Pastor-in-Chief?

For consideration:

Huckabee's pleas for church support are disturbing me. I do not mind if a politician wishes to share his religious background, but according to multiple news stories, Huckabee has been preaching sermons in churches as part of his campaign. (See here, here, and in my backyard here)

I was reminded of the story of King Uzziah, who went to perform the tasks of the temple. That is until the priests...

...withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the LORD God.” Then Uzziah became furious; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense. And while he was angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead, before the priests in the house
of the LORD, beside the incense altar. (2 Chron 26:18-19)

I was looking through my Westminster Confession and found this section illuminating as well:

It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto...[but]...Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments.

When I hear politicians are giving sermons, I begin to think this line has been crossed. It is compromising to the church and a temptation for manipulation by the government. It is this humble blogger's opinion that Huckabee needs to choose: pastor, or President. He is not allowed to be both.

Quote of the Week: The centrality of Christ

A full week of having no assignments has allowed me to turn my studies to my own pet interests. So this week, I began my journey through the 5 volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan's History of Doctrine starting with: "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-600 a.d."

Within the first few hundred years, one sees the unity of the church on several issues of interpretation, especially as all sorts of heresy develop. One of the greatest points of early orthodoxy was the centrality of Christ in all areas of theology. Here is an example when Pelikan addresses the issue of Scripture:

"'Word of God' was, of course, one of the most important technical terms for Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father; and when 'the gospel' or 'Scripture' was equated with the 'word of God,' the presence of Christ in this means of grace was seen as in some way analogous to his presence in the
flesh...Christ was the preaching of God." (pg 161)

In reaction to liberalism that questioned the accuracy of the Bible, some have placed the Bible as the foundation to the Christian faith. However, we find when looking at the early Church that their foundation was Christ and the Scriptures depended on Him, led to Him and were His words. The primary doctrine of the Early Church was the inerrancy of Christ that made the Scriptures valid, not the inerrancy of Scriptures that made Christ valid.

The close relationship of Scripture and Christ may make distinctions of which one claims primacy seem technical (if both are inerrant, why quible?). But I have come to the conviction that it is important. We read in Luke 2, Simeon declares about Christ:

“Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

Then we read Hebrews 4:12 -

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Have we allowed the "Word of God" merely to mean God's commands or instructions in a book? Or does "Word of God" mean a Person who pierces us to our soul and look for this Person in our Scriptures. Muslims believe in the Word of God as revealed writings, but we are Christians and we believe in the Word of God made flesh. This does not lessen our view of Scripture, instead the Scriptures gain more power when we realize that in reading them, we are not ruled by a book, but by the Lord Christ that book reveals and Whose words they are.

On my desk sits the image to the left. It is a picture of Christ holding the Scriptures. The Greek reads: "The Light-Giver." The picture reminds me of my favorite part of the DTS doctrinal statement:

"We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him."

Of Such is the Kingdom of God

Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17)

Our 20+ pastor penned a sublime entry after his daughter went home. I encourage you all to go read it.

Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming

As we near Christmas, I thought I would share another of my favorite Christmas songs. The song does a great job balancing two elements that modern hymns/praise music does not: theology and sentiment. The image of the Rose is romantic, but the truth of the promise of Christ and His Deity come through perfectly.


Click play here to hear a version of it and the lyrics are below as well


As men of old have sung;
It came, a flow'ret bright,
Amid the cold of winter,
When halfspent was the night.

2. Isaiah 'twas foretold it,
The Rose I have in mind,
With Mary we behold it,
The virgin mother kind;
To show God's love aright,
She bore to us a Savior,
When halfspent was the night.

3. O Flower, whose fragrance tender
With sweetness fills the air,
Dispel with glorious splendour
The darkness everywhere;
True man, yet very God,
From Sin and death now save us,
And share our every load.

Low cost grace! [or why I'm glad I'm Protestant]

Get it while it lasts! The Roman Catholic Church, for a limited time, is offering grace in the form of Indulgences again! It's Easy: You do a work and you get grace! Not scriptural you say? Hmm, how to explain this, how about I put as: Make yourself to differ from others and boast in your merit! Still Not scriptural? How about buying and selling in the temple? Oh, that's worse. How about paying for what you get for free...

Donatist?

I am loving Peter Brown's biography of Augustine of Hippo. I am sure I am not qualified to explain who the Donatists were. But in short they were a group that stressed the law and following it by your own free will. They disliked Augustine as a bishop due in no small part to his sinful past. He was not considered by them worthy to be a Bishop. I love a couple of his retorts. First on his own condition he said of them and himself:

"O there are many things in me which they could fasten on: it would thrill them to know about them! Much still happens in My thoughts - fighting against my evil promptings, a day-long tension; the Enemy almost continuously wishing to make me fall.."

Wow and he did not need Dale Carnegie to tell him to be quick to agree. In a sense he is almost saying, Yep I am to sinful to be a Bishop.
But Augustine was not interested in a "pure" church. If the church was to expand it could never be "pure" in the way the Donatists wanted it to be. Augustine rather saw God drawing a people to Himself to make heirs of a property. Here is my favorite:

"The clouds roll with thunder, that the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth: and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak - We are the only Christians!"

Cool! If you think about the vision which is more exciting? A pure and sinless church, or a kingdom on the move? With all the problems of the church how often do we focus simply on purifying it, breaking off into our little, or big, groups and croak "We are the only Christians"? Augustine believed in a sovereign God who was on the move and would pay the frogs no mind as he went about His work of claiming a people to Himself. Praise God!

Hymn of the week: What Child is This?

We all know the song put to the music of Greensleeves "What Child is this?" Perhaps we miss the weighty issue it meditates on: namely that God became a helpless baby, crying and without bladder control totally dependent on a teenage mother. How bizarre a belief we are bound to as Christians that a limitless God took on the confines of time, space and skin. This bloody mess of an infant made the matter it now lives in?

Perhaps we also forget that sweet baby we get warm fuzzies about soon will have his flesh torn by nails as we neglect to sing the second chorus:


Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross he bore for me, for you
Hail, hail, the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

With the happiness of eggnog, lights, trees and presents, we don't like to meditate on metaphysical impossibilites of the incarnation or that the child in our cute manger scene will soon be a bloody mess again. And we should not be sad during Christmas. But it is necessary sometimes to know why Christmas happened, namely that God must come to pay the price only He could pay, but only we were required to pay in a bloody mess.


Verse 1:

What Child is this who, laid to rest
On Mary’s lap is sleeping?
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?

Chorus 1:

This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste, to bring Him laud,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

Verse 2:

Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.


Chorus 2:

Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross he bore for me, for you
Hail, hail, the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

Verse 3:

So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh,
Come peasant, king to own Him;
The King of kings salvation brings,
Let loving hearts enthrone Him.


Chorus 3:

Raise, raise a song on high,
The virgin sings her lullaby.
Joy, joy for Christ is born,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

Which Theologian are you? (post in comments!)

Take this quiz here to find out which Theologian you are most like (according to whomever randomly made up the quiz.) I was most like....Karl Barth. Sadly enough I have yet to read Barth! But his Dogmatics in Outline is on my list of reading over break. Here's the rest of my results:

The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth
93%

Anselm
67%

John Calvin
67%

T.F. Torrance. R.I.P.

The brilliant Reformed theologian and player in the Church of Scotland, T.F. Torrance died yesterday. He was a student of the theology of Karl Barth, and a pioneer in the work of a theology of science. He wrote "The Trinitarian Faith" which I have only glanced through, but should read now that his death sparked my interest and he is officially inducted into the guild of Dead Theologians and the communion of saints. R.I.P.

Quote

"Where does Jesus Christ stand? He stands for me. He stands there in my place, where I should stand, but cannot." -Bonhoeffer

True Teetotaling (link)

Pope says more chanting needed.

I guess this does not bode well for Martin Luther and Issac Watts in the Catholic hymnal. Can you chant "A Mighty Fortress is Our God"? If so I would love to hear it!

Thankful to live in the New Old World

Mark Steyn has a nice piece that goes well with another story I saw here. The way I would paraphrase it is that I am thankful to live in the New Old World. America is of course known as "The New World", and indeed in many ways it still is. But in another way it is the "Old World" Europe that continues to reinvent itself often by mob rule. Meanwhile here in the "New World" we are living under the rule of law with a foundation laid by what is now the world's oldest functioning constitution. Our founders took a decisive stand for the rule of law and against the mob. In so many ways America is the land of tradition and stability. Among many other things, I am thankful to live in one of the last functioning nation states.

Good and Bad Baptists

I wrote in a previous post that a Restorationist/Baptist reading of Church history is wrong. I wanted to clarify that a bit in this informational post. In re-reading that old post, I did not want to paint all Baptists with the same brush. I see two historiographies used by Baptists (and to some measure all Protestants) and only one of them can claim to be orthodox. The first is what I would call Restorationist. You may have heard of "The Trail of Blood." Consult the illustration below.
The graph attempts to claim a lineage with a collection of heretical groups (such as Montanists) who were persecuted and claims they were the true church stretching back to Christ himself. The church is seen, then, dying and resurrecting every few years with a very few number in the true church, but most lead astray by Catholics and Protestants (These Restorationists would reject the label Protestant.)

The second historiography claims common lineage with other Protestants, and, before 1517, the pre-Council of Trent Catholic Church. These Baptists tend to be Reformed Baptists, claiming a heritage in Zwingli's Reformation in Zurich, and thus claiming to be "Reformed totally", rather than keeping infant baptism and a few other Reformed distinctives.
All this to say, a historiography that claims commonality with the Reformed movement and other orthodox Christians through the centuries should be the accepted orthodox view. To claim otherwise is dangerous as

1) It disbelieves Christ's claim to be with the church in all ages. (Matt 28:20)

2) It associates with heretical groups that may even be anti-Christian (i.e. not orthodox on the Trinity, diety of Christ and more important issues than if they dunked infants)

3) It separates from other true Christians in a claim on orthodoxy that is based on a particular doctrine of baptism, rather than on the person and work of Christ, something I think is important. Not that other doctrines are not important, but they are not the grounds for orthodoxy and common cause in the gospel.

That's just my two cents.

White Horse Inn talks Rome

It does not make for good blogging if I am sick of controversy and even more sick of my own opinions. I really do not want to hear what I have to say on much right now. But I will say a few things and pass along this good White Horse Inn broadcast. Not surprisingly I could not relate to Robert Sungenis at all and felt no kindred spirit with him what so ever. As for Mark Noll at the end, I had sympathy for his position but do not endorse it. Certainly if he wants to say the Reformation is over because Protestants no longer believe it I can not argue with that at all. Sadly it seems to very much be the case. I did wonder if the same Augustinian Catholics that Noll seems to like so much are the same ones Sungenis would call liberals who are daring to read the Bible for themselves, consult Protestant viewpoints, and pursue ecumenical dialog. hmmm... Yeah I would probably dig them too. This is a very respectful interview by Mike Horton.

Greatest Song Ever

HT: to Gunny

McGrath's Dangerous Idea?

Alister McGrath's new book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" on the Reformation has been getting some positive buzz lately (here and here). After listening to a recent interview with McGrath (mp3) McGrath repeats something I first heard him say on a documentary on Luther. McGrath summarizes the "Dangerous Idea" as this: The Reformation was about the right of every individual to interpret the Bible for themselves. Now McGrath is 1000 times smarter than me and has been a Luther scholar for longer than I have been alive, but that summary bothers me. Wouldn't that make Luther the father of Liberalism that says "it is all about what it means to you, rather than an objective meaning."

Paul Althaus, a Lutheran scholar, said: “Luther never understands the priesthood of all believers merely in the sense of the Christian's freedom to stand in a direct relationship to God without a human mediator. Rather he constantly emphasizes the Christian's evangelical authority to come before God on behalf of the brethren and also of the world. The universal priesthood expresses not religious individualism but its exact opposite, the reality of the congregation as a community.”

Has anyone read the book yet? Am I getting the wrong conclusion from McGrath? Or is he right about Luther's individualism?

[I've loved McGrath's contributions to a theology of science and spirituality, where evangelicals are lacking, which is why he is distressing me here!]

The Christian and War

Over this Veterans Day weekend, our thoughts and prayers are with those serving in the Armed Forces. Below is a message I heard in chapel that I think explores the hard decision to use violence, and how sometimes, in some circumstances, a Christian is compelled to use physical force to restrain evil people and protect the innocent (audio / video):

Good quote

Christianity Today's blog ran a great quote from a pastor I sometimes listen to on itunes sermon podcast:

"I guarantee there isn't a homeless person in Portland who couldn't tell you the gospel verbatim. They've had to listen to it three times a day to get a sandwich. They've heard about Christ, but they haven't seen Christ. Who will sit next to them while they panhandle, who will enter their world? I've had friends doing that for 15 years. That is seeing the gospel."

-Rick McKinley serves as pastor of the Imago Dei Community in Portland, Oregon.

The quote hit me, because I have given a sandwich and a little "shout out" to God and thought I was doing a great deed. But on the challenge to do more and say less (or just do more to communicate Christ than words), sadly, the comments from readers tended to be about how many homeless people often are responsible for their situation and do not use the help they get properly. But here's a thought to play with: what if helping the poor wasn't all about "results"? Ever notice that Christ told us that we will always have the poor with us? My wife could share how about how many people played the system at the homeless shelter where she worked. The percentage of people who eventually became self-sustaining was low. So if Christ goes on to tell us to feed the hungry, what was the point?

Perhaps, we are supposed to learn the Godlike character trait of "wasting grace." Phillip Yancey wrote about how we are angered when God wastes His grace on the undeserving, not realizing that we ourselves are undeserving. So perhaps becoming more like Christ involves giving an ear and some food to people who very well may use it and "waste" it. If we have wasted God's grace so many times by repeating sin, by not actively pursuing good deeds, perhaps we should learn the joy of giving grace while getting nothing in return, which we forget IS grace.

But enough of that, I'm supposed to be doing important things like studying Greek...

Hymn/Verse of the Week: The Hound of Heaven

G.K. Chesterton called it the greatest poem in modern English. If it could be, I think that is an understatement. In its entirety, it contains all of my attraction to the doctrines of grace. I fled the Hound of Heaven, and grace is a story of His pursuit of me, while I ran and hid from Him. Jonathan Edwards could have written it, but just read it first before you worry about who Francis Thompson is. To aid in reading I found a version that gives helps in archaic words if you move your cursor over it, God’s words are in bold (if you want the point of it, you can skip down to the line "and human love" at the last section:


The Hound of Heaven

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.)
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to:
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars:
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.

I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover—
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:—
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—
“Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.”

I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.

“Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share
With me” (said I) “your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine you with caresses,
Wantoning
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured dais,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.”
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one—
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spuméd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak—
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noised Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet—
“Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me.”

Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist.
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must—
Designer infinite!—
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou can’st limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpséd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?
Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
“And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught” (He said),

“And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”