convince them of the extent of the evil of the slave trade. Are detailed discriptions needed? With a "life of the mother" exemption, isn't this an area where reasonable people can agree?

What a wonderful dialog that could take place about social justice and Bonhoeffer's ethics. But as Bonhoeffer had that one issue of the "Jewish Problem," so are we saddled with the issue of abortion. When will the Democratic party listen to moderation? Don't they know they would easily gain millions of evangelical supporters with merely a more moderate position?

I just viewed a superb movie called "Into Great Silence." The film maker spent 6 months filming the lives of the monks of Grande Chartreuse in the French Alps. The film first makes you restless with the silence of the monastery. Then, you find the rest of the world to be too noisy, and the aesthetic life of the monks engulf you. Everything is done slowly. Everything gains new beauty. You begin to realize; God is not experienced most in the greatest of things, but as 1 Kings 19:11-13 says:

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Legalism is Easier than Liberty

(Derek Webb - "A New Law" video above)

I once was afraid of Grace. "What will people do with it?" Legalism is just easier, so we preach that instead. Moderation? Christian Liberty? No, Pharisee-ism is easier to explain. Just follow the letter, not the Spirit.

Christ and Homosexuals

Some homosexuals organized a gathering outside a Southern Baptist seminary to protest their stance on homosexuality. Then the seminary students did what they should do: they handed out water to the protesters. Maybe Southern Baptists are taught the love of Jesus...

Fruit Inspections

So many things to have fun with in this article! So Fred Thompson is bad, Newt (On my third wife) Gingrich is the real thing? And his organization is called "Focus on the Family"? I just think it is weird to say Newt says the right things (may not live it) and Fred does not say the right things, therefore... Newt is true Blue and Fred is not. I also have to reject the premise that we need a "evangelical" Christian as the litmus test for President.

"I would rather be ruled by a just Turk then an unjust Christian" - Martin Luther

Gospel and Robes

I attended a mid-day mass in Dallas at an Anglican Church on the invite of a friend. Ministers in robes who actually preach the gospel...different. The church has such a rich history of great christians such as Cramner, Wesley, Whitefield, Wilberforce, John Newton, Charles Simeon, C.S. Lewis, J.I. Packer, and Alister McGrath. Seems the Dallas diocese is one of the most conservative in the country.The Anglican church will gather in 2008 in England to (hopefully) address the ordination of homosexuals by the more liberal wings in America. If the more liberal wings are expelled, the Anglican church might revert to being a great conservative semi-evangelical church again. A hopeful prospect.

Wrongful Life?

A woman is suing after a failed abortion resulted in birth. How sick is our culture when someone's life necessitates compensation?

When asked to give a lecture at Harvard comparing the poverty of India and the wealth of the United States, Mother Teresa flipped the labels. India, she said, is rich with spiritual hunger and culture. The United States is impoverished: only a poverty of soul would kill the unborn for convenience.

Presuming on Grace from a Holy God

Sproul's sermon here is one of the most moving I have heard. In one sermon, Sproul puts the entire Old Testament "Angry" God in perspective. How often we confuse grace and justice. At times, God gives us justice and we cry out for "fairness" and justice, when we really are angry God gave us justice when we wanted grace. "I have mercy on whomever I will have mercy"

click on listen and you can download the mp3.

In What Sense God is Ineffable.

While teaching on St. Augustine in adult Sunday School I had the class read and discuss this passage from St. Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine". How often do we think about what leap it is for God to accept our praise as he is truly unspeakable? And for that matter who even writes about stuff like this anymore? IT got some great discussion going. The class seemed to really enjoy it. See for yourself;

Chapter 6.—In What Sense God is Ineffable.
6. Have I spoken of God, or uttered His praise, in any worthy way? Nay, I feel that I have done nothing more than desire to speak; and if I have said anything, it is not what I desired to say. How do I know this, except from the fact that God is unspeakable? But what I have said, if it had been unspeakable, could not have been spoken. And so God is not even to be called “unspeakable,” because to say even this is to speak of Him. Thus there arises a curious contradiction of words, because if the unspeakable is what cannot be spoken of, it is not unspeakable if it can be called unspeakable. And this opposition of words is rather to be avoided by silence than to be explained away by speech. And yet God, although nothing worthy of His greatness can be said of Him, has condescended to accept the worship of men’s mouths, and has desired us through the medium of our own words to rejoice in His praise. For on this principle it is that He is called Deus (God). For the sound of those two syllables in itself conveys no true knowledge of His nature; but yet all who know the Latin tongue are led, when that sound reaches their ears, to think of a nature supreme in excellence and eternal in existence.

The Lost World

The term unevangelized here means: has never had exposure to the gospel.

The Decline of Dispensationalism?

Is Dispensationalism in Decline? Or dead as some less objective commentators might suggest? I was surprised that the purported academic center of dispensationism is actually not as big on it as it used to be. On a recent CNN special, DTS was shown as such, though more moderate than more fanatical adherents on TV like John Hagee. But one student said most students on campus wouldn't be able to define dispensationalism. Thoughts?

DTS

I'm off to Dallas Theological. Thought it had a nice list of alumni:
Andy Stanley
Tony Evans
Chuck Swindoll
J Vernon McGee

Maybe I can just be smart by association...