Stupid Scholar

Book of Common Prayer: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

2010-07-26T17:29:00.021-04:00

Image by Rich Renomeron

I recently asked an Episcopalian friend of mine what exactly Anglican theology is. This question is significantly different than asking, say, what Presbyterian or Catholic theology is, because Anglicans are not confessional [1]. My friend could not just hand me a book or pamphlet with a list of doctrines, like a Presbyterian, Catholic, or even some Baptist groups could have. Anglicans have no equivalent to the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, they are creedal; they adhere to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. But how do they understand the creeds?

My friend's answer to my question was that if I wanted to know what Anglicans believe, read the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). This intrigues me for at least two reasons. One, the theology is far more implicit than explicit. It is somewhat difficult to nail down. Indeed, I posit that this may be what has led to some of the vast differences in the Anglican Communion. Two, all Anglican theology is directly intertwined into the prayers and worship of the Anglican Christians. This is not necessarily so with Christian denominations (see below).

Thus, Anglican theology is a modern-day example of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, the law of prayer is the law of belief. This is exactly what my friend's answer to me means. The prayers that were picked to go into the BCP were picked because they reflect what the bishops and authors intended to teach. The prayers and rubrics are the theology. The same is typically true with all liturgies.

Image by D. G. Butcher

The same is not necessarily true with most extemporaneous prayers. Generally, people who pray - whether pastors, laymen, or worship leaders - do not explicitly think, "OK, I believe 'x', therefore I will pray such-and-such." Instead, extemporaneous prayers arise out of the current needs and situations, the feelings of the one praying, and the purpose of the prayer (confession, requests, praise, etc.). Indeed, it is not unheard of for someone praying in an extemporaneous way to make a minor theological "blunder." By "blunder," I mean a statement or request that is technically out of accord with the official beliefs of one's church or confession. Oftentimes, these are nit-picky, but they do happen. In fact, one of my former elders has pointed out some of my blunders in the past.

This is not to say that extemporaneous prayers do not follow Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Indeed, if you want to find out what a person really believes about God's sovereignty, the nature of sin, the abilities of man, and so forth, pay attention to his or her prayers over the course of time. One's prayers say a lot about one's theology and theological priorities. In fact, The Lord's Prayer tells us a lot about Jesus' theology and priorities, but that's a subject for another time.

My point here is that extemporaneous prayers rarely give us an accurate picture of what one's church or denomination believes, whereas the BCP and all other liturgies do just that [2]. By studying what is said, theorizing what could have been said instead, and examining the order in which these things are said, one can get a good idea about the Anglican Church "officially" believes, despite the incredible variety and multifaceted beliefs held within Canterbury's walls.

In light of all this, as I start blogging yet once again, I want to begin to examine the BCP and write a detailed commentary on the BCP [3]. I hope over the course of time to write a rather comprehensive and "systematic" treatise on Anglican theology. Lord willing, it will help me and others understand exactly what the Anglican Communion does and ought to believe by their own standards. I think this should be interesting; I hope you do too.

Notes

1.Technically, I suppose that Catholics aren't confessional either. However, their extensive CCC functions more-or-less as just a very large confession. If you want to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches, that is the place to go.

2.This does not imply that everyone who uses a liturgical prayer means what the BCP authors intended. One can certainly mouth the words without understanding or intending the meaning of the prayer.

3. I will be using the 1979 edition published by The Church Hymnal Corporation in New York. You can get one here.

Jason Engwar on Free Time

2008-08-26T13:29:00.002-04:00

Jason Engwar has a really interesting article on Free Time. It's not very long; I suggest reading it in full.

I know that I feel as if I never have any free time, but to be honest, I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that I have more than I think I do. I blog, read, watch TV, play with my friends 2 sons, hang out with my wife, and talk to friends on a regular basis.

Let me suggest that you keep a time diary, like John Stossel, quoted in the article extensively, suggests. Try it for a week. Make sure to note, every break from "work" you take, even if just for 5 or 10 mins.

Then, let me know your results. I would be quite curious, indeed.

Engwar is right that how we spend our time is important to God. He gives many directives about time, and there is a lot in the Proverbs about diligence, laziness, and the wise use of our days.

A good, although far too introspective (read: convicting) for my tastes, question is, "Do I honor God with me time during the day?"

As an aid to answering that question, let me pose three more:
1. Do I do more for other people than I do for myself?
2. Do I finish my obligations to family, work, and others, before extended breaks?
3. Do I leave adequate time - free or otherwise - for reflection on God, life, and the future?

Well, now that I've spent all my free time for the day writing this, perhaps I should get back to work... doh!

A Response to Michael Spencer Concerning Christian Art

2008-08-24T17:12:00.012-04:00

Michael Spencer has recently written a post concerning Christian art. It's worth taking a look at.

In short, he's tired of images of Jesus, which portray Him as peaceful, comforting, and always ready to meet your needs. He likens it to a cross between Thomas Kincaid and Precious Moments, and he even calls it "Mountain Dew" spirituality. Hehe. I kinda like that.

Thus, he's decorating his classroom with more images of Christ on the cross. That way, he can preach Christ and him crucified. A noble intent, indeed! He summarizes:

I intend to make the point that this is what God is like. Not some trite admonition to smile and have a nice day, but the suffering of Jesus at the hands of religious and political thugs in a world that is broken, bleeding and full of constant contradiction and despair.

I think Spencer raises a great point! Too often we make our Christianity and our God too soft and cheerful. The concepts of God as King, Judge, or even Boss are far removed from our everyday thinking. I think this has turned many people away from Christianity. Why follow a God who is designed to serve us and brighten our day? Seems rather self-centered and pointless to me.

Thus, I think Spencer is bang on, when he says: A Jesus shaped faith values Jesus and his kingdom in all his different manifestations and accomplishments for us, but it remembers that the REASON the kingdom of God can come into one life or into all of history is because of the cross (emphasis added).

The problem is, however, that pictures of Christ solely on the cross don't tell the whole picture either. This is the biggest problem of Christian art, in general. Photographs and portraits can't grasp the essence of what it means to be human, or even the full the experience of a single human event, no matter how mundane.

How then can an image of Christ capture the essence of Divinity, or even the meaning and emotion of something as graphic, horrendous, and important as the Crucifixion?

This is one of the reasons that the Reformers rejected icons and statues. By attempting to capture divinity with a man-made representation, we inevitably lose divinity in the process. God and His works can't be reduced into something man can understand, let alone replicate.

Thus, replacing pictures that reduce Christianity to "Happy-clappy Christianity of moralism, political rhetoric and cultural conformity," with pictures only of the Crucifixion, doesn't solve the problem. It simply substitutes one form of incomplete Christianity with another.

Indeed, the cross is not the whole story, which Rev. Spencer seems to understand. He wants to use pictures that retell the same story that the Bible tells. Good motivation.

However, the Bible's story includes God's Creation, expulsion of Adam and Eve, judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah, deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, long suffering with the kings of Israel, resurrection of Lazarus, the final judgment, and eternal life in paradise. Why no pictures of these mighty works of God or even an attempt to include some?

Also, why no pictures of Christ as the Good Shepherd, Prince of Peace, or our closest friend? While these may be overemphasized in our culture, they are still part of the story that the Bible tells. That is our God, as much as the crucified Jesus is.

Therefore, while we need to recover an understanding of the horrific and gruesome aspects of Christ's suffering, I suggest that we should neither forget nor abandon our understanding of Christ as gentle, merciful, and compassionate. He is not just those things, as our modern Christianity sometimes suggests, but He is those things, nonetheless.

Thus, a full orbed understanding of our God needs to save room for the happy-clappy, joyous, exciting aspects of God's work throughout history, as much as it needs to rediscover room for the convicting, sorrowful, introspective aspects. This is our God. There is none else. There is certainly more than one facet on this heavenly Gem.

I hope that Rev. Spencer doesn't substitute one unbalanced, incomplete concept of God for another. I know that is NOT his intention, but it may be an inadvertent consequence of his well intended decorations.

All images courtesy of Morguefile.com.

Pat Condell on Scripture

2008-08-21T20:03:00.003-04:00

Christians, this is what many people think of you, your God, and your Bible. How do you respond?

Clearly, I disagree with Mr. Condell's position, but I truly think it worthwhile to listen to, understand, and interact with such views.

I'd be interested in any of your input, so drop me a comment.

"We Still Pray!"

2008-08-18T19:46:00.000-04:00

Today, on my drive back up to MD from NC, I noticed a bumper sticker that read, "We Still Pray."

This is a very encouraging bumper sticker, since there appear to be fewer and fewer people standing up for Christian principles nowadays. Actually, I guess these people may not have been Christians necessarily, but I assume that if they had been Muslim or Jewish, there would have been something to distinguish the sticker as such.

Nevertheless, it is good to see "emblems" of Christianity every now and again. Knowing that people are praying for their families, churches, friends, and even their country, is a good thing. In fact, if these folks are truly faithful in their prayers for this country, then they are de facto praying for me! For that, I am truly thankful.

However - and there is always a "However" isn't there - I really wonder if such a display of one's religious piety ruins the point. It's like the Kindergartner who received a sticker for humility on Monday but had it taken away when he wore it on Tuesday. In showcasing our "holiness", don't we lose, or at least diminish, that holiness?

Indeed, Jesus warns against broadcasting our "humble" devotion to God. In Matthew 6:1, our Lord says, "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven" (ESV). He then discusses how the hypocrites, while faithful to give to the poor, to fast, and to pray, miss the mark by proving their holiness.

Instead of such arrogant displays, Christ calls us to give, pray, and fast, in secret, so that God, the One we should aim to please, would be the only one to witness our righteous deeds.

Perhaps you could argue that the persons who put that bumper sticker on their car were not trying to garner the attention of others. Christians carry Bibles that can be seen by others, and many of us wear crosses, crucifixes, fish, or other Christian symbols. What's the difference?

Well, necklaces are personal reminders of our God, our place in the universe, and the work of Christ. Most Christians I know wear their crosses under their shirts, and if someone else were to see it, well then that person is simply staring a bit too closely.

Bumper stickers, on the other hand, are designed to be seen, noticed, and read, by other people. That's the point! You don't put something on the outside of your car so you can admire it while you drive. You put it there so that others will admire it.

In fact, I'd suggest that these particular people put the sticker on their car for one of two reaons, and perhaps both.
a. To win the praise of fellow believers.
b. To antagonize unbelievers.

Umm... That doesn't sound too holy to me.

Rather than displaying a sign telling me that these folks pray, I'd prefer them to just pray. I don't need to know that they pray, and neither do other people. We need them to pray. We need them to give their time, money, and energy to the poor and hurting. We need them to fast and worship the One True God.

In other words, we need these folks, as well as ourselves and others, to do exactly what our blessed Savior commands: to practice our righteousness in secret. Notice, too, the result: "Your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6:4).

To me, that sounds much better than the praise of men or antagonism...

Anglican Division Problems Continue

2008-07-29T08:31:00.004-04:00

I haven't been able to follow the Lambeth Conference like I wanted, and their website is terrible for giving news. However, I have heard that a new proposal has been given that suggests several things:

1. All homosexual marriages cease.
2. Ordination of homosexual and women bishops cease.
3. Clergy return to their proper, geographic diocese.

On paper this looks great. Liberal practices would be curbed, while conservative schismatics would be forced to reunite, as it were.

However, Fr. Dwight Longenecker has given a great commentary on the problems this will face and why in the long run it is just a farce. Check it out here.

In the end, I fail to see how the Anglican Communion will continue to stay unified. I am still convinced that within the next 2-3 years at the latest, we will see the Anglican Church cease to exist in the form we know it today.

Don't forget to pray.

Rt. Rev. Michael Curry on Evangelism

2008-07-26T02:47:00.003-04:00

I don't much (or anything really) about Bishop Michael Curry. He might be solid or not; I don't know, but this is good. This was from Tuesday's press conference at the Lambeth Conference. I only wish all church leaders and laymen, including myself, were this passionate about Evangelism.

Anne, thanks for sending me this link. I really appreciate it.

Christ Our Comfort

2008-07-25T03:30:00.001-04:00

Having counseled folks in the past, whether as a youth director or just as a friend, I've heard a lot of people say things like, "I'd talk to so-and-so, but they just can't relate to me. They don't understand." This is oftentimes followed up with, "I want to talk to someone who won't judge me."

People deal with significant problems, frequently incredibly embarrassing and shameful, almost every day. Sometimes these problems are habitual, and people wish to stop. They need help, and they want the best they can find. Others are simply unsure whether or not action, 'x' is wrong. It might be somewhat socially taboo, but they know that doesn't make it "wrong." They too want help.

Thus, they seek out people who will relate to them without judging them. This makes a lot of sense. When we need help, we want to find a friend, parent, pastor, counselor, who can understand what we're dealing with - emotionally, mentally, physically, even spiritually and socially - without gossiping about us, ostracizing us, or holding our mistakes against us.

However, I've seen problems in the way many people define "relate" and "judge." Many people, when they say, "I need someone who can relate to my situation," mean, "I want someone who has done that, is doing it, or has come really close." In other words, they want someone who has failed or is failing in just the same way. They want a peer, not a superior.

Furthermore, in saying, "I don't want to be judged," people tend to mean, "I don't want to be told I'm wrong, or at the most, I want the news sugarcoated." They want whatever the incident is to be defined more as an inconvenience or shortcoming, rather than a wrongdoing or -gasp! - sin.

These poor definitions seem to have two flawed presuppositions underlining them. First is the assumption that a "superior" (i.e. one who has not succumbed to the same problem) cannot "relate" to me. While not everyone struggles and fails in the same way, we are "all made of the same dirt," as my mother is keen to say. I do not hold a monopoly on problems, failures, or even sins. While my experience will inevitably be different from whoever I seek for counsel, it will not be entirely foreign to them.

Plus, "perfection" by no means implies inability to relate, either. I will show you what I mean in a minute.

The second presupposition is that we tend to assume that overall, what we do is OK. We have an amazing ability to justify our own failures that we would quickly condemn in others. Thus, when someone tells us that we are wrong in doing something, this cuts to our soul. It rattles our very worldview and self-understanding. This causes us to throw around the term, "Judging," where it does not apply at all. It is not judgmental to say that, 'x', is wrong. It is judgmental to say that you ought to be ostracized, flogged, or immediately condemned to Hell, because you have done, 'x.'

The biggest problem with all of this, however, is what these presuppositions say about Christ. Jesus our Lord is the ultimate counselor and comforter, and He often brings us peace and hope through the Counselor Himself, the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 4:5 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses." In other words, Jesus can relate to us. Notice the end of the verse, however. "... but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

Thus, Jesus is the ultimate counselor, but He is also the ultimate superior. Jesus has not been there, done that. However, He has been tempted. He understands our trials and struggles, but He has never succumbed to sin. Therefore, the best counselor and helper of all time, is also one who has never failed in the ways we do. If we think that we can only be helped by those who have walked in our shoes, then will we even go to Christ for help?

Furthermore, Jesus is the Judge (James 5:9). As the Creed says, "He [Jesus] sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick [living] and the dead." Not only does He have the right to say that action, 'x', is wrong, He has the authority to condemn us or pardon us. In fact, He has been very clear about many actions, thoughts, motives, and even feelings, being wrong and sinful, and one day, He will separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).

The point of all this is to show that Divine Counselor and Helper is the complete opposite of what we seem to ask for, when we seek counsel. If we only look for someone who has walked in our shoes or who will not say we're wrong, then will we ever go to Jesus at all? Christ hasn't sinned like we have, and He will never excuse our sinful behavior.

And yet, He is the only one who can give us true peace (Philippians 4:6-7), deliverance and forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

How intriguing and counterintuitive!

I think this is worth pondering next time we need help. We need more than what we think. Praise the Lord that He was the wonderful tendency to give us more than what we ask for!

Choosing a New Church

2008-07-22T13:05:00.004-04:00

In just a month's time, I'll need to begin looking for a new church for my family. This isn't because we're disillusioned with the church we're in now; we actually quite like where we are now. Rather, it's because we'll be moving back to the States, Washington, D.C., to be exact.

This has caused me to wonder how we'll go about picking a new church in which to worship. I find myself divided amongst myself. What criteria will we use? The division manifests itself on two fronts:

First, is the theological/philosophical level. This is by far most important. I refuse to take my family to worship in a church that plays down the importance of the Bible or key Christian concepts. Furthermore, I will want to make sure that the pastor/priest/minister/elders uphold traditional doctrines, and key Reformed tenants. Plus, it is very important to me to proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ on weekly basis through the Sacrament. These things are of primary importance.

Second, is the practical level. I tend to ignore this facet, but it cannot be poo-poo'ed. I recognize that things like small groups, Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc. are not Scriptural, i.e. they are not mentioned in the Bible. Thus, they cannot be ultimate criteria for determining where to worship. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine away the fact that these things can be very spiritually beneficial, and they will certainly become incredibly important once we have kids. Plus, they mean a lot to my bride.

Hence the dilemma. What will I do, if I find a church that offers great ministries, but is soft on doctrine? What will I do, if I find a church that celebrates the Sacrament weekly, but has no opportunity for us to serve or grow outside of Sunday? Tough questions, these.

I think about what it would have been like for someone in the 6th century, who would have been in my position. How would Joe Christian have picked a church, if he had moved to a new country? My guess, is that he'd just go to the one that was there, or at least the closest.

Indeed, even within the past 100 years, the parish system was still thriving, but that implied great denominational loyalty; you would have simply joined the closest Anglican, Presbyterian, or Methodist parish, whichever denomination you belonged to.

But such loyalty is long gone. Indeed, even I don't consider myself closely linked with any one particular Protestant sect. I'm probably too "Catholic" for the PCA, but too "conservative" for Anglicanism. I'm certainly not Baptist or Methodist. What about Lutheranism? Perhaps, but their Law/Gospel difference and stance on Predestination are concerning. Pentecostal? Not unless I have a vision. Catholic? Not really ready to take a swim yet.

So please be praying for me and my family. I'm honestly not sure what to do here. This decision is incredibly important. While I understand that there is no "perfect" church, I do not wish to settle. My soul, as well as my wife's and future children, will be affected by this decision. I don't take that lightly.

Also, please feel free to give whatever feedback you might have. What do you do? How would you decide? What do you see as most important? Any suggestions/criticisms are more than welcome here. Thanks!

Does the PCA Believe that Baptism is Necessary for Salvation?

2008-07-08T13:10:00.004-04:00

For my Reformed readers, this may seem like an absolutely bizarre question. However, it has developed out of a fascinating and enjoyable conversation I've been having with Oso Famoso and Peter Sean Bradley, here. In light of this, Oso posted a new article here. Both interesting reads. Make sure to check out the comments to the first one. I really appreciate the way these two have treated me with respect. I'm clearly the one that doesn't belong there, but I'm treated as if I do.

So anyways, Oso, following Peter, cites two sections out of the Westminster Confession of Faith (henceforth, "WCF"). I reprint them below with Oso's emphasis included.

First, on the Visible Church:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Chapter 25, Paragraph 2)

Second, on Baptism:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. (Chapter 28, Paragraph 1)

Oso then asks: If being in the visible Church is necessary for salvation and baptism brings one into the visible Church isn't it the case that the WCOF is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation and thus...gulp...a "work" is necessary for salvation?

Peter also connects this with the Catholic notion of extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (outside the church, there is no salvation).

These are great questions that come out of a desire to understand what the PCA believes. I appreciate the fact that neither Oso nor Peter accused the PCA of anything here. Rather, they questioned whether or not they were reading things correctly.

So let us address the issue at hand. There are several things to be said here. I'll first address Oso's question.

First, the WCF does not say that membership in the visible church is necessary for salvation. Rather, it says that there is no other ordinary possibility of salvation. What this means is that the vast majority of truly saved believers are members of the visible church. It is very difficult for us to imagine a group of saved believers who shun Christ's Body and do not put themselves in submission of church leadership. This is the general, usual, and ordinary rule.

However, we, as Reformed Christians, are aware that there are exceptions to the rule. The thief on the cross beside Christ is the cliched example. Others who convert, but don't have an official, established church nearby (for instance, in foreign lands, where a Christian Church has not yet been planted) are other exceptions. Perhaps new Christians who die before the day of their baptism are yet more exceptions. The important thing to realize is that these are exceptions, not the rule.

Second, this means that Baptism cannot be required for salvation either. Yes, Baptism is required to be a member of the visible church, but as we have shown, being a member of the visible church is not required to go Heaven. There are exceptions here too.

Still, like with church membership, the ordinary process towards Heaven includes Baptism, and it would be very difficult to imagine a true believer refusing to be baptized.

Hence, we would tell "Christians" who refuse to join the visible through Baptism that they should seriously doubt their salvation, for they refuse to adhere to Christ's clear command (Matthew 28:16-20, et al.).

Third, and this is perhaps most important, is that we need to understand the Reformed understanding of the Ordo Salutis, order of salvation. People are not saved because they are Baptized or join churches. Rather, Christians will join churches and seek Baptism, because they are saved. This is why Justification (ch 11) precedes faith (ch 14), good works (ch 16), and the Sacraments (chs 27-29) in the WCF.

The only true requirement of salvation, in the sense that it causes salvation and that salvation is impossible without it, is God's grace. We are saved because God has shown us grace, and if He does not do so, then we are condemned already. This conduit for the grace of justification is faith alone. But as the WCF says, in chapter 11, paragraph 1, "... which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God." Thus, even faith is a grace.

Therefore, I must answer Oso's question in the negative. That Baptism is required for entrance into the visible church, and that being a member of the visible church is the ordinary way towards salvation, does not deny the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide or make salvation dependent upon the "work" of Baptism.

We now turn to Peter's observation that the WCF teaches, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." As we have shown above, church membership is not necessary for salvation, so we have to deny this connection.... at least in part.

As we've stated, we allow for certain exceptions that we listed above (under point 1). However, the Catholic doctrine of extra ecclesiam, nulla salus allows for these as well. In this sense we are in complete agreement with Catholicism here.

The disagreement is how this Catholic doctrine is interpreted and applied. The Reformers vehemently opposed the idea that Church = Catholicism. This is how the phrase has been interpreted by many Catholics, and it is there that we have strict disagreements.

For instance, Pope Pius IX said in an Encyclical dated Aug. 10, 1863 (emphasis added): 7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff... (source)

The PCA denies that the Church of Christ is limited to the Catholic Church, or that salvation comes through Catholicism alone. (Sadly, many within the PCA are convinced that the Church of Christ excludes the Catholic Church.)

Also, the PCA denies that the Church of Christ is limited to the PCA. This is seen in the quote above on the visible church: The visible Church..., consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion. Thus, there is not even a PCA parallel to this doctrine, in this sense.

As an aside, we need to point out that the official position of the Catholic Church does not demand that everyone who is saved be a member of the Catholic Church. This also goes beyond the exceptions I presented above. Members of the PCA can be saved, as can Methodist, etc. I point this out because this is often not understood by many Protestants. See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 836-856, or if you have the time, read Lumen Gentium, a major document from the Second Vatican Council. See especially chapter 2, paragraphs 14-16.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church believes that the reason those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church are saved is because they are in some way connected with the Catholic Church, through Baptism, etc (CCC, 838). Of course, the PCA denies this. We don't see ourselves as a subset of the Catholic Church at all.

Therefore, before I give my answer as to whether or not the PCA teaches, extra ecclesium, nulla salus, I would have to ask Peter what he means by that. There is a good chance that we do hold some overlap with Catholicism here. The disagreements that the Reformers and others have had with this doctrine is when it has been interpreted narrowly to narrow the definition of the "Church."

I think that just about covers everything that needs to be said here. These are good questions, which are important to know and understand well. It is always important for us, as those who are Reformed and always reforming, to make sure that our beliefs are consistent and reasonable. Once again, I want to express my appreciation to Oso and Peter for their thought-provoking and respectful observations, questions, and even criticisms of my home denomination. The peace of Christ be with you!

What is the Gospel?

2008-06-30T04:33:00.003-04:00

"The Gospel is not what makes you feel good, or for that matter, the Gospel is not even what works for you - because there are all kinds of human things that will work for you, if you're thinking in a humanistic way. But the Gospel in a sense isn't you at all, but it is what God did in Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, when he died for your sin. Now, it has bearing on you, but that's the truth, and we have to begin to proclaim that." - Dr. James M. Boice.

I've Been Memed!

2008-06-29T09:16:00.004-04:00

Fred over at One Project Closer has memed me. Unfortunately, Jeremiah continues to demand all my time, so this is all I have time for today. I hope to return to worship, Baptism, theology, etc. very soon. Be praying.

So here we go:

1. What were you doing 10 years ago?
Let's see. This would have been June/July of 1998. So, I would have just finished my first year of my BS in Mathematics at NC State University. I also was ministering for the first time as a youth intern at Sandhills PCA. One of the hardest and best summers of my life. This was the first time I had ever taught a youth group meeting. I believe it was on Acts 6.

2. Five Items on Your To Do List Today.
This is fairly easy and boring:
a. Go to church.
b. Work on my dissertation.
c. Watch the final match of Euro 2008.
d. Finish reading my fun book (The Black Order).
e. Get to bed early enough to be able to work hard tomorrow.

3. Snacks I enjoy.
Since moving to Scotland and being ridiculously poor, I haven't had many snacks. However, I do enjoy:
a. Chips and Salsa.
b. Any kind of nuts.
c. Hobnobs - definitely a biscuit the US needs to import.
d. Popcorn.
e. Cheddar cheese and oatcakes - another necessary import.

4. What would you do if you were a billionaire?
I guess whatever I want :).

My guess is that I'd take my time finishing my degrees, and I'd probably enroll in something else. I'd really like to go to culinary school at some point...

Also, there is no doubt that we would start supporting missionaries. We do what we can now, but we'd love to relieve a lot more burdens. Tithing $100 million I suppose would be a top priority. Wow that's a lot.

I asked my wife what she thought, and she we'd have tons of kids. Yep. That's definitely true. We might even be willing to a buy 1 or 2 of yours! hehehe.

5. Places you would live.
I'd love to move back here to Scotland or move to Mexico for a bit. We've done some missions work done there, and we both love it. Also a stint up in Alaska, Germany, and Russia might be worth a try. Anywhere that isn't too hot or humid is fine with me, and mountains are a welcome site. Of course, we make an exception about the heat with Mexico :)

6. Bloggers I am tagging.
Let's see. I think I'll tag:
a. Mark at Isaiah52.
b. Bethany at t&browe.
c. Belinda at Upsidedown Bee.
d. Lynn at Lynns Musings.

I think that'll do it. Hope to blog on more important things soon. Thanks for your patience.

Philosopher's World Cup

2008-06-25T04:47:00.002-04:00

In light of the recent Euro 2008 football tournament here in, well you guessed it, Europe, my good friend Mike sent me this link. I think I saw this when I was younger, but I got it this go 'round. Brilliant, I say... Just brilliant.

GAFCON Begins in Jerusalem

2008-06-24T02:53:00.003-04:00

Blogging will probably continue to be light this week. Trying to get a draft on the dissertation done, as well as entertain guests and spend time with my bride. Apologies, of course.

At any rate, this is an interesting read. A conservative branch of the Anglican Communion has begun meeting in Jerusalem to try and salvage the worldwide communion. It is called GAFCON - the Global Anglican Future Conference - and for many of the members, this will be part of our their protest/boycott of the Lambeth Conference, the once a decade meeting of all Anglican bishops.

While much of what has motivated this conference is the homosexuality issue, the Most Rev. Peter Jensen says that unity is the goal of the conference. This is good. I'm glad the conservative agenda isn't just to pick up their ball and go home.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that much within the Communion, and with Canterbury, in particular, will need to change. The Most Rev. Henry Orombi of Uganda has listed some of those things, and I think he makes good points and suggests.

The Word of God is being threatened, abused, and ignored by those ordained to proclaim and defend it. Make sure to pray for GAFCON, as it continues to meet throughout the week. For updates and information about GAFCON, click here. I hope to comment more throughout the week, but life will probably get in the way.

Image taken from the GAFCON official website.

Washing and Baptism: Titus 3:5

2008-06-21T07:16:00.000-04:00

Last Saturday, I mentioned that Oso Famoso over at You Are Cephas had asked me about the meaning of Baptism, washing, and regeneration in verses such as John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22. Last time, I looked briefly at Hebrews 10:22. Today, I want to look at Titus 3:5, which will probably be a bit more technical than last time.

This verse in NAB says, "not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit..."

The first thing to note here is the presence of regeneration (παλιγγενεσία, literally, "Birth again"). The Greek here is, διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. The ESV translates the phrase as, "Washing of Regeneration." While this is probably a less intuitive reading, it certainly presents the theological issues here a bit more clearly. Thus, if the bath (λουτροῦ) here refers to Baptism, then we have a clear link to Baptismal Regeneration. The question is, "Does it mean Baptism?"

The entire argument hinges on what the word, λουτροῦ, from the noun, λουτρόν, means and signifies here.

First, let's proceed from a contextual perspective. In the short book of Titus, Paul is writing to Titus, a bishop/pastor in Crete, a very immoral country. Paul instructs Timothy about how he should pastor, minister, and teach. After the greeting (1:1-4), Paul begins by discussing what types of men should be ordained as elders and who should be avoided (1:5-2:1). Next, he gives further instructions about how people are to act in light of the grace and salvation of God (2:2-15). He then emphasizes how as heirs, based upon the work of Christ, we are to treat each other (3:1-11). He wraps up with brief instructions and another blessing (3:12-15).

The letter emphasizes three things over and over. (1) Salvation has come through God's grace, not our own works. (2) Titus and the elders must teach what is good, sound, and true. (3) Everyone is to behave in a way commensurate with the Gospel, i.e. the work God has done.

In the immediate context surrounding Titus 3:5, Paul begins with several practical, relational exhortations - be submissive and obedient, act peacefully and gently, show courtesy to everyone, etc. He then gives reasons why (note the γάρ, "for" at the beginning of v. 3) the people are to do this. In particular, we were once foolish, disobedient slaves, but now, God's kindness and generous love has appeared. He saved us, not because of our works, but by his own mercy, the bath of rebirth, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Ok, so Paul is emphasizing the works of God in our salvation, not anything we do to earn salvation. Now, I must mention that Catholics do not believe that Baptism earns them salvation. It is not meritorious in that sense. Thus, to be honest, this by itself does not rule out the possibility of Baptismal regeneration here.

However, it must be admitted that Baptism is an act performed by men. Although God does, in fact, act through Baptism - both Catholic and Reformed understandings admit this, but to different degrees - the act itself is purely a human one. In other words, a person pours the water, a person says the words, and a person gets wet. People here are the subjects, not just the objects.

Thus, it would seem strange to me to include this in the list, if it means Baptism. God's mercy, the renewal of the Holy Spirit, the pouring out of the Spirit (v. 6), and being justified by grace (v. 7) all have God as the subject, not people. The only item listed that would be otherwise, would be the bath of rebirth.

Also, all of the other graces and acts listed are purely spiritual. If "Bath of Renewal" equals "Baptism," then it becomes the only one with a physical component.

Hence, based upon the context of Titus 3:5, it seems that this bath (λουτρόν) probably does not refer to the physical act of Baptism.

However, let us secondly turn to a semantic perspective. Here we look at the lexical meaning of λουτρόν. Here the Catholic argument is far stronger. Liddell, Scott, and Passow, define λουτρόν as, "A bath or bathing place" (date, 865). Louw and Nida define it more specifically as, "A ceremonial washing referring to baptism" (53.43). That seems pretty clear.

It is derived from the verb, λουω, which means, "To bathe, to wash oneself, or to wash the entire body" (Liddell, et al., 865). Louw and Nida agree (47.12).

The only other place in the New Testament that λουτρόν is used is Ephesians 5:26, "To sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word" (NAB). Here, the "her" is a reference to the Church, which is the object of Christ's love and giving in 5:25. Unfortunately, this is not specific enough to be really helpful here. "Water" makes it appear physical, but "with the word," indicates a more spiritual sense. I would argue that whatever sense one takes Titus 3:5 - whether physical or spiritual - one would have to take that same sense with Ephesians 5:26, and vice versa.

Looking at the Old Testament, the noun, λουτρόν, only appears twice in Song of Songs 4:2 and 6:6. The verses are identical. Although the context is metaphorical, "Your teeth are like...", the image clearly comes from a real, physical experience, namely shorn sheep, fresh out of a bath. Hence, λουτρόν clearly means a physical washing.

If we look at the Catholic Canon, then we can add 1 more use of the word. This is Sirach 34:25. Here the NAB translates λουτρόν as "Purification," a clear reference to ceremonial cleansing. Interestingly, the word parallels, βαπτίζω, which means, "To Baptize." Again, this is pretty clear.

The verb, λουω occurs 50 times in the Old Testament and 5 times in the New (John 13:10; Acts 9:37, 16:33; Hebrew 10:22; and 2 Peter 2:22). Without going into each verse, we must admit that the word almost always refers to a literal, physical bathing (see Exodus 2:5; Leviticus 15:5; 2 Samuel 11:2), oftentimes ceremonial bathing. The only "debatable" verse I can see on my cursory glance, is Hebrews 10:22, which we discussed last time.

So what are we to conclude? Here we cannot be entirely certain. The normal usage of the word, "Bath" or "Washing" is a literal bath. It is rarely used metaphorically or spiritually. In fact, it often corresponds to ceremonial cleansings, and it appears a lot in Leviticus with this meaning.

Nevertheless, the context of Titus 3:5 seems to indicate a purely spiritual interpretation. The normal use of the word does not need to demand otherwise. If Paul's point was spiritual and metaphorical, of course, he would use a term that is normally physical. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a metaphor, and how many terms did the Jews have for only spiritual washings? He would have to use a term normally applied to physical life in order to illustrate the depth and reality of the spiritual.

In fact, given its typical ceremonial meaning, Paul's use of the word emphasizes the point. God has made us ceremonial clean in his mercy. This is certainly greater than the ceremonial cleansings of the Old Testament, for God Himself has done it, not just an ordinary priest. The Spirit has been poured out upon us; we have been justified; and we are reborn as clean and holy. David uses similar terminology in Psalm 51:2, 7, where he uses physical words, "Wash," "Cleanse," and "Hyssop," for spiritual purposes (see my paper on The Description of God in Psalm 51).

Therefore, I must conclude that I am uncertain. The normal usage of the term would indicate a literal, physical, and probably ceremonial cleansing. This would point towards Baptism in the technical sense. Nevertheless, the context suggests that whatever is meant here is meant spiritually, for God is the subject, not man. While Baptism is never taken to be a work which earns salvation, it is clearly an act performed by man.

Thus, I must admit that the Regenerative-Baptismal interpretation is possible, but again not necessary. The argument here seems stronger than Hebrew 10:22, but the context of the verse cannot be ignored. Hence, with full gusto and enthusiasm, I conclude, "I don't know," although I do lean against the Catholic interpretation based upon contextual arguments.

Matthew Henry sees the connection to Baptism, but he believes that Paul is incorporating it to point to the spiritual truth. He says, "Water is of a cleansing and purifying nature, does away the filth of the flesh, and so was apt to signify the doing away of the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ, though that aptness alone, without Christ's institution, would not have been sufficient" (Emphasis added).

This is probably where I come out: baptismal language is used to describe the immense and perfect cleansing work of God, rather than to describe Baptism itself.

Perhaps this seems to be an awfully long post just to conclude that I'm not sure, but I'd rather be honest than dogmatic here. These are tough passages, and my intellect alone is not sufficient to answer such important questions. Plus, unfortunately, I don't have access to my commentaries at the present. Stupid Atlantic Ocean.

Needless to say, I am intrigued enough to hopefully pursue the matter further, and I appreciate the challenge by Oso Famoso. This has been good for my soul. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, so please comment (assuming you're still reading this rubbish).

Anglican Church Continues to Divide

2008-06-17T04:11:00.003-04:00

Oso Famoso just linked to this article. This is obviously quite troubling, but not at all surprising. Here are some of the kicker quotes from the article:

The Church of England has been plunged into fresh turmoil by the “marriage” of two gay clergymen and threats of an exodus of priests opposed to the consecration of women bishops.

The Times has learnt that up to 500 Anglo-Catholic priests are ready to resign after failing to secure the concessions that they had sought over women bishops.

Why is it that it's women bishops where they finally draw the line? I'm glad that they are finally standing up to things, but to have waited this long... Hmm. There have been far more egregious and outrageous sins committed in the Anglican Communion, even in just the past 10 years. I'm far more upset about the marriage of two homosexual priests, aren't you?

Bishops have turned a blind eye to discreet services of blessing for gay couples but the wedding-style blessing service for the Rev Peter Cowell, a London hospital chaplain and priest at Westminster Abbey, and David Lord, a priest from New Zealand, could force the Church to act.

As with many other things in our culture, the Anglican Communion has upheld no standards, but then is "forced" to act when someone breaks a "standard." Honestly, I would like to know why civil unions are acceptable but homosexual marriages are not, according to Canterbury. This seems very inconsistent to me, and basically promotes sinful behavior.

A further blow will be dealt to the unity of the Anglican Communion this week when 200 traditionalist bishops attend a meeting as an alternative to the ten-yearly Lambeth Conference, which they plan to boycott.

This will be interesting to watch. We very well may in the midst of the greatest Christian schism since the Reformation. There are 80 million souls in the Anglican Communion worldwide. In about 6 months, it is possible that there will be millions less. Pray for this. Schism is never good, even if it's "best."

The Times understands that liberals are considering a legal challenge to guidelines that rule against blessings for civil partnerships but sanction a pastoral, prayerful response when gay couples enter a civil partnership.

This isn't surprising. If it's not "wrong," then it shouldn't be treated differently. Aye, there's the rub.

Again, the Anglican Communion needs to take stands on what it knows to be sinful practice and heterodox doctrines (at one point the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer meant something). Instead, it is just being inconsistent and irrational. Now, the Communion is getting all ruffled up when one of their own goes against the status quo. But status quo can't be the standard. Status quo changes almost daily.

Jesus told a story about a wise man building his house on the rock and the foolish man building his house on the sand. It looks like the Anglican Communion has decided that the land doesn't even matter and is trying to build a foundation in the middle of the ocean. Good luck!

The reason why we should all care is two-fold:

1. This has eternal consequences. Sin is dangerous, and promoting and encouraging sin is more so (Romans 1:28-32). Thousands, if not millions, are being misled by those they think will lead them closer to God.

2. This could be my church. How many denominations have already gone down this road or are going down it now? How many Christian sects were once build solidly upon the Bible, and now don't know what one looks like anymore? What is there to keep your church, my church, "God's Church" from following suit?

The Anglican Communion doesn't come anywhere near own a monopoly on sin, heresy, and inconsistency. I know that I certainly own some stock in that corporation. We all do. Kyire Eleison. Christe Eleison. Kyrie Eleison.

What is Idolatry 2: An Illustration

2008-06-16T03:10:00.005-04:00

A week and a half ago, I questioned the traditional understanding of idolatry in our culture. At least for me, I was taught that anything that is basically more important to you than God is an idol. Thus, money, gadgets, popularity, clothing, etc. could easily become idols. I question this, because if basically everything is an idol to us, then the term can easily lose its meaning, and we might actually be ignoring what are real idols in our lives.

Today, I first want to thank those who commented. They have caused me to think and wrestle with this question. A couple of definitions were offered. B says that an idol is anything that you can't imagine living without, and in our culture she suggests that people are probably usually our idols. While I think this is a big part of the issue, it seems incomplete. I certainly can't imagine living without air or food, and drowning and starvation certainly make me shudder. Also, I can't imagine living without my wife, and I'm not convinced God wants me to.

Jesse posits this: Something which makes God smaller by being magnified beyond its natural state. This really seems to be on to something here, and I think what he poses as symptoms are most likely symptoms, not the idols themselves. However, unfortunately, his illustration, as he admits, seems to devolve back into the original definition I'm questioning. I don't see how the ACC has been elevated to 'God' status.

Lorraine asked about the rich young ruler idolizing his riches, and interestingly enough, the sermon in church yesterday was about that very story in Mark (Mark 10:17-31). This, of course, got me thinking again, and an illustration popped into my head of what I'm thinking, so I thought I'd share it here.

Frequently in the Bible, the relationship between God and His people is illustrated by marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33), and "adultery" is often used to describe idolatry (Jeremiah 3:6-9). It's this that I want to flesh out a bit. I'm going to present common definitions of idolatry, apply them to marriage, and see if we call those things adultery.

Is it adultery, if something is more valuable to me than my wife? Well, if work is more important to me than my wife, and I spend more time at the office than I do with her, I have certainly sinned against her and neglected her, but that isn't adultery.

Is it adultery, if I can give up my wife more easily than something else? This is similar to question above, and it gets a similar answer. This certainly suggests a really bad relationship with my wife, but I haven't cheated on her.

Is it adultery, if I spend more time or money on something or someone than my wife? Perhaps, but not in and of itself. Many men, for example, love their cars, cars that their wives never drive (a hotrod, classic car, etc.). They might spend tons of money on the car, far more than on gifts for their bride, but no one would accuse them of committing adultery. Likewise, if time is the issue, then anyone deployed overseas would commit adultery every time they go.

If I am committing adultery, there is a good chance I am spending more time and money on that other person, but the opposite is not necessarily true. I may spend more time and money on someone else other than my wife, but that cannot define adultery.

Is it adultery, if I refuse to give up something for the sake of my wife? This is like the rich young ruler. He wouldn't give up his riches to follow Jesus. Well, if I refuse to give up smoking, eating fatty foods, or hanging out with the boys, is that adultery? Certainly not. Again, it's wrong, perhaps, but not adultery.

Adultery is very specific. It is basically replacing my wife with a substitute. This can pretty much only be done with another person. I decide that I don't want my wife - emotionally, physically, intimately, etc. - and I find another to fill her shoes.

While I know that every illustration falls apart at some level, it seems to me that true idolatry needs to replace Yahweh for a substitute god. Whatever role(s) the One True God is supposed to fill, I would need to decide that I want someone or something else to fill it/them. Thus, it seems to me that idolatry requires another god, like adultery requires another person. Indeed, this is why Jesse's definition - reducing God and elevating something else - is so intriguing to me. This is what I want to look at next time.

Until then, keep the comments coming. I found them very helpful last time, and I can't wait to read more. If I don't respond in the combox, don't get discouraged. Chances are that I'm waiting to respond to you in a post.

Image of idol courtesy of MorgueFile.com. Photo of my wedding created by Beth Cummings Norman.

Worship Series 9: The Eucharist

2008-06-15T16:30:00.000-04:00

Introduction
If you were to enter most churches around the world, one thing in particular would common among them. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or even some forms of Presbyterian or Methodist, in most Christian churches around the world, the Eucharist - aka the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion - is by far the most prominent element of the worship service.

But why is this? Why should a silly ritual involving bread and wine be so important? Is it out of place to hold this Sacrament in such high regard? This week in our series on worship, we'll tackle these questions and a few more. For the whole worship series, click here.

What is the Eucharist?
On the night that our Lord was betrayed, the evening before He was crucified, Jesus took a simple loaf of bread and a humble cup of wine and gave it to His disciples to eat and drink. In doing so, Christ gave His people the most important ritual of the Christian Church, and hence the most precious ceremony of all time.

This supper itself took place at the Passover (Matthew 26:17-29), the most sacred feast of ancient Judaism. This is where God's people gathered together as His chosen ones in order to remember their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt, where they were slaves (Deuteronomy 16:1-8).

On that original Passover night, God instituted a great plague against Egypt, where the firstborn son of every family was killed. The only ones immune to and exempt from this travesty were those faithful to Yahweh, who slaughtered a perfect, spotless lamb in their place and spread its blood on the door posts of their houses. Then the angel of the Lord - the one who would kill the firstborn sons - would pass over their houses, sparing the family from the plague (Exodus 12).

Every year since then, the Jews have gathered together as families and friends to celebrate God's incredible acts of salvation and deliverance.

Jesus now, has become our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). We were all slaves in the land of Sin, but God in His great mercy has delivered us and is taking to the Promised Land. Just like God performed great acts of salvation and deliverance in Israel, He has performed great acts of salvation and deliverance through Christ, only much greater.

We deserved a plague of death and rejection, and God should have treated us as our sins deserve. However, Christ, as the Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed in our stead, and as God's chosen people, we no longer face condemnation and Hell. The Egyptians' firstborn sons died in the Israelite's Exodus, but God's firstborn son, Jesus Himself (John 3:16; Colossians 1:15), was killed in ours.

This is what we celebrate and remember in the Holy Eucharist. It is no mere ritual or simple act of remembrance. It is that, but it is much more. Every time we gather together to partake of bread and wine, we proclaim Christ's death and resurrection, remember His works of salvation, and we experience the grace of God in a living and true way.

Of course, the Eucharist is a sign and symbol of Christ's death. When we hold and taste the bread, we think of His body, His very flesh, being beaten and nailed to that cross. When we smell and drink the wine, we think of His blood pouring out of His hands, side, feet, and head. We think of the anguish and the pain He endured on our behalf.

However, the fact that we are also able to partake of this glorious Sacrament guarantees us that God will honor His promise of deliverance. Those who truly eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood, not just physically but spiritually, are promised eternal life, true communion with the Father forever (John 6:52-58; see Westminster Larger Catechism, 168). The Eucharist is the seal and stamp of approval of God's salvific work.

In fact, at the Last Supper, Christ promised that He would not eat bread or drink wine again until He did so in Heaven with His people. Thus, at the Lord's Table we remember Christ's past work on the cross, the present salvation we are experiencing, and the future fulfillment of God's promise.

The Eucharist and Worship
As we can see, the Eucharist does and ought to hold a special place within our worship services. Thus, it is not at all out of place for Christians to have valued the Supper so much. But let us now briefly turn to how the Eucharist is an act of worship and how it should be celebrated.

1. The Eucharist is a very physical proclamation of the work of Christ. We hear the words of institution. We smell the bread and wine. We taste their bitter-sweetness. We feel their textures, and we see them broken and poured. The Lord's Supper is one of the most sensual acts of worship we can imagine. Every part of our being is involved.

2. This Sacrament is very solemn. Here the weight of sin is also proclaimed. Were we not the wretched sinners we are, then Christ would not have had to suffer and die. Christ is a perfect, spotless Lamb, the Father's very own Son. That He was tortured to death because of our disobedience, should cause us to shudder, repent, and cry out for mercy.

3. Nevertheless, the Eucharist is a very joyous act of worship, as well. Because it is a sign and seal of Christ's sacrifice, it is also a sign and seal of our redemption, deliverance, and ultimate salvation from sin. One day, we will eat this Supper with Christ in Heaven (Revelation 19:6-10). This should lead us to call out to God with thanksgiving, praise, and joy.

4. The Eucharist is a corporate act of worship. Salvation has not just come to an individual. It has come to the Church of Christ. The covenant community has been redeemed by His sacrifice. At this supper, we commune and partake together. None of us is more important than another, for none of us deserve His love and deliverance. Thus, as we remember Christ's selfless acts of mercy, we must make sure we are showing that same love to one another, especially those in Christ's family.

5. We must approach this Supper with great self-examination, reverence, and even fear. If we come to the Table of Christ improperly prepared, especially as relates to #4,we commit great sin. To approach unworthily is to profane Christ's body and blood itself (1 Corinthians 11:27). In other words, we blaspheme God and say that His Son's sacrifice was meaningless. This is a serious matter, indeed.

Thus, we must make sure that we have prepared beforehand. We cannot approach the Table willy-nilly, with great, unconfessed sin still on our consciences, or with bitterness towards our brothers (Matthew 5:21-26). The Sacrament should not begin for us during the service, but rather, it should help to frame and hedge our lives, being an integral part of who we are all week long.

6. To do things properly, the Supper should be celebrated as Christ instructed. Indeed, this has been our sentiments all along. Thus, the Eucharist is best done using bread and wine. Water was needed for Baptism, and bread and wine seem to be needed for Holy Communion.

This is because bread is a basic food necessity. We don't live by bread alone, but most people on this earth couldn't live without it. Likewise, we cannot live without Christ and His body. We need it, and it sustains and feeds us. The wine is both bitter and sweet, just like the Crucifixion is both sorrowful and joyous. Wine is also intoxicating, and anyone who has experienced the love, mercy, and sacrifice of Christ can tell you that Christ is, as well.

7. The Eucharist is an incredibly spiritual act of worship. As we physically feed upon wine and bread, the Holy Spirit lifts us into the heavenly realm and literally feeds us with the Body and Blood of Christ. He nourishes our souls. He strengthens our wills to grow in grace and avoid sin. And He prepares us to enter into Heaven. As we reflect on Christ's work - past, present, and future - and as we eat and drink - both physically and spiritually - Christ Himself pours out His grace into our hearts, minds, and souls. Yes, God uses this Sacrament to give us grace and make us holy. Praise the Lord!

8. Finally, because of how great and wonderful this Sacrament is, it should be celebrated as often as possible. Why would we want to proclaim Christ's death only occasionally? Why should we starve our souls longer than necessary? Why would we want to deprive ourselves of so much grace? The only reason that I've heard not to celebrate the Sacrament daily is that it can become rote and meaningless. To me, this indicates that we simply need to prepare better and pray harder, rather than neglect the Sacrament or put it off.

Conclusion
Therefore, the Eucharist is a great tool God has given us for worship, incorporating all our senses, as well as our mind, heart, and soul. Through it, we proclaim our Lord's death and resurrection, remember how much He has done to set us free from the bondage of sin, and partake of His marvelous grace. As with everything else our God has given us, we should approach the Sacrament with reverence, thanksgiving, conviction, and reflection. Plus, we ought to take great pains to do things, just as He prescribed.

Next time, we'll discuss the role that preaching plays within our worship services. Until then, please leave your comments for me, and everyone else to learn from and enjoy. May the Lord's grace be upon you and prepare you to celebrate this Sacrament, as soon as possible.

Washing and Baptism: A Response to Oso Famoso Part 1

2008-06-14T06:17:00.001-04:00

Oso Famoso, over at You Are Cephas has engaged me in an interesting discussion. He, as a Catholic, believes that Baptism is more than merely a sign. As I pointed out in my worship post on Baptism, I certainly agree, but, of course, I would not subscribe to the lengths of baptismal regeneration, which is Oso's belief.

He sees a clear link between John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22. He claims that each of these refer to literal, physical Baptism, and are not simply metaphorical. Plus, he believes that they each teach or at least infer that Baptism is linked to our new birth.

It is my intention here just to briefly respond and present my opinions on the matter. I will do so in four posts, one for each verse and a conclusion.

Let's take these texts in reverse order. I am using the NAB version for all Bible citations.

First, Hebrews 10:22 says, "Let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water." At first, "Washed in pure water," certainly seems like it could refer to Baptism, but let us look at the context.

In the verses which precede our text, we are given several clauses beginning with, "Since." Since we have confidence to enter the Holy of Holies, and since Christ is a great High Priest... Then our verse. Thus, the author of the text is giving us commands based on what we already know. Namely, because Christ has done so much in making us able to enter into the presence of God, let us approach with a sincere heart, absolute trust, a clean conscience, and washed body.

Again, this may refer to Baptism, but it does not have to. If we take, "Bodies washed in water," as literal washing, then shouldn't we do the same with, "Hearts sprinkled clean?" In other words, if one is a physical act, then shouldn't both be? After all, "sincere heart" and "absolute trust," are abstract terms, whereas both "sprinkled hearts" and "washed bodies" are concrete, physical terms. If we take one of the concrete terms as physical, the discourse and parallelism would almost force the other one to be physical, as well. Thus, both sprinkled hearts and washed bodies should be literal or both should be metaphorical. Since it is impossible to take "sprinkled hearts" literally - and still have the subject be alive - I would suggest that "washed bodies" is also metaphorical language.

In this sense, the phrase simply means that as we approach God, we need to make sure we are clean inside and out, through and through. This is somewhat hyperbolic and expresses the fact that we need to be holy, clean, and pure before a perfect and most holy God in every aspect of our being. The next three verses indicate this as well: hold fast the confession without wavering (v. 23), and stir each other onto good works (vv. 24-25). Likewise, verse 26 indicates that the all this shows the importance of not sinning: If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins.

However, let us suppose for the moment that the reference is to Baptism. Does this indicate baptismal regeneration? I don't see how. In the context, Baptism would then be one more way to be ready to enter into God's presence. I have no theological problem with that interpretation. Since God has commanded us to be baptized, not to do so is sin. Thus, it is definitely something we should do before we "approach" our Lord.

Therefore, I would suggest that what this verse is talking about is being pure before God. The reference to bodies washed with water does not indicate Baptism, but rather is a metaphor indicating the importance and extent that our purity must cover - our hearts, our consciences, our bodies, etc. Yet even if this does refer to Baptism, it does not in any sense indicate that Baptism is linked to a new birth. Hence, I must disagree with Oso's interpretation here.

Apologetics Audio Files

2008-06-13T05:19:00.003-04:00

Does anyone know of some decent sites for free apologetic audio files? In particular I'm looking for three things:.

1. Catholic Apologetics.
2. Reformed Apologetics.
3. Scholarly exegesis.

In regards to the third, I don't want only popular apologetics. For instance, Dave Armstrong and James White incorporate a lot of scholarly background into their works, but they write for the populace; I believe they both tout themselves as popular apologists. I know Armstrong does, but maybe not White. I don't know.

Anyways, I want something more along the lines of Cornelius Van Til, Louis Bouyer, John Frame, or Daniel Harrington (Biblical Scholar, not apologist). I would love for it to be biblical exegesis with theological/apologetic applications. I'm interested in learning and reviewing.

The combox for this may turn into a database for future use. I'll be happy to cite any and all who help out.

Can anyone help out a brother?

Should Pastors be Required to Spend Time with Non-Christians? Part 2

2008-06-10T01:00:00.000-04:00

I recently posed the question: Should pastors be required to spend 'x' number of hours each week with non-Christians? For all of you who commented, thank you very much. The responses were much more of a consensus than I expected. I just want to briefly respond to each...

Jesse states that we are all required to preach the Gospel to all nations, which is impossible, if you don't spend time with non-Christians. However, he also says, "They [pastors] should certainly seek out opportunities to spend time with the unchurched, but the time limit is a bit much, I'd say. I don't think God will punish pastors if they only get an opportunity to spend 3 hours evangelizing instead of 5 in a given week."

Yep! I agree whole heartedly with both points. The arbitrary time limit feels a bit too Pharisaical to me. That fits because most of the rules imposed by the Pharisees and others had very good motives: get people to obey God's commands. However, they quickly went too far and became stumbling blocks to their original purpose. They also became a non-inspired litmus test... "Meh" indeed.

Lorraine says, "I would much rather have my pastor spending time with our Lord in prayer and seeking His face on what God would have him bring to us, the congregation. He should be in the business of discipling the flock so the flock can be involved in evangelism." This point was also hinted at by Jesse.

This is great insight, and something I was hoping would be highlighted. The pastor is the shepherd of the flock, not those outside the fold. While the shepherd should seek more sheep, he cannot and should not neglect those God has already given him. Good stuff!

Chad raises another good point, "If I were a non-Christian, I'd say that sounds like a pretty lame friendship."

I think people know when they are being treated like projects. Haven't you ever felt like someone's test for a merit badge? I have no doubt that non-Christians and marginal Christians can feel like that when we "minister" to them. If I always have an agenda when I hang out with someone, is that really friendship? How will I treat them once I reach my "objective?" What if I don't reach the "objective" at all; will I stop being this person's friend? Hmmm... "Lame" is the perfect word.

Anne, then offers some good practical advice, including allowing your church to be used for non-Christian events/organizations (preschool, soup kitchens, etc.). She then sums up what seems to be everyone's sentiments:

I think if we are really fulfilling our roles as Christians (both pastor/priests and the congregations) then we will be spending time with other Christians and non-Christians alike.

Very, very true. That is a great, convicting reminder. It is very tough for ministers to find time with non-Christians. There is a lot that is required of a pastor both within the parish and within his family. However, the call to Gospel ministry does include loving and ministering to others, as well.

I believe this was Jim Hatch's point. He sees a problem within the PCA of pastors only spending with Christians. My anecdotal experience has not been the same experience, however. I'm glad Rev. Hatch is calling attention to the problem, but like the others in the combox, I don't think this is the solution. I assume he was just being hyperbolic, but knowing him, I'm not too sure.

Anyways, thanks again for the comments. They were edifying and fun to read. If you haven't commented on this, please do so. I'd love to read some dissenting opinions, as well.

A Review of An Evangelical Manifesto

2008-06-09T01:30:00.001-04:00

I apologize for the length of this review, but there is a lot the Manifesto says, both good and bad. Plus, I have offered an official review - summary and critique - rather than just a critique. I have given section headings to both, so you can skip to the critique, if you're so inclined.

If you haven't read the newly published, An Evangelical Manifesto, you probably should. There's a short and long version, although neither one is technically "short," kind of like this review.

Summary
The Manifesto has a two-fold purpose: to correct errors and abuses of the term, "Evangelical," and to proclaim what "Evangelicals" actually believe. The text is broken up into three sections. First, they reaffirm the Evangelical identity. Here, the authors define Evangelicals as:

Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) (p. 4).

Then, the authors offer us seven key Evangelical beliefs:
1. Jesus, as fully God and fully man, is the only Savior of mankind.
2. We receive Christ's unique, saving works by grace through faith alone.
3. Christ's resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit are needed for Christians to be faithful.
4. The Bible is God's inspired, infallible Word, and is the only authority for faith.
5. We are to serve Christ both inside and outside the Church.
6. Christ's return gives us strength and hope to be faithful.
7. All Christians are called to worship, obedience, and evangelism.

This section ends with a list of implications of these defining characteristics.

Second, the Manifesto discusses how Evangelicals should reform their behavior. Here they admit, "We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior" (p. 11). They admit preaching the Gospel, while living the culture, and setting high standards, while failing to adhere to them. Wordliness, divisions, atheism, hypocrisy, and more have infiltrated Evangelical churches.

Thus, they conclude, "We urge our fellow-Evangelicals to go beyond lip-service to Jesus and the Bible and restore these authorities to their supreme place in our thought and practice" (p. 13). They also call Evangelicals to discernment, obedience and love, reconciliation, and to become shaped, individually and corporately, by the Gospel.

Third, the Manifesto calls Evangelicals to rethink their place in public life. While not officially associated with political parties, etc., the Manifesto notes important Evangelical politicians (William Wilberforce, John Jay, and Frances Willard). It also urges Evangelicals to bring Kingdom attributes - freedom, justice, peace, etc. - into the public sphere by being engaged in public life.

Evangelicals should not privatize and hide their faith, but neither should they equate it with political agendas. Instead, the Manifesto promotes the view that the state should have a, "Civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too" (p. 17). This position is again upheld by repudiating a church-run state, as well as a religious-free state.

Finally, the Manifesto concludes with a series of calls directed at Evangelicals, public figures, members of other religions, and other altruistic people. These calls and urgings basically ask for an end to culture-wars, more understanding, fewer stereotypes, and more cooperation on shared interests (helping the poor, etc.).

Critique
The Manifesto's goals are superb. "Evangelicalism" is a term that has pretty much lost all meaning in today's theological and secular society. Plus, many people use it in a derogatory sense, much like "Fundamentalism." As a member of the PCA, a denomination usually associated with Evangelicalism, at least in some sense, I truly appreciate what the authors were trying to do.

The highlight of the Manifesto is the middle section. This paper points out many of the problems of hypocrisy within Evangelicalism, some of the very reasons why "Evangelical" is now pejorative.

In particular, the authors express over and over again the secularization of the sacred faith. This has been done by replacing worship with entertainment, using worldly methods for "church growth," living lives of sin rather than grace, and succumbing to passing fashions in an attempt to be relevant. Furthermore, they discuss the problems of factions and splits within the church. These are all very serious and significant plagues of the Evangelical church, and I'm glad they addressed them so forthrightly.

This was truly a breath of fresh air, and I hope many who claim the title, "Evangelical," will heed the rebukes and corrections listed here.

Nevertheless, the Manifesto has some very significant problems. First of which, is the pointlessly broad definition of "Evangelical," which de facto renders the term meaningless. There is almost no Christian - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or even Liberal - who cannot define themselves by that term. When the authors later show that they intend the term to Protestants only, the infer that Catholics, et. al., do not define themselves, their faith, and their actions by the Gospel. This is ludicrous. Perhaps a clear definition of, "The Gospel" would have been helpful, as well.

Second, the Manifesto appears to have a very low view of sin. This is a tragic failure of this treatise. The sinful nature of man does not enter into the "definition" of "Evangelical." While, Jesus Christ is proclaimed as Savior, one must ask, "He saves us from what?" In fact, the Manifesto uses the word "sin" more in showing how Evangelicals have not lived Evangelically; i.e., they have been hypocrites. That is certainly not the biblical definition.

Third, this paper seems more motivated by political and social concerns than it is by theological ones. The term, "Culture Wars" appears four times, many of the critiques of recent Evangelicalism center around the incorporation of secular interests into the church, and the entire third section deals with Evangelicalism in the public sphere. If Evangelicals are to be defined "Theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally," there seems to be a huge attempt to do just the opposite. Social and political concerns take up far more space in this document than to theological ones.

Fourth, the Manifesto seems to define Evangelicals more by what they are not than by what they are. Oftentimes, "Evangelical" is defined by the middle ground between two extremes. "We are not 'x,' and we are not 'z.' Rather, we are the more biblical and reasonable, 'y.' This implies two things: 1. Evangelicalism is and always will be defined by the center of two extremes, and 2. the authors do not really what Evangelicalism is.

Fifth, the authors claim that they do not represent all Evangelicals, nor do they hold authority over any. Thus, we can rightfully ask, "Who cares what you think?" Why should we believe that they have adequately represented, defined, and critiqued Evangelicalism? Why should we heed their advice? Perhaps they polled "Evangelicals" to ensure they would represent Evangelical views, but that is not evident in the treatise itself.

This is especially significant given the fact that "Evangelical" covers a very broad range of Christians. The PCA can representatively and authoritatively issue a manifesto like this. The Southern Baptist Convention can, as well. Likewise the United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. However, "Evangelical" includes members from all these groups, who each hold very different beliefs, practices, values, and structures. There is every reason to think that a representative from each group would define "Evangelical" differently. Why then, is the Manifesto's correct? In the end, it looks more like a Manifesto of the Author's rather than of Evangelicals, whatever that term means.

Therefore, in the end, this treatise seems very weak and next to meaningless. It makes some excellent commentary and critiques of American Christianity, but its lack of clear definitions make it very difficult to know who is being addressed and how things should change. I applaud the authors for their attempt at addressing and correcting the problems of "Evangelicalism," but I think their attempt falls well short of the mark needed for affecting any real change. Perhaps this can be a building block upon which a future "manifesto" can be issued in a more lucid, representative, and authoritative way. Until then, An Evangelical Manifesto provides much food for thought, but not much more than that.

Thomas Howard on Jesus' Obedience

2008-06-08T04:29:00.002-04:00

In the Incarnate Word himself we find the principle of subordination also at work. How can this be? He is God and no creature. There is nothing in heaven or earth before which we must bow.

Nevertheless, "he made himself of no reputation... and became obedient to death" and cried out, "Not my will but thine be done." Therefore "God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth and things under the earth."

In the very Holy Trinity itself, then, we may contemplate over against all common sense, and against all of our poor vanity, this mystery of subordination. The Son, while equal with the Father, is nevertheless, in a mystery that eludes us, "subordinate" to the Father. It is at the fountainhead that the Church draws her awareness of the great paradox of honor-from-subordination. In the obedience the Son of God exhibited in his life among us here on earth, faith sees a mystery that reaches much deeper than to the merely sociological details of his having been born to an obscure and indigent peasant couple in a Judea subservient to Caesar. What we see is a true glimpse into the life of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: it is not a precarious triumvirate, like Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, eying each other nervously lest any of one of the three begin to inch ahead of the other two. Rather, we find ourselves at the eternal Source from which the great river of Love rushes, where primacy and subordination, and the bond uniting the two, dwell in living bliss. It has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the drab and gritty accounts kept by politics and logic.

- Thomas Howard, On Being Catholic (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997), 183-4.

Two Quotes from Henri J. M. Nouwen.

2008-06-07T04:13:00.004-04:00

Not much time to blog today. Too much running around to do. So here are a couple quotes from Henri J. M. Nouwen.

On Christian Counseling
The Holy Spirit is called the divine Counselor. He is actively present in the lives of those who come together to discern in th lives of those who come together to discern God's will. This why human counselors should see as their primary task the work of helping their parishioners to become aware of the movements of the divine Counselor and encourage them to follow these movements without fear. - The Way of the Heart, p. 52.

On Church Activities
Our task is to help people concentrate on the real but often hidden event of God's active presence in their lives. Hence, the question that must guide all organizing activity in a parish is not how to keep people busy, but how to keep them from being so busy that they can no longer hear the voice of God who speaks in silence. The Way of the Heart, p. 53.

What is Idolatry 1: The Question.

2008-06-05T05:20:00.006-04:00

I remember as a kid in Sunday School being taught about idolatry. We were told that it is anything that takes the place of God. This made a lot of sense. Things like money, family, fame, TV, music, etc. take the place of God all the time - after all, we spend tons of time worrying about these things - and thus, they could easily become idols to us. In and of themselves, they were OK, but taken to the extreme, they would become idols.

Over the past few years, however, I've begun to question this definition. Idolatry implies worship. While, I've spent a lot of time over the years in front of my TV or literally bowed to my computer, I am not sure that I can say that I have, 'worshiped,' these things. At least not in this sense:

"You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Could it be that in believing our idols are entertainment, fashion, money, sports, reputation, and the Internet, we have missed what really are our idols? Is it possible that these things are symptoms of the deep rooted evil within our hearts? Could we be worshiping, bowing down to, and serving idols that we don't know exist?

But what are they? Certainly, people don't make golden calves, bow down to statues, build sacred poles, and are convinced that these things will save. At least not in our Western culture. So what kinds of 'graven images' do we make for ourselves today?

I've been wrestling with this question for the past few days. I'd be very curious of your thoughts. How would you go about answering that question? What is the definition of, 'Idol?' What do all idols have in common? How can we make a good definition, so that we can accurately uncover them in our society? Is our culture still plagued with idolatry? Has it infiltrated the Church? How can we know?

I'm going to write more on this later, but now, help me think through these questions. I have a feeling that this is a bigger problem than we realize, but I'm just not sure. Perhaps we can figure this out and solve on the world's problems. Who knows? :)

Image courtesy of MorgueFile.com.