There are many reasons why Christians were against Amendment 1, and I do believe many of them are sincere and want to see the advancement of the Kingdom of God. However, I began trying to understand why Christians would believe it is okay for homosexuals to make a covenant with one another just as Adam and Eve covenanted to be one flesh. Of course, we owe some of the explanation to the Enlightenment and its ideals, specifically that reason trumps revelation. Therefore, if something in culture is perceived as more reasonable than what has been revealed in Scripture, we must, according to some, set aside the teachings of Scripture in order to accommodate reason.

Descartes taught us that we must go through a process of doubting what we believe in order to root out anything that is not indubitable. What the Enlightenment further taught us is that we must forsake all that we have previously learned and begin with a blank slate of ideas. We cannot reach enlightenment by following what others before us (including parents, teachers, and religious authorities) have ingrained within us.

Non-Christians were not the only ones who thought this philosophy of enlightenment to be correct; professing Christians have also framed their entire worldview off a similar philosophy. Instead of seeing the world through the grid of Scripture, many Christians read Scripture through the grid of the world. It is a complete reversal of the biblical worldview, one in which Paul calls Christians to not be conformed by the patterns of the world but transformed by the renewing of the mind. In his book The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr., defines a worldview in the following way:

Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. A few years after birth, we all gradually formulate our philosophy of life. Most of us make one of two basic assumption: we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning. Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we relate to others, how we adjust to adversity, and what we understand to be our purpose. Our worldview helps determine our values, our ethics, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us understand where we come from, our heritage; who we are, our identity; why we exist on this planet, our purpose; what drives us, our motivation; and where we are going, our destiny. (pg. 7)

The reason Christians don’t see eye to eye on Amendment 1 and other political, social, ethical, moral, and spiritual views is that their worldviews are completely different. And you can tell what someone’s worldview is by how they approach a certain topic. For example, Miley Cyrus was recently interviewed, and the topic of sex arose. Cyrus said a few good things, e.g. that sex is beautiful and magical, as it is “the only way we create, and it’s the only way the world keeps going.” However, she also said something very telling of her worldview.

“Your worth isn’t based on [sex],” she added. “Your worth is based on how you feel about yourself.”

My criticism is obviously not with her first statement but her second. The Christian worldview would say that worth is not based on self (identity, esteem, actualization, etc.) but on being created in the image of God. These beliefs are at the very core of a person and are the reason why we disagree on so many things in life. So it is, therefore, very hard for someone who views Scriptures through the grid of the world to see eye to eye with someone who views the world through the grid of Scripture. The secular worldview says, “Same sex marriage is simply a right of humans and is just about one person loving another.” The Christian worldview says, “Same sex marriage is completely against what God has created.”

I realize these are black and white perspectives and there will obviously be several grays. However, it is interesting to note the evolution of worldviews amongst Americans throughout its nearly 250-year history. But the question is: should we be surprised?

As we cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, it is our duty to pray for all who trouble us; to desire the salvation of all men; and even to be careful for the welfare of every individual. At the same time, if our hearts are pure and peaceful, this will not prevent us from freely appealing to God’s judgment, that he may cut off finally the impenitent.

In all distress and persecution, with uplifted head, I confidently await the very judge who has already offered himself to the judgment of God in my place and removed the whole curse from me. Christ will cast all his enemies and mine into everlasting condemnation, but will take me and all his chosen ones to himself into the joy and glory of heaven.

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A #52

1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.

Read the rest here.

(HT: Jake Belder)

In the same vein, I’m currently preparing to teach on Romans 5:12-21 and could not continue without posting this quote by Martyn Lloyd-Jones from his exposition of Romans 5:

“[Romans 5:12-21] is a most important passage with reference to the historicity of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis. Alas, there are many Christian people who say, ‘Oh, it does not matter whether you accept the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis as history or not; it makes no different to our salvation’. Quite apart from the attitude displayed to the authority of the Scriptures by such a statement, it is entirely wrong from the standpoint of the doctrine of salvation. [Romans 5:12-21] insists upon our accepting the story in Genesis as literal actual fact and history. You do not really understand the need of salvation unless you believe that history, and understand what happened in Adam, and our relationship to Adam. So it is a most important section, and it is only those who have understood its teaching who have not allowed certain scientists to stampede them into accepting the theory of evolution.”

I remember reading an article by Justin Taylor a little over a year ago, in which he put a plug in for Tom Schreiner’s book, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. In his book, Schreiner argues that Christians are not compelled to observe the Sabbath Day. He says:

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers.

The comments section of that article exploded with emphatic votes for and against Schreiner’s conclusions. But who is right? Has there always been disagreement on the (seventh day) observance of the Sabbath? Are we to cease from labor on the Lord’s Day?

I spent three years working with a church in Scotland, which is part of the Free Church of Scotland denomination. It is an evangelical, Presbyterian, Reformed family of churches. I’ve never met a more caring or hospitable people than those who were in my church. However, there was one thing that I never quite understood: why is the Lord’s Day still so strictly observed?

Friends in the church told me stories of how they would only be allowed to read their “Christian books” on Sundays and were not permitted to engage in any form of play outside, including soccer (or football in their words) and swinging on the swing set. Others informed me that I should not be out buying groceries or eating a meal at a restaurant on a Sunday. To be fair, not all Free Church Christians are this strict, but it is still understood that there are certain things one cannot do on a Sabbath. On one hand, I thought it very Pharisaical. On the other hand, I praised God that these folks were taking seriously an entire day’s worship of the Lord.

But that brings me back to my question—are we compelled to observe the Sabbath? If so, was it really changed to Sunday? Is this biblical?

I will admit that I have a long way to go on this doctrine. I certainly do not look down on those who hold to strict Sabbath, but I also don’t like that some hold others to the same standards (which seem more from the Shabbat than from the Bible).

Since I confess to being a Reformed Christian, I think it’s only fair that I first look at what other Reformed Christians have confessed throughout history. For brevity’s sake, I’ll simply compare two documents. First, the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XXI, Sections VII & VIII) states:

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

Seems pretty clear-cut. The Westminster Divines believed that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday and that all “worldly employments and recreations” must cease. Would it surprise you, then, if I were to tell you that another Reformed document states something contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith?

The Augsburg Confession was presented to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Though Martin Luther did not draft the document himself, he did add his stamp of approval upon it. Consider what the Augsburg Confession (Article XXVIII, beginning in Section LVII) states regarding the Lord’s Day:

Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else are such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.

So which is correct? I know many of my Reformed brothers and sisters would rather err on the side of piety, but is it right for us to hold our congregations to the same standard?

Again, my study on the Sabbath has been limited, so I will definitely be spending more time searching for the truth. In the meantime, what say you?

Veggie Tales were (and still are, right?) a big hit about 10 years ago. This was just past my childhood, but the videos and DVDs were just coming out when my younger brother was growing up. So they were always in our house, and he enjoyed watching them over and over again (as my daughter does now). Veggie Tales, for those who don’t know, are short, biblical stories with a twist. They are told through the eyes of animate vegetables, e.g. Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber.

What I’ve noticed, and I know this criticism is not new, is that Veggie Tales are not very Christ-centered. In other words, Christ is not always the center of the story. Christ is not always the hero. Though “God” is in every episode, Christ is not. I noticed this when watching one of my all-time favorites, Dave and the Giant Pickle, which is, of course, about David and Goliath.

There is a time at the end of the episode where Bob and Larry discuss the purpose of telling the story. In this case, the “lesson” was that you are special because God has made you that way. David was a “little guy” and was still used by God to defeat Goliath and defend Israel. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this message. We are all created uniquely in God’s image, and our value is not found in how big or how little we are but in who we are as God’s creation. However, is this really the purpose of the story of David and Goliath? Does this focus too much on the “moral” of the story and not on how God used David in redemptive history?

That question led me to another: should Christ always be at the center of our message? If we are teaching the Ten Commandments, for example, should Christ be the center? And I don’t mean to ask, Should Christ be mentioned? I mean, should Christ be the focal point? If the answer to that is “yes” (which is what I believe), then, as parents, we must teach our children that these stories in Veggie Tales are about more than just being special. They are about King Jesus. After all, anyone who isn’t a Christian could tell a story about being special. The uniqueness of our faith is that it is all about Jesus.

Though we don’t need to dump all our Veggie Tales VHS tapes in the trash, should we not entertain discussions with our children after watching an episode? That way, we make sure Jesus is always the “moral of the story.”

What makes life worthwhile is having a big enough objective, something which catches our imagination and lays hold of our allegiance; and this the Christian has in a way that no other person has. For what higher, more exalted, and more compelling goal can there be than to know God?

In Knowing God, J.I. Packer gives us four ways to seek this “compelling goal” of knowing God:

1. Listen to God’s Word and apply it by the power of the Spirit
2. Take note of who God is, his nature and his character, as he reveals it to you through his Word and his works
3. Say ‘yes’ to his invitations and do what he commands
4. Come to a realization of the fact that God has shown his love to you by  “approaching you and drawing you into this divine fellowship”

1. Atonement: By his death on the cross, Christ made amends for us “so that our guilt need not stand in the way, as a separating wall between God and us, and that our sins might not be a cloud through which our prayers cannot pass.”
2. Purchase: By his obedience in life, Christ purchased the privilege we have of having our prayers heard by God. “Our prayers would be of no account, and of no avail with God, were it not for the merits of Christ.”
3. Intercession: “He hath entered for us into the holy of holies, with the incense which he hath provided, and there he makes continual intercession for all that come to God in his name, so that their prayers come to God the Father through his hands….”

“[Full assurance is] when the soul, by the Spirit and word, is so fully persuaded of its eternal happiness and blessedness, that it is carried, like Noah’s ark, above all waves, doubts, and fears; and, Noah-like, sits still and quiet; and can, with the apostle Paul, triumph over sin, hell, wrath, death, and Satan.”

Thomas Brooks – “Heaven on Earth”