Some other bloggers that I respect post hymns on their blogs from time-to-time. That’s a good idea – I think I’ll steal it. I’ll draw from the well of Indelible Grace Music, mostly, and, like most of my blogging themes, it’ll be hit and miss.
I love Indelible Grace Music. If you haven’t heard of them, I encourage you to cruise over to their website and listen to some clips. These folks are doing a great service by making old hymns available. They have a rich treasury of music resources on their site. We are planning to use more of their music in our services in the future. You may have heard some of these hymns, but many of them were new to me.
Here is rich, old hymn from their first CD. You’ll see the inspiration for the name Indelible Grace in verse three:
A Debtor to Mercy Alone
1. A debtor to mercy alone, Of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with Thy righteousness on, My person and offering to bring.
The terrors of law and of God With me can have nothing to do;
My Saviour’s obedience and blood, Hide all my transgressions from view
2. The work which His goodness began, The arm of His strength will complete;
His promise is yea and amen, And never was forfeited yet.
Things future, nor things that are now, Not all things below nor above
Can make Him His purpose forego, Or sever my soul from His love.
3. My name from the palms of His hands, Eternity will not erase;
Impressed on His heart it remains In marks of indelible grace.
Yes, I to the end shall endure, As sure as the earnest is given
More happy, but not more secure, The glorified spirits in heaven.
©1998, Kevin Twit Music. Lyrics by Augustus Toplady (1740-1778)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Blogger’s Back (?)
For the last couple of days Blogger has been doing strange things to my blog – you may have noticed. I have been poking around, trying to make it normal again. This is akin to the average bloke taking a big screwdriver and messing around inside the ‘black box’ under the hood of his new car when his check engine light comes on. My wise wife told me to leave it alone, but, of course, I didn’t do that.
If – perchance – you have this blog on a feed, I apologize for multiple posts that were really non-posts over the past few days. In all my ‘fixing,’ I ended up with worse formatting on a couple of posts than I would have had if I had left things alone.
I can’t speak for Blogger’s problems, but I’m thankful for all the nifty template-comment-picture-sidebar-whatnot doodads that they give me for free to do this blog, so I’ll stop complaining now.
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time this morning – I have to go finish my sermon.
If – perchance – you have this blog on a feed, I apologize for multiple posts that were really non-posts over the past few days. In all my ‘fixing,’ I ended up with worse formatting on a couple of posts than I would have had if I had left things alone.
I can’t speak for Blogger’s problems, but I’m thankful for all the nifty template-comment-picture-sidebar-whatnot doodads that they give me for free to do this blog, so I’ll stop complaining now.
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time this morning – I have to go finish my sermon.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Car Stories # 1
I’ve been posting some pretty heavy stuff around here lately – I haven’t even taken the time to find old Leadership cartoons. It’s time to lighten up a bit. This post won’t please my 11 year-old daughter who has been bugging me to post something interesting, but I don’t know anything about horses, art or the violin (I could do something on a Lord of the Rings theme sometime, I suppose). Some of you out there might like car stories, however.
I like cars and this is my blog, after all. From time to time I may show off a picture of one of the gems that I’ve owned. People know me as a car guy around here. In fact, a fellow from our church came by to show off his new wheels this morning. I gave my approval. He went home happy. You’ll know why my judgment is held in high regard after this post. Scroll down and take a look at the beauty in the post below (this is what they call a ‘stock photo,’ I never did get a picture of mine, but this one’s pretty much the same, though my car was a gunmetal blue-gray. Car guys drool when they see a Volkswagen 411).
My 1971 411 was a serendipitous acquisition (that means that a persuasive college buddy needed some cash in a hurry). Unfortunately, my friend’s dad died soon after he did a partial restoration on the VW – new paint, engine rebuild, new gas heater, etc. It was in excellent condition. I bought it in about March, 1986 and sold it in September. I went through a lot of cars when I was in school – buy in the spring to get around and earn some money, sell in the fall to pay tuition. I only paid $900 for this treasure and sold it for the same amount to a fellow from Korea who was also a student at NBTC. Cheap car, right? People just don’t appreciate rolling art.
Apart from its undeniable beauty, what’s so great about a VW 411? Well, it has a nice big interior – mine had the upgrade MB Tex vinyl interior (MB Tex is Mercedes Benz speak, don’t you know). The interior also had adjustable bucket seats, a fold-down armrest in the back seat, and big storage well behind the back seat for the 6th passenger, if they were small and didn’t mind lying down under the back window.
It had an 85 hp, 2.0 l fuel-injected, air-cooled flat 4 – in the back, of course – and a 4-speed manual. The motor was pretty much the same as what came with a Porsche 914 2.0, apparently. It would cruise at 85 mph, as I found out when I let my roommate’s brother drive from Edmonton to Calgary on the way back to Vancouver from Ft. McMurray. It had one of the smoothest rides of any car I’ve driven – it just swallowed up speed bumps. Once I found the reset button for the gas heater (soon before I sold it), it would get toasty warm inside right away – no waiting for coolant to heat up. It also had a sunroof – a metal panel that slid back with a crank. I lived in Maple Ridge, B.C. at the time and I loved to open the roof, crank my stereo and drive up to the mountains at Golden Ears Park (when it wasn’t raining – now that I think of it, I may have only done that trip once).
If you think I’m a bit daft to lavish affection on this old dog, let me say this in my defense: At least I never sold Ladas to poor, naïve penny pinchers looking for a good new car.
Coming up in future ‘Car Stories’ posts: a 1971 Chevelle convertible, a 1968 Chevy 4x4 and a remarkable 1987 Toyota Camry wagon. I have pictures of the real machines that I owned for these posts.
I like cars and this is my blog, after all. From time to time I may show off a picture of one of the gems that I’ve owned. People know me as a car guy around here. In fact, a fellow from our church came by to show off his new wheels this morning. I gave my approval. He went home happy. You’ll know why my judgment is held in high regard after this post. Scroll down and take a look at the beauty in the post below (this is what they call a ‘stock photo,’ I never did get a picture of mine, but this one’s pretty much the same, though my car was a gunmetal blue-gray. Car guys drool when they see a Volkswagen 411).
My 1971 411 was a serendipitous acquisition (that means that a persuasive college buddy needed some cash in a hurry). Unfortunately, my friend’s dad died soon after he did a partial restoration on the VW – new paint, engine rebuild, new gas heater, etc. It was in excellent condition. I bought it in about March, 1986 and sold it in September. I went through a lot of cars when I was in school – buy in the spring to get around and earn some money, sell in the fall to pay tuition. I only paid $900 for this treasure and sold it for the same amount to a fellow from Korea who was also a student at NBTC. Cheap car, right? People just don’t appreciate rolling art.
Apart from its undeniable beauty, what’s so great about a VW 411? Well, it has a nice big interior – mine had the upgrade MB Tex vinyl interior (MB Tex is Mercedes Benz speak, don’t you know). The interior also had adjustable bucket seats, a fold-down armrest in the back seat, and big storage well behind the back seat for the 6th passenger, if they were small and didn’t mind lying down under the back window.
It had an 85 hp, 2.0 l fuel-injected, air-cooled flat 4 – in the back, of course – and a 4-speed manual. The motor was pretty much the same as what came with a Porsche 914 2.0, apparently. It would cruise at 85 mph, as I found out when I let my roommate’s brother drive from Edmonton to Calgary on the way back to Vancouver from Ft. McMurray. It had one of the smoothest rides of any car I’ve driven – it just swallowed up speed bumps. Once I found the reset button for the gas heater (soon before I sold it), it would get toasty warm inside right away – no waiting for coolant to heat up. It also had a sunroof – a metal panel that slid back with a crank. I lived in Maple Ridge, B.C. at the time and I loved to open the roof, crank my stereo and drive up to the mountains at Golden Ears Park (when it wasn’t raining – now that I think of it, I may have only done that trip once).
If you think I’m a bit daft to lavish affection on this old dog, let me say this in my defense: At least I never sold Ladas to poor, naïve penny pinchers looking for a good new car.
Coming up in future ‘Car Stories’ posts: a 1971 Chevelle convertible, a 1968 Chevy 4x4 and a remarkable 1987 Toyota Camry wagon. I have pictures of the real machines that I owned for these posts.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Word of the … oh, whatever: It's about Tolerance
This was supposed to be a word of the week feature, but I’ve only posted two (or was it three?) ‘word’ posts in about five months. I’ve been sitting on this one for a while, so I’ll fire it off now and make no promises about my rambling, annotated dictionary for the future. Isn’t the blog world, uh, unpredictable!
The word ‘tolerance’ has evolved over the years. This will not come as a surprise to anyone over the age of 40. It has morphed into its current meaning in popular usage over the past 20 years or so – maybe less.
I looked this word up in three dictionaries. One of them was good old Webster (part of my E-Sword package). The newest reference was from dictionary.com online. The third was from a 1980 Oxford American Dictionary that I have in actual book form (imagine that!). The later two dictionaries give more than one definition. I’m sticking with the first one in each. Let the scientific and medical bloggers deal with the alternatives. Let’s look at the definitions:
Webster, from 1828
The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.
Webster says that this word is ‘rare,’ though the word ‘intolerance’ is more common. Interesting, no?
Oxford American, 1980
Since that is not very helpful on its own, here is how they define ‘tolerate:”
On to 2006, www.dictionary.com (I admit, I don’t know when they last updated this entry).
I’m going to bring in a big gun to make my commentary here. In his book, The Gagging of God, Dr. D.A. Carson explains the change that has come over this word ‘tolerance’:
In a relatively free and open society, the best forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people, even when there are strong disagreements with their ideas. This robust toleration for people, if not always their ideas, engenders a measure of civility in public discourse while still fostering spirited debate over the relative merits of this or that idea. Today, however, tolerance in many Western societies focuses on ideas, not people.
The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is less discussion of the merits of competing ideas – and less civility. There is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we avoid criticizing the opinions of others; in addition, there is almost no discussion where the ideas at issue are of the religious sort that claim to be valid for everyone everywhere: that sort of notion is right outside the modern ‘plausibility structure’ (to use Peter Berger’s term), and has to be trashed. There is less civility because there is no inherent demand, in this new practice of tolerance, to be tolerant of people, and it is especially difficult to be tolerant of those people whose views are so far outside the accepted ‘plausibility structures’ that they think your brand of tolerance is muddleheaded.
In the religious field, this means that few people will be offended by the multiplying new religions. No matter how wacky, no matter how flimsy their intellectual credentials, no matter how subjective and uncontrolled, no matter how blatantly self-centered, no matter how obviously their gods have been manufactured to foster human self-promotion, the media will treat them with fascination and even a degree of respect. But if any religion claims that in some measure the other religions are wrong, a line has been crossed and resentment is immediately stirred up: pluralism (in the third sense) has been challenged. Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word. One cannot fail to observe a crushing irony: the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most ‘evangelistic’ movement in the Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals. (D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 32-33)
Can we strongly disagree with ideas without offending one another? Can we state that certain things in the realm of religion, philosophy and morality are right and wrong without being branded as ‘intolerant’? These are sobering questions. Do we have the courage to be misunderstood in order to communicate God’s truth to a world that doesn’t want to hear it?
This ‘Tolerance’ with a capital ‘T’ has made serious inroads into the church. It is not a new phenomenon, either. It goes hand-in-hand with what we used to call ‘secular humanism’ (maybe we don’t use that handle much anymore because for so much of evangelicalism, ‘Secular Humanism R Us’).
We should be aware of how words have changed, but we should not lose sleep about being branded ‘intolerant’ if what the world – and even those criticizing from inside the church – are simply reacting against the truth of God’s Word proclaimed with confidence.
The word ‘tolerance’ has evolved over the years. This will not come as a surprise to anyone over the age of 40. It has morphed into its current meaning in popular usage over the past 20 years or so – maybe less.
I looked this word up in three dictionaries. One of them was good old Webster (part of my E-Sword package). The newest reference was from dictionary.com online. The third was from a 1980 Oxford American Dictionary that I have in actual book form (imagine that!). The later two dictionaries give more than one definition. I’m sticking with the first one in each. Let the scientific and medical bloggers deal with the alternatives. Let’s look at the definitions:
Webster, from 1828
The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.
Webster says that this word is ‘rare,’ though the word ‘intolerance’ is more common. Interesting, no?
Oxford American, 1980
- willingness or ability to tolerate a person or thing
Since that is not very helpful on its own, here is how they define ‘tolerate:”
- to permit without protest or interference
On to 2006, www.dictionary.com (I admit, I don’t know when they last updated this entry).
- The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others
I’m going to bring in a big gun to make my commentary here. In his book, The Gagging of God, Dr. D.A. Carson explains the change that has come over this word ‘tolerance’:
In a relatively free and open society, the best forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people, even when there are strong disagreements with their ideas. This robust toleration for people, if not always their ideas, engenders a measure of civility in public discourse while still fostering spirited debate over the relative merits of this or that idea. Today, however, tolerance in many Western societies focuses on ideas, not people.
The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is less discussion of the merits of competing ideas – and less civility. There is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we avoid criticizing the opinions of others; in addition, there is almost no discussion where the ideas at issue are of the religious sort that claim to be valid for everyone everywhere: that sort of notion is right outside the modern ‘plausibility structure’ (to use Peter Berger’s term), and has to be trashed. There is less civility because there is no inherent demand, in this new practice of tolerance, to be tolerant of people, and it is especially difficult to be tolerant of those people whose views are so far outside the accepted ‘plausibility structures’ that they think your brand of tolerance is muddleheaded.
In the religious field, this means that few people will be offended by the multiplying new religions. No matter how wacky, no matter how flimsy their intellectual credentials, no matter how subjective and uncontrolled, no matter how blatantly self-centered, no matter how obviously their gods have been manufactured to foster human self-promotion, the media will treat them with fascination and even a degree of respect. But if any religion claims that in some measure the other religions are wrong, a line has been crossed and resentment is immediately stirred up: pluralism (in the third sense) has been challenged. Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word. One cannot fail to observe a crushing irony: the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most ‘evangelistic’ movement in the Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals. (D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 32-33)
Can we strongly disagree with ideas without offending one another? Can we state that certain things in the realm of religion, philosophy and morality are right and wrong without being branded as ‘intolerant’? These are sobering questions. Do we have the courage to be misunderstood in order to communicate God’s truth to a world that doesn’t want to hear it?
This ‘Tolerance’ with a capital ‘T’ has made serious inroads into the church. It is not a new phenomenon, either. It goes hand-in-hand with what we used to call ‘secular humanism’ (maybe we don’t use that handle much anymore because for so much of evangelicalism, ‘Secular Humanism R Us’).
We should be aware of how words have changed, but we should not lose sleep about being branded ‘intolerant’ if what the world – and even those criticizing from inside the church – are simply reacting against the truth of God’s Word proclaimed with confidence.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Composite Societies - Part IV - Conclusion
Why does knowing the difference between Composite and Unitary Sacral Societies matter for Christians today?
Understanding the difference between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God is essential for understanding the purpose of the church in the world. Equating any one empire or nation with the church is not consistent with sound, biblical thinking. We don’t need to know much history to know that when the church has forgotten that God’s Kingdom is not coextensive with any earthly kingdom the results are catastrophic.
An extension of this theological thinking brings us back to the Christian worldview that under girds the composite model. This model has historically had a distrust of human nature and a realistic understanding of the human condition.
Western democracies were not founded upon the pillars of a Composite philosophy because our forefathers were convinced that the masses knew best, but rather because they knew that power corrupts. For the good of the people, the leaders in any society need checks and balances to keep them honest. No king, queen nor small group of elite leaders will be Benevolent Dictators for long, even if they do start that way. The electorate must remember that the option to ‘kick the bums out’ every few years is a good corrective to fallen human nature. It is a blessing to be able to do so in our Western democracies. The Composite Model should keep us humble if we reflect upon how it is supposed to work.
Beyond the important philosophical and theological considerations, being able to explain the Composite model is practical. First, Christians can be the conscience of democratic societies by knowing how good government and good society is supposed to work. We need to take back the culture, not by ‘Christianizing’ our institutions, but by being better at our jobs and smarter at educating our children. This particularly applies to politicians, journalists, civil servants and educators, but this biblical pattern of excellence – for the glory of God - must extend to every vocation. We are strangers and aliens here, but this is our Father’s World. He made it, and we have His revelation to help us be productive and wise citizens.
The Composite model will help us in the sphere of intentional Christian ministry as well. Defending an ‘in the world, not of it’ pattern of Christian participation in the power structures of our world will help our evangelistic efforts. One of the major stumbling blocks that non-believers have in our day is the conception of a politicized church. Jesus is not white, middle-class and Conservative. He is not the product of modern, Western culture. Nor does Hollywood, Madison Avenue or Toronto reflect the Christian worldview. People looking at the West from within USS type systems will equate our ‘national religion’ with the products of our culture, from Wal-Mart and McDonalds to internet pornography. If they assume we are a Christian country, then how do we account for all the problems that our culture causes? We know that these things are not Christian, but does the rest of the world know that?
When we see, hear and read attacks against Christianity and Christian morality, we should not have a knee-jerk, hot under the collar reaction (though I did as recently as last Friday regarding the CBC, though I contained it to the privacy of my van. I’ll post on that later). We ought to expect ignorance and even persecution. These enemies of the cross are speaking their native language. Remember, as Christians we are told to love our enemies. We should take these opportunities of ignorance to point out what Christianity is really all about and how it is supposed to relate to the world with words full of grace, seasoned with salt.
We need to live and act more like strangers and aliens – pilgrims, dissenters, non-conformists and a ‘peculiar’ people. Christians have been chosen by God, called together in the church out of the world as ‘outposts of Heaven.’ We don’t belong here, and the world does not own us. We should not be surprised that the world hates us, but we should not give them cause either – other than the offense of the cross.
If people protest that Christianity is a religion that has a long history of oppression and abuse, how will we answer them? Though this line of reasoning is often a smoke-screen for unbelief and willful ignorance of Christianity, we have to admit there have been terrible times of abuse in the history of the institutional church. Call them power failures of church history. These are not consistent with New Testament teaching. If we can express the difference between a ‘pilgrim path’ of discipleship (see Diognetus for an example) and express the wisdom of a Composite Society, we can go a long way to diffusing these objections. For many people today around the world, ‘Christian’ means oppressive colonialism, Western greed and profligate immorality.
If the distinction between Christianity and a godless culture continues to disappear, who is to blame but the church herself? Christ’s Church will not fail – He will build it and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. However, many, many individual churches and whole associations of churches have taken the path of apostasy. As Christians, we must hold our pastors and leaders accountable to have distinctly Christian, particularly biblical, Gospel-centered local churches. The church will grow and influence the culture best when local churches are cross-centered and exclusively Christ exalting and known for their love and holiness as a community and in the world. There is power in the Gospel. God will use His Word to change one heart at a time if we trust His means of saving the world. Nothing else will produce lasting influence in our decaying Western cultures.
We need to pray for thinking Christians who are involved in every area of our culture, including government, education, entertainment and the media. As a word of caution, let me state that having Christians in power in Ottawa or Washington D.C., or Hollywood, for that matter, will not necessarily make any real difference. What was it that Luther said? Something like, “I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian.” Amen to that. However, having Christians of integrity in leadership in key areas because they do their work with wisdom and excellence will make a difference in the long run (teach your children well!).
In conclusion, if we are concerned about the marginalization of Christianity in our culture, the best thing that we can do is pray for reformation and revival. God knows what we need and what we will face in the years to come. Christians need to understand the times and work wisely and diligently – for the night is coming.
End of post VI, end of the Composite Society Series.
Understanding the difference between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God is essential for understanding the purpose of the church in the world. Equating any one empire or nation with the church is not consistent with sound, biblical thinking. We don’t need to know much history to know that when the church has forgotten that God’s Kingdom is not coextensive with any earthly kingdom the results are catastrophic.
An extension of this theological thinking brings us back to the Christian worldview that under girds the composite model. This model has historically had a distrust of human nature and a realistic understanding of the human condition.
Western democracies were not founded upon the pillars of a Composite philosophy because our forefathers were convinced that the masses knew best, but rather because they knew that power corrupts. For the good of the people, the leaders in any society need checks and balances to keep them honest. No king, queen nor small group of elite leaders will be Benevolent Dictators for long, even if they do start that way. The electorate must remember that the option to ‘kick the bums out’ every few years is a good corrective to fallen human nature. It is a blessing to be able to do so in our Western democracies. The Composite Model should keep us humble if we reflect upon how it is supposed to work.
Beyond the important philosophical and theological considerations, being able to explain the Composite model is practical. First, Christians can be the conscience of democratic societies by knowing how good government and good society is supposed to work. We need to take back the culture, not by ‘Christianizing’ our institutions, but by being better at our jobs and smarter at educating our children. This particularly applies to politicians, journalists, civil servants and educators, but this biblical pattern of excellence – for the glory of God - must extend to every vocation. We are strangers and aliens here, but this is our Father’s World. He made it, and we have His revelation to help us be productive and wise citizens.
The Composite model will help us in the sphere of intentional Christian ministry as well. Defending an ‘in the world, not of it’ pattern of Christian participation in the power structures of our world will help our evangelistic efforts. One of the major stumbling blocks that non-believers have in our day is the conception of a politicized church. Jesus is not white, middle-class and Conservative. He is not the product of modern, Western culture. Nor does Hollywood, Madison Avenue or Toronto reflect the Christian worldview. People looking at the West from within USS type systems will equate our ‘national religion’ with the products of our culture, from Wal-Mart and McDonalds to internet pornography. If they assume we are a Christian country, then how do we account for all the problems that our culture causes? We know that these things are not Christian, but does the rest of the world know that?
When we see, hear and read attacks against Christianity and Christian morality, we should not have a knee-jerk, hot under the collar reaction (though I did as recently as last Friday regarding the CBC, though I contained it to the privacy of my van. I’ll post on that later). We ought to expect ignorance and even persecution. These enemies of the cross are speaking their native language. Remember, as Christians we are told to love our enemies. We should take these opportunities of ignorance to point out what Christianity is really all about and how it is supposed to relate to the world with words full of grace, seasoned with salt.
We need to live and act more like strangers and aliens – pilgrims, dissenters, non-conformists and a ‘peculiar’ people. Christians have been chosen by God, called together in the church out of the world as ‘outposts of Heaven.’ We don’t belong here, and the world does not own us. We should not be surprised that the world hates us, but we should not give them cause either – other than the offense of the cross.
If people protest that Christianity is a religion that has a long history of oppression and abuse, how will we answer them? Though this line of reasoning is often a smoke-screen for unbelief and willful ignorance of Christianity, we have to admit there have been terrible times of abuse in the history of the institutional church. Call them power failures of church history. These are not consistent with New Testament teaching. If we can express the difference between a ‘pilgrim path’ of discipleship (see Diognetus for an example) and express the wisdom of a Composite Society, we can go a long way to diffusing these objections. For many people today around the world, ‘Christian’ means oppressive colonialism, Western greed and profligate immorality.
If the distinction between Christianity and a godless culture continues to disappear, who is to blame but the church herself? Christ’s Church will not fail – He will build it and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. However, many, many individual churches and whole associations of churches have taken the path of apostasy. As Christians, we must hold our pastors and leaders accountable to have distinctly Christian, particularly biblical, Gospel-centered local churches. The church will grow and influence the culture best when local churches are cross-centered and exclusively Christ exalting and known for their love and holiness as a community and in the world. There is power in the Gospel. God will use His Word to change one heart at a time if we trust His means of saving the world. Nothing else will produce lasting influence in our decaying Western cultures.
We need to pray for thinking Christians who are involved in every area of our culture, including government, education, entertainment and the media. As a word of caution, let me state that having Christians in power in Ottawa or Washington D.C., or Hollywood, for that matter, will not necessarily make any real difference. What was it that Luther said? Something like, “I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian.” Amen to that. However, having Christians of integrity in leadership in key areas because they do their work with wisdom and excellence will make a difference in the long run (teach your children well!).
In conclusion, if we are concerned about the marginalization of Christianity in our culture, the best thing that we can do is pray for reformation and revival. God knows what we need and what we will face in the years to come. Christians need to understand the times and work wisely and diligently – for the night is coming.
End of post VI, end of the Composite Society Series.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Incredible Sidewalk Chalk Art
This is a link worth seeing: 3D Sidewalk Art
Scroll down the page to see the ‘tricks’ used for the incredible 3D effects.
H/T Justin Taylor (who H/Ts Michelle Malkin)
Scroll down the page to see the ‘tricks’ used for the incredible 3D effects.
H/T Justin Taylor (who H/Ts Michelle Malkin)
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Composite Society - Part V
What advantages do we have in our Western Democratic societies as Christians? Like a fish in an aquarium, we have a hard time evaluating our environment. It’s all we know. Hopefully, we thank God for the freedom that we have to gather to worship, to make our voice heard to government and in the media, and to persuade others to consider the claims of Christ. These freedoms are rights in Canada and the United States. For now.
I was going to do a total of five posts on the Composite Society vs. Unitary Sacral Society issue, but I can’t condense my conclusions very well. I will do at least one more post after this one. Since I have not been very speedy in getting this line of thought up on my blog, here are the first four posts for review, if you wish: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3 and Post 4. If you don’t want to take the time to read these, let me just briefly review some of the argument in point form:
What are the current threats to the Composite Society and the freedoms that it brings to Western democracies?
First, we must consider secularism. Secularism is that which has to do with this world as opposed to the sacred (that which is transcendental) separate from the natural order. What cannot be verified with the senses is not real or at least not ‘scientific.’
In the 60s and 70s, Christian apologists spent most of their time battling secular humanism with its naturalistic atheism (think National Geographic). At least then the enemy was somewhat obvious. Presenting arguments for the existence of God, the legitimacy of the supernatural and evidence of the resurrection were central to the defense of Christianity. Today, secular people will respond to these arguments with, “If that works for you, that’s fine. I have my own beliefs.” When spirituality is disconnected from the implications of divine revelation for the ‘real world,’ secularism triumphs by default.
Of course, spirituality is big business these days. Popular spirituality, however, is a distinctly secular spirituality. It is of this world, not revealed from God; personal, not corporate; peripheral, not central – in other words, secular, not sacred. No matter what fancy words are used, most spirituality today doesn’t get beyond the consciousness of the individual. This may seem to lend itself to the support of a composite society, but if secularism becomes ‘she who must be obeyed,’ we find ourselves back in the USS tyranny.
What is the danger to Christians in this secular triumph? We already seeing the censorship of truth claims as ‘intolerant’ or ‘hate speech.’ The last remaining heresy is to confess that there is such a thing as heresy. To say that faith in Christ is the only way to be reconciled to God is unacceptable to a Unitary Sacral Society where the State Religion is secularism. I’ve mentioned this book before, but to get a glimpse of the frightening results of a consistent application of a naturalistic, secular worldview, see Phillip E. ‘Not a Pyromaniac’ Johnson’s book, Reason in the Balance. For modern reading on this topic, the works of Francis Schaeffer, David Wells and D.A. Carson regarding the philosophical changes in the culture that are shaping evangelicalism should be considered essential reading for Christian leaders. Following C.S. Lewis’ advice, we should be reading old books as well to clear our heads so that we can understand the mistakes we are making as believers today.
Another threat to our Composite model is Islam. This religion does not have a theology that lends itself to a Composite model of society. Of course there are Muslim moderates in Western society who appreciate the Composite model, but they do not have their ‘Book’ on the side of this paradigm in the same way that Christians do with the New Testament. This is more of an immediate problem for Western Europe, as we on this side of the Atlantic are somewhat insulated by a more diverse, multi-ethnic population. I’m certainly no expert on any of this, but consider, for example, this article by Mark Steyn on the impact of Demographics and the spread of Islam. I think it’s worth talking about among thinking Christians.
My purpose in writing this series on the Composite society is to remind us of the unique situation that we find ourselves in today in Canada and the United States particularly. We dare not forget that the freedom and prosperity that we have did not come cheap. Wars have been waged to protect our democratic freedoms and convictions. What would people fight for today? We must remember that in order for democracies to work, we must not blindly trust our leaders and the ‘experts.’ History has proven that the powerful tend to favor the more efficient unitary model.
I was going to do a total of five posts on the Composite Society vs. Unitary Sacral Society issue, but I can’t condense my conclusions very well. I will do at least one more post after this one. Since I have not been very speedy in getting this line of thought up on my blog, here are the first four posts for review, if you wish: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3 and Post 4. If you don’t want to take the time to read these, let me just briefly review some of the argument in point form:
- Most civil societies in history have been a marriage of one official religion with the civil government, what I’ve called Unitary Sacral Societies. What this looks like in practice is that there is one ‘body’ (the country or empire) that has two heads, the high priest to act as the spiritual head and the King (or emperor, queen, etc.) to rule the civil aspect of the realm. In most instances, the chief civil official rules supreme (e.g. the Pharaohs in Egypt or Caesars in the Roman Empire).
- The Bible points to a division between the kingdoms of man and the Kingdom of God. The seeds for the alternative were sown in Scripture, particularly the New Testament. This alternative is the Composite Society in which there is freedom of religion, that is, the government has no mandate to impose a religion upon the people (contrary to modern conceptions of separation of church and state that read that constitutional provision to mean that the state should be free from religion).
- Christians must wake up to the fact that this Composite model is the foundation for our freedom. It is an exception in history, and quite recent in its development in the context of history. If we do not understand and protect this Composite Society that we now enjoy, we are going to lose it. This model is built upon the borrowed capital of the Christian worldview. If Christians do not fight to keep it alive, who will?
What are the current threats to the Composite Society and the freedoms that it brings to Western democracies?
First, we must consider secularism. Secularism is that which has to do with this world as opposed to the sacred (that which is transcendental) separate from the natural order. What cannot be verified with the senses is not real or at least not ‘scientific.’
In the 60s and 70s, Christian apologists spent most of their time battling secular humanism with its naturalistic atheism (think National Geographic). At least then the enemy was somewhat obvious. Presenting arguments for the existence of God, the legitimacy of the supernatural and evidence of the resurrection were central to the defense of Christianity. Today, secular people will respond to these arguments with, “If that works for you, that’s fine. I have my own beliefs.” When spirituality is disconnected from the implications of divine revelation for the ‘real world,’ secularism triumphs by default.
Of course, spirituality is big business these days. Popular spirituality, however, is a distinctly secular spirituality. It is of this world, not revealed from God; personal, not corporate; peripheral, not central – in other words, secular, not sacred. No matter what fancy words are used, most spirituality today doesn’t get beyond the consciousness of the individual. This may seem to lend itself to the support of a composite society, but if secularism becomes ‘she who must be obeyed,’ we find ourselves back in the USS tyranny.
What is the danger to Christians in this secular triumph? We already seeing the censorship of truth claims as ‘intolerant’ or ‘hate speech.’ The last remaining heresy is to confess that there is such a thing as heresy. To say that faith in Christ is the only way to be reconciled to God is unacceptable to a Unitary Sacral Society where the State Religion is secularism. I’ve mentioned this book before, but to get a glimpse of the frightening results of a consistent application of a naturalistic, secular worldview, see Phillip E. ‘Not a Pyromaniac’ Johnson’s book, Reason in the Balance. For modern reading on this topic, the works of Francis Schaeffer, David Wells and D.A. Carson regarding the philosophical changes in the culture that are shaping evangelicalism should be considered essential reading for Christian leaders. Following C.S. Lewis’ advice, we should be reading old books as well to clear our heads so that we can understand the mistakes we are making as believers today.
Another threat to our Composite model is Islam. This religion does not have a theology that lends itself to a Composite model of society. Of course there are Muslim moderates in Western society who appreciate the Composite model, but they do not have their ‘Book’ on the side of this paradigm in the same way that Christians do with the New Testament. This is more of an immediate problem for Western Europe, as we on this side of the Atlantic are somewhat insulated by a more diverse, multi-ethnic population. I’m certainly no expert on any of this, but consider, for example, this article by Mark Steyn on the impact of Demographics and the spread of Islam. I think it’s worth talking about among thinking Christians.
My purpose in writing this series on the Composite society is to remind us of the unique situation that we find ourselves in today in Canada and the United States particularly. We dare not forget that the freedom and prosperity that we have did not come cheap. Wars have been waged to protect our democratic freedoms and convictions. What would people fight for today? We must remember that in order for democracies to work, we must not blindly trust our leaders and the ‘experts.’ History has proven that the powerful tend to favor the more efficient unitary model.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The Grace Machine
I love the doctrines of grace, also known as Reformed Theology and Calvinism. The doctrines of election and predestination, once a confusing embarrassment to me are now a precious comfort. I’ve spent enough time on the other side of the fence on these doctrines earlier in my life that I have a lot of time for people that struggle with them. I don’t preach topical messages on these doctrines, and I try not to use the ‘hot button words’ in my sermons. I don’t shy from the doctrines when they come up texts that I’m preaching. I won’t compromise these biblical convictions even if people walk away from our church over my stand. However, I don't want them to leave without an honest discussion of the biblical foundation of these doctrines. A high view of God’s sovereignty in salvation is a non-negotiable for my ministry.
I’m currently reading The Old Evangelicalism by Iain Murray. Great book, but his chapter ‘The Cross – The Pulpit of God’s Love’ is brilliant. It is a great corrective to the harsh, bitter brand of Calvinism that I have encountered and gives Reformed Theology a bad name. When I know that an enquirer knows the categories of Calvinism and Arminianism, I have been known to respond to the question, “Are you a Calvinist” with the line, “Yes, but I try not to be a jerk about it.” That unfortunately solicits knowing chuckles.
Iain Murray includes a quote from a preacher named William Roberts in the context of a doctrinal controversy among Calvinistic Methodists in Wales many years ago. Unity among mostly like-minded preachers was being disrupted over precise applications of the Calvinistic doctrine. The title of the section in the chapter is, ‘Discussion of the doctrines of grace becomes dangerous when interest in them is more theoretical than practical.’
Asked if anyone was sufficient to the task of preaching on election, Roberts said:
I do not know who of us – if any – is such … But should you ever attempt it, strive to view it yourself, and to so present it to your listeners, in the relationships in which you find it in God’s Book. Particularly, do not keep it afar off in eternity; it will do no good to anyone there, Bring it down to the chapel, down to the midst of the people. There it will save. It is in its operation that we will understand election, if we will ever understand it.
Consider a large, complex machine, with its various wheels, pipes, hooks and chains, all interweaving and interlocking with one another. It is the engineer who understands its design and can explain it, in and of itself, its various parts, and the relationships of each part with the others so as to make one engine. But I can see it in operation. And an ordinary, illiterate man, knowing nothing of the laws of Mechanics and ignorant of the names which the engineer has for the various parts of the machine, he can make use of it and work with it to achieve the end that was in view when it was designed and built. And it would be ludicrous to see those ignorant workers proceeding to argue amongst themselves as to the composition of the machine, rather than using it to purpose.
When you preach election, preach of it at work. Beware of speculating boldly and investigating in detail into the workings of the internal parts of the machine, and avoid bringing your listeners into the same temptation. Show the worth and glory of the machine by demonstrating it at work. Show the worth of the election of grace by depicting it as saving those who cannot save themselves. That is the view of it given in the Bible, and that, as far as I know, is the only worth it holds for the sinner. If this were not so I do not think the Gospel would acknowledge any relationship to it. But, on the contrary, upon understanding election properly, we find that it not only belongs to the Gospel but that it is one of the sweetest parts of it … it is life itself for such a dull helpless, stubborn creature as myself that God has a provision, in his infinite grace, that meets my condition, and that he will never see in me anything that could turn out a disappointment to him, for he knew my whole history long before I knew anything of it myself.
-- Ian Murray, The Old Evangelicalism, Banner of Truth, 2005, pp. 125-126. Note: The first ellipsis is mine, the second is Murray’s
I’m currently reading The Old Evangelicalism by Iain Murray. Great book, but his chapter ‘The Cross – The Pulpit of God’s Love’ is brilliant. It is a great corrective to the harsh, bitter brand of Calvinism that I have encountered and gives Reformed Theology a bad name. When I know that an enquirer knows the categories of Calvinism and Arminianism, I have been known to respond to the question, “Are you a Calvinist” with the line, “Yes, but I try not to be a jerk about it.” That unfortunately solicits knowing chuckles.
Iain Murray includes a quote from a preacher named William Roberts in the context of a doctrinal controversy among Calvinistic Methodists in Wales many years ago. Unity among mostly like-minded preachers was being disrupted over precise applications of the Calvinistic doctrine. The title of the section in the chapter is, ‘Discussion of the doctrines of grace becomes dangerous when interest in them is more theoretical than practical.’
Asked if anyone was sufficient to the task of preaching on election, Roberts said:
I do not know who of us – if any – is such … But should you ever attempt it, strive to view it yourself, and to so present it to your listeners, in the relationships in which you find it in God’s Book. Particularly, do not keep it afar off in eternity; it will do no good to anyone there, Bring it down to the chapel, down to the midst of the people. There it will save. It is in its operation that we will understand election, if we will ever understand it.
Consider a large, complex machine, with its various wheels, pipes, hooks and chains, all interweaving and interlocking with one another. It is the engineer who understands its design and can explain it, in and of itself, its various parts, and the relationships of each part with the others so as to make one engine. But I can see it in operation. And an ordinary, illiterate man, knowing nothing of the laws of Mechanics and ignorant of the names which the engineer has for the various parts of the machine, he can make use of it and work with it to achieve the end that was in view when it was designed and built. And it would be ludicrous to see those ignorant workers proceeding to argue amongst themselves as to the composition of the machine, rather than using it to purpose.
When you preach election, preach of it at work. Beware of speculating boldly and investigating in detail into the workings of the internal parts of the machine, and avoid bringing your listeners into the same temptation. Show the worth and glory of the machine by demonstrating it at work. Show the worth of the election of grace by depicting it as saving those who cannot save themselves. That is the view of it given in the Bible, and that, as far as I know, is the only worth it holds for the sinner. If this were not so I do not think the Gospel would acknowledge any relationship to it. But, on the contrary, upon understanding election properly, we find that it not only belongs to the Gospel but that it is one of the sweetest parts of it … it is life itself for such a dull helpless, stubborn creature as myself that God has a provision, in his infinite grace, that meets my condition, and that he will never see in me anything that could turn out a disappointment to him, for he knew my whole history long before I knew anything of it myself.
-- Ian Murray, The Old Evangelicalism, Banner of Truth, 2005, pp. 125-126. Note: The first ellipsis is mine, the second is Murray’s
Monday, March 06, 2006
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Reading the Church Fathers
Dr. Michael Haykin has posted helpful advice on where to begin reading the Church Fathers. He mentions Diognetus, a fascinating, very early document. I have posted a little teaser below in my previous post.
You don’t have to go to a big library to find these documents. You can find them online at www.ccel.org or even download some of them for E-Sword (look for Ante-Nicene Fathers).
What C.S. Lewis called ‘chronological snobbery’ has infected the church, big-time. I must admit that I am influenced by the ‘new is better’ bug and tend to discount things that are old more than I would care to admit. This is silly, and if I think about it, I know that it is not true. For needed perspective, I go and re-read C.S. Lewis’ introduction to Athanasius on the Incarnation once in a while (also published as an essay, On the Reading of Old Books). If you haven’t read this piece of wisdom, click on the link and read it ASAP.
So many books, so little time. We ought to read the classics that have withstood the test of time (I’m preaching to myself again). However, we must first treasure time in God’s Word above all other reading.
Have a wonderful Sunday!
You don’t have to go to a big library to find these documents. You can find them online at www.ccel.org or even download some of them for E-Sword (look for Ante-Nicene Fathers).
What C.S. Lewis called ‘chronological snobbery’ has infected the church, big-time. I must admit that I am influenced by the ‘new is better’ bug and tend to discount things that are old more than I would care to admit. This is silly, and if I think about it, I know that it is not true. For needed perspective, I go and re-read C.S. Lewis’ introduction to Athanasius on the Incarnation once in a while (also published as an essay, On the Reading of Old Books). If you haven’t read this piece of wisdom, click on the link and read it ASAP.
So many books, so little time. We ought to read the classics that have withstood the test of time (I’m preaching to myself again). However, we must first treasure time in God’s Word above all other reading.
Have a wonderful Sunday!
THE EPISTLE OF MATHETES TO DIOGNETUS
This is an insightful chapter from a brief defense of Christianity written by an unknown Christian to a pagan in the Roman Empire. From approximately 115 AD.
CHAPTER V. - THE MANNERS OF THE CHRISTIANS.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.
CHAPTER V. - THE MANNERS OF THE CHRISTIANS.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Composite Society - Part IV: The Enlightenment and Modernism
Pre-modern times were God-centered. That is to say, our ancestors were oriented around the idea of God (or god, or the gods, depending on the culture). Of course, unbelief and disobedience abounded – heightened by the hypocrisy of official state religions. There were, of course, secularists and naturalists, in ancient civilizations, but in the ‘Christian West,’ theism reigned supreme. From the time of Constantine (4th century) to modern times, Christianity was the religion of the Western world.
If you take a quick glance at our culture, you might say that not much has changed. Most people believe in God. Spirituality – in its incredibly diverse forms – is popular again. Evangelicalism seems to have a voice at the table with the power brokers in our culture. Even Intelligent Design seems to be making some headway in scientific quarters. What’s the problem?
If we take a step back and look at the development of our Western democratic society, we find some significant turning points. A seismic shift is now marked by historians via the famous dictum of René Descartes (1596-1650) “I think, therefore I am.” No matter how misused, clichéd and oversimplified this quote has become (guilty of all charges in this post), this is still a handy starting point for this next phase of my attempt to ground our composite society in its historical context.
Following Descartes’ starting point – man’s consciousness of himself – philosophers began to reevaluate the center of Western philosophy. If you want to think in terms of Copernican revolutions, the sun shifted from being God to man. This ushered in the period of history known as the Enlightenment, the modern era. In a nutshell, investigation and reason replaced revelation from God as the source of truth concerning ‘the way things are.’ The philosopher and the scientist replaced the priest and the theologian as the ‘go-to’ guys for ‘real’ truth.
The trajectory of the Enlightenment eventually led to the rejection of any notion of the supernatural or intervention of God in history. If God existed, he was only watching ‘from a distance.’ He may have been the watchmaker, but he was long since irrelevant to history. Secular humanism grew on the foundation of man’s reason and naturalism (i.e. the observable, physical world is all that exists). Today, in spite of the enormous popularity of spirituality in its various forms, secular humanism still appears to reign in all the ‘serious’ centers of our culture – universities, government research departments, scientific laboratories, documentary television, science and nature magazines, and public schools.
This gap between naturalism and spirituality is a part of the air we breathe in our Western world. Religion and spirituality has been relegated to the private and subjective part of life. To call someone else’s beliefs ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is bad form. It is seen as a major faux pas to consider spiritual belief to be something that can be categorized or evaluated critically (some other time I may post on Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher – signifcant early players in this false dichotomy between faith and science).
As I have presented in other posts, I believe that our Composite Society is a good thing. The alternative is a church/state marriage that enforces a system of belief upon all citizens and destroys the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of man. We as Christians need to remember that we are strangers and pilgrims here. Our power is not that of the sword or even the ballot box – our power is the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. However, our adversary, Satan, is no fool. He knew that if he could not ruin the church by eliminating it, he could make it impotent by marginalizing it. Convincing people that Christianity is private and personal could remove it from its role of influencing and reforming societies. This is a big issue. Francis Schaeffer was brilliant at seeing and explaining this reality and pointing to a Gospel-centered way out. Today, David Wells is doing excellent work in evaluating the weightlessness of evangelicalism.
The fact that modern philosophy and science is built upon the foundation of borrowed capital from the Christian worldview is not lost on some modern / postmodern philosophers. Modernity makes claims based on the universal truths, order, and predictability of a designed universe. Logically, God, as revealed in His Word, is necessary to keep this world view of Enlightenment rationalism alive. If space, time, matter and chance are all that exists, then chaos theory is all that we are left with for a worldview (see Phillip E. Johnson’s Reason in the Balance for some of the chilling logical conclusions of this worldview).
Even though we are pilgrims and strangers, thankfully endorsing a Composite Society, Christians have a God-given responsibility to think, to challenge the foolish thinking of our times and promote a Christian vision of how things ought to be. Christians must be actively involved in politics, journalism, the arts and education. Retreating from the culture – either through physical separation (think Amish) or via building a parallel ‘Christian’ culture and hiding in the resulting ghetto is not the right response to our Composite society (ghetto = take something secular, put a fish on it and pronounce it fit for evangelical consumption).
The freedom and prosperity of our times are an opportunity for Christians. Yes, there are threatening aspects, but let us understand the times make hay while the sun shines! Let us claim the apparent threats to our ‘way of life’ as gifts from God to work for His Kingdom. The popularity of spirituality gives us a foothold to speak. We must present the exclusive, universal, powerful Gospel of Christ to those who will listen, believing in the power of God’s Word to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55). We must make the most of the missionary opportunities presented to us in the multicultural composition of our neighborhoods – the nations are coming to us! We must teach our children to understand history, worldviews and different forms of government as well as the Word of God. Most of all, we must remember and believe that this is our Father’s World. He is sovereign, and His plan for the church cannot be thwarted.
If you take a quick glance at our culture, you might say that not much has changed. Most people believe in God. Spirituality – in its incredibly diverse forms – is popular again. Evangelicalism seems to have a voice at the table with the power brokers in our culture. Even Intelligent Design seems to be making some headway in scientific quarters. What’s the problem?
If we take a step back and look at the development of our Western democratic society, we find some significant turning points. A seismic shift is now marked by historians via the famous dictum of René Descartes (1596-1650) “I think, therefore I am.” No matter how misused, clichéd and oversimplified this quote has become (guilty of all charges in this post), this is still a handy starting point for this next phase of my attempt to ground our composite society in its historical context.
Following Descartes’ starting point – man’s consciousness of himself – philosophers began to reevaluate the center of Western philosophy. If you want to think in terms of Copernican revolutions, the sun shifted from being God to man. This ushered in the period of history known as the Enlightenment, the modern era. In a nutshell, investigation and reason replaced revelation from God as the source of truth concerning ‘the way things are.’ The philosopher and the scientist replaced the priest and the theologian as the ‘go-to’ guys for ‘real’ truth.
The trajectory of the Enlightenment eventually led to the rejection of any notion of the supernatural or intervention of God in history. If God existed, he was only watching ‘from a distance.’ He may have been the watchmaker, but he was long since irrelevant to history. Secular humanism grew on the foundation of man’s reason and naturalism (i.e. the observable, physical world is all that exists). Today, in spite of the enormous popularity of spirituality in its various forms, secular humanism still appears to reign in all the ‘serious’ centers of our culture – universities, government research departments, scientific laboratories, documentary television, science and nature magazines, and public schools.
This gap between naturalism and spirituality is a part of the air we breathe in our Western world. Religion and spirituality has been relegated to the private and subjective part of life. To call someone else’s beliefs ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is bad form. It is seen as a major faux pas to consider spiritual belief to be something that can be categorized or evaluated critically (some other time I may post on Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher – signifcant early players in this false dichotomy between faith and science).
As I have presented in other posts, I believe that our Composite Society is a good thing. The alternative is a church/state marriage that enforces a system of belief upon all citizens and destroys the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of man. We as Christians need to remember that we are strangers and pilgrims here. Our power is not that of the sword or even the ballot box – our power is the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. However, our adversary, Satan, is no fool. He knew that if he could not ruin the church by eliminating it, he could make it impotent by marginalizing it. Convincing people that Christianity is private and personal could remove it from its role of influencing and reforming societies. This is a big issue. Francis Schaeffer was brilliant at seeing and explaining this reality and pointing to a Gospel-centered way out. Today, David Wells is doing excellent work in evaluating the weightlessness of evangelicalism.
The fact that modern philosophy and science is built upon the foundation of borrowed capital from the Christian worldview is not lost on some modern / postmodern philosophers. Modernity makes claims based on the universal truths, order, and predictability of a designed universe. Logically, God, as revealed in His Word, is necessary to keep this world view of Enlightenment rationalism alive. If space, time, matter and chance are all that exists, then chaos theory is all that we are left with for a worldview (see Phillip E. Johnson’s Reason in the Balance for some of the chilling logical conclusions of this worldview).
Even though we are pilgrims and strangers, thankfully endorsing a Composite Society, Christians have a God-given responsibility to think, to challenge the foolish thinking of our times and promote a Christian vision of how things ought to be. Christians must be actively involved in politics, journalism, the arts and education. Retreating from the culture – either through physical separation (think Amish) or via building a parallel ‘Christian’ culture and hiding in the resulting ghetto is not the right response to our Composite society (ghetto = take something secular, put a fish on it and pronounce it fit for evangelical consumption).
The freedom and prosperity of our times are an opportunity for Christians. Yes, there are threatening aspects, but let us understand the times make hay while the sun shines! Let us claim the apparent threats to our ‘way of life’ as gifts from God to work for His Kingdom. The popularity of spirituality gives us a foothold to speak. We must present the exclusive, universal, powerful Gospel of Christ to those who will listen, believing in the power of God’s Word to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55). We must make the most of the missionary opportunities presented to us in the multicultural composition of our neighborhoods – the nations are coming to us! We must teach our children to understand history, worldviews and different forms of government as well as the Word of God. Most of all, we must remember and believe that this is our Father’s World. He is sovereign, and His plan for the church cannot be thwarted.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Thingish Thoughts?
I was reading to my daughter tonight and came across a quote from a classic source that fits my experience with blogging quite nicely:
"... when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. "
- From Pooh Invents a New Game by A.A. Milne
And now for something really controversial …On the weekend, I saw a cup blowing across the road. It wasn’t just any cup, it was a Roll Up the Rim to Win! Cup. Woo Hooo! I hadn’t realized that the contest was on again, turn the car around! The GCCL (Great Canadian Christian Lottery) is back.
Then my sanity came back and smacked me upside the head:
- Tim Hortons is a mega corporate animal – Canada’s answer to Wal-Mart (yes, we have a Wal-Mart in little old Edson too). Shocking claim, is it not? Check this out, doubters! Watch out my American friends, they’re coming!
- I’m not that crazy about Tim’s Coffee
- I’m too fat to be walking by donuts or – gulp – their maple pecan Danish.
- I can’t afford to buy coffee every day
- I never win anything
- Their prizes are no big deal anyway. GM SUVs, bah.
…. Wait a second. I see they’re giving away a Toyota RAV4 this year.
I’ve gotta go. I think I have some visiting to do this morning. Perhaps in a coffee shop, or somewhere.
Monday, February 27, 2006
A Follow Up on the Discipline Issue
Have you ever noticed that when you buy a new car that you suddenly notice that there are lots of people that drive the same model in the same colour? Since I posted on church discipline yesterday, I’ve noticed a few blog posts on discipline and membership matters. James Spurgeon over at Pyromaniacs has posted a series on church membership that has been excellent. See the latest post here. For a longer, more complicated post on this issue, see Tom Ascol at the Founders Ministries Blog. Of course, I always take every opportunity to plug the 9 Marks ministries site. Here’s the starting page for the 7th Mark – Church Discipline.
There is so, so much that could be said about church discipline. I’m not going to say it here. However, I do encourage you to think through these issues. Particularly read through the relevant passages – Matthew 18:15ff; Romans 16:17-19; 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2; Galatians 6:1-2; Titus 3:10-11 and others. Disciplined Christians and disciplined churches are the subject of many, many passages. There are related passages, such as ‘weaker brother’ discussions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and the Pastoral Epistles. As you read the New Testament, take note of how often sound doctrine and holy living are themes. I read Acts 20:17-38 at our annual meeting. The Apostle Paul was most concerned about the health and welfare of the churches that he saw established by God’s power. Watch, guard, keep, care – those are ministry priorities in Gospel-centered ministry.
Patti raised a good point in the comments on my last post. Personalities do make things complicated. I tend to be to be too cautious to confront. Others have a gift for confrontation! As a pastor – even a somewhat timid one – I much prefer a person who speaks plainly about their concerns than those who keep things bottled up for the sake of peace. Unspoken ‘concerns’ eventually bubble out in gossip and/or hard feelings. I’d rather hear about it early on, even if it does raise my blood pressure temporarily. ‘Offensesensitivity’ (to borrow a word from Opus the Penguin) is a disease in the church. Everyone has touchy moments, but thin skin is epidemic in some Christian circles.
What’s the solution?
Good, robust, biblical theology. Isn’t it always?
P.S. I will finish my series on the Composite Society soon. The next post is proving to be a challenge. Why do I do this to myself?
There is so, so much that could be said about church discipline. I’m not going to say it here. However, I do encourage you to think through these issues. Particularly read through the relevant passages – Matthew 18:15ff; Romans 16:17-19; 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2; Galatians 6:1-2; Titus 3:10-11 and others. Disciplined Christians and disciplined churches are the subject of many, many passages. There are related passages, such as ‘weaker brother’ discussions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and the Pastoral Epistles. As you read the New Testament, take note of how often sound doctrine and holy living are themes. I read Acts 20:17-38 at our annual meeting. The Apostle Paul was most concerned about the health and welfare of the churches that he saw established by God’s power. Watch, guard, keep, care – those are ministry priorities in Gospel-centered ministry.
Patti raised a good point in the comments on my last post. Personalities do make things complicated. I tend to be to be too cautious to confront. Others have a gift for confrontation! As a pastor – even a somewhat timid one – I much prefer a person who speaks plainly about their concerns than those who keep things bottled up for the sake of peace. Unspoken ‘concerns’ eventually bubble out in gossip and/or hard feelings. I’d rather hear about it early on, even if it does raise my blood pressure temporarily. ‘Offensesensitivity’ (to borrow a word from Opus the Penguin) is a disease in the church. Everyone has touchy moments, but thin skin is epidemic in some Christian circles.
What’s the solution?
Good, robust, biblical theology. Isn’t it always?
P.S. I will finish my series on the Composite Society soon. The next post is proving to be a challenge. Why do I do this to myself?
Sunday Sermon Summary – February 26th
The longer I pastor my church, the more I appreciate the importance of the local church. Yes, I’m biased – I love my church. The preparation for last week’s sermon made me very conscious of the fact that I don’t love it enough.
The text was Matthew 18:15-35 – the Lord’s teaching on dealing with individual sin, the authority of the church and God’s mercy and judgment. I thought I knew this text – it is certainly familiar. However, I was convicted in the preparation and in the delivery as I realized that I haven’t taken the church seriously enough.
First, when Jesus gave the well-known three-step procedure for dealing with sin, he didn’t give an option for the offended party to just leave it alone. Sin in the church is a big deal. If the one sinned against tries to bury the matter, he is hurting the church. If, when confronted by the individual and two or three witnesses (step one and two, respectively) and does not listen, then the private matter becomes a public matter.
I have been involved in discipline situations, but I don’t think I’ve done a great job over the years communicating the destructive nature of unresolved interpersonal sin. I need to know my sheep better and ask difficult questions more often.
I don’t want to leave the impression that we have a church full of unfinished business – we don’t. I am coming to the realization that I am more a product of our privatized, individualistic culture than I thought. The fact that ‘we belong to each other’ in the church (Romans 12:5) has serious implications for the elder’s oversight of the church. Responsibility for keeping watch over the flock involves confronting sin in the church according to the parameters of the authority of the church.
The word ‘church’ only appears twice in the Gospels – in Matthew 16:18 and here in Matthew 18:17. In the first instance, the context is Peter’s confession and our Lord’s subsequent statement concerning Peter’s authority to bind and loosen – the keys of the Kingdom. The passage in Matthew 18 makes it clear that this authority is not limited to Peter alone. The New Covenant church – the post Acts 2 church – had not yet begun at this time. However, Jesus’ teaching is unfolding to encompass the gathered body’s authority when dealing with matters of judgment within the church. This authority and function of the church is revealed even more in the time of the Apostles’ ministry in Acts and the Epistles.
Commentators have used a lot of ink discussing the tense of the words ‘whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” My understanding of this is that Jesus said that Heaven’s decision stands with the church, but we must remember that the binding and loosing authority is God’s first, not ours. In other words, Heaven doesn’t conform to the church’s decisions on earth. The church conforms to the authority of Heaven. That is the source of the church’s authority.
The authority of the church has often been abused, on the local level in power struggles and favoritism. This abuse has also occurred when the church has gotten wrapped up in worldly power and politics. However, the church has real authority and responsibility to use with humility and wisdom for the sake of a disciplined church that is growing in grace and purity for God’s glory.
The parable of the wicked servant is a chilling reminder that God will not be mocked. If a person confesses that they believe the Gospel and continue on a self-centered way, they betray that they have not been saved by God. True conversion results in new life. We are not saved by what we do, but our salvation produces fruit. One of the evidences of that grace of God is a love for the people of God.
When we regularly see Christ presented before us, we will remember the immensity of God’s love, mercy and grace. This astonishing generosity of God seen in the Gospel will put everything else in perspective. There is no better way for my church and I to grow in love, grace and witness than to be constantly confronted by our crucified, risen Lord.
The text was Matthew 18:15-35 – the Lord’s teaching on dealing with individual sin, the authority of the church and God’s mercy and judgment. I thought I knew this text – it is certainly familiar. However, I was convicted in the preparation and in the delivery as I realized that I haven’t taken the church seriously enough.
First, when Jesus gave the well-known three-step procedure for dealing with sin, he didn’t give an option for the offended party to just leave it alone. Sin in the church is a big deal. If the one sinned against tries to bury the matter, he is hurting the church. If, when confronted by the individual and two or three witnesses (step one and two, respectively) and does not listen, then the private matter becomes a public matter.
I have been involved in discipline situations, but I don’t think I’ve done a great job over the years communicating the destructive nature of unresolved interpersonal sin. I need to know my sheep better and ask difficult questions more often.
I don’t want to leave the impression that we have a church full of unfinished business – we don’t. I am coming to the realization that I am more a product of our privatized, individualistic culture than I thought. The fact that ‘we belong to each other’ in the church (Romans 12:5) has serious implications for the elder’s oversight of the church. Responsibility for keeping watch over the flock involves confronting sin in the church according to the parameters of the authority of the church.
The word ‘church’ only appears twice in the Gospels – in Matthew 16:18 and here in Matthew 18:17. In the first instance, the context is Peter’s confession and our Lord’s subsequent statement concerning Peter’s authority to bind and loosen – the keys of the Kingdom. The passage in Matthew 18 makes it clear that this authority is not limited to Peter alone. The New Covenant church – the post Acts 2 church – had not yet begun at this time. However, Jesus’ teaching is unfolding to encompass the gathered body’s authority when dealing with matters of judgment within the church. This authority and function of the church is revealed even more in the time of the Apostles’ ministry in Acts and the Epistles.
Commentators have used a lot of ink discussing the tense of the words ‘whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” My understanding of this is that Jesus said that Heaven’s decision stands with the church, but we must remember that the binding and loosing authority is God’s first, not ours. In other words, Heaven doesn’t conform to the church’s decisions on earth. The church conforms to the authority of Heaven. That is the source of the church’s authority.
The authority of the church has often been abused, on the local level in power struggles and favoritism. This abuse has also occurred when the church has gotten wrapped up in worldly power and politics. However, the church has real authority and responsibility to use with humility and wisdom for the sake of a disciplined church that is growing in grace and purity for God’s glory.
The parable of the wicked servant is a chilling reminder that God will not be mocked. If a person confesses that they believe the Gospel and continue on a self-centered way, they betray that they have not been saved by God. True conversion results in new life. We are not saved by what we do, but our salvation produces fruit. One of the evidences of that grace of God is a love for the people of God.
When we regularly see Christ presented before us, we will remember the immensity of God’s love, mercy and grace. This astonishing generosity of God seen in the Gospel will put everything else in perspective. There is no better way for my church and I to grow in love, grace and witness than to be constantly confronted by our crucified, risen Lord.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Thankful
We had our Annual Meeting last night (I capitalize because it’s always a Big Deal – to me at least). I always get nervous about the Annual Meeting because administration is not my strong point. I always worry about missing things. I worry about controversy. I worry about questions that I can’t answer. I worry about convicting questions about people that I should know more about. I worry that I worry when I know I shouldn’t worry (Philippians 4:6-7). I worried more than usual this year for two reasons.
First, we had a big, ugly happening in our town last year – centered on our church and Christian school. I haven’t blogged on it and I won’t blog on it. In broad strokes, let me say it was regarding a very involved member of our church that was sexually exploiting a young person. Charges, sentencing, church discipline have all taken place. The perpetrator has moved to a different community with his family. After sentencing, it made a front page headline in the Edmonton Journal. It was hard to write a paragraph that acknowledged that reality in our church life without unnecessarily poking at fresh wounds (I don’t want to do that here, either).
Secondly, I – among others – believe it is time to seriously consider hiring a family ministries pastor. Multiple staff would be a first for me. I have sought advice on how to best bring this up to the congregation. I don’t want to push the agenda, but I don’t want to let it slide.
With such a nervous ramp-up to this years meeting, why did I title this post ‘Thankful’? I’m thankful because of God’s faithfulness expressed through the people of this church. The unity and good spirit at the church is very encouraging, given the tough year last year especially. Giving was amazing last year. There was very little controversy at the meeting (a little regarding some proposed renovations, but that’s it).
Most of all I’m thankful that God is good even when I have so little faith. I tend to get tied-up in knots for no good reason. A little tension is good – after all, even the Apostle Paul was anxious about his churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
Is anxiety about God’s work and God’s people a bad thing? Not if it drives the pastor to watch, pray and preach. I did my little devotional last night on Acts 20:17-38 – Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesians elders. Now, I’m no Apostle Paul. I don’t weep, work, pray and warn my people enough for one thing. I’m not an Apostle for another.
As I reflected about my level of concern for my people, I was reminded of a quote from Mark Dever. I think I’ve posted it here before, but it bears repeating:
I remember reading a quote by John Brown, who, in a letter of paternal counsels to one of his pupils newly ordained over a small congregation, wrote, "I know the vanity of your heart, and that you will feel mortified that your congregation is very small, in comparison with those of your brethren around you; but assure yourself on the word of an old man, that when you come to give an account of them to the Lord Christ, at his judgment-seat, you will think you have had enough." As I looked out over the congregation I had charge of, I felt the weightiness of such an accounting to God.
There is useless worry and there is constructive concern. I hope that 2006 will produce more of the latter and less of the former in the pastor of Edson Baptist Church. I am very thankful to be here.
First, we had a big, ugly happening in our town last year – centered on our church and Christian school. I haven’t blogged on it and I won’t blog on it. In broad strokes, let me say it was regarding a very involved member of our church that was sexually exploiting a young person. Charges, sentencing, church discipline have all taken place. The perpetrator has moved to a different community with his family. After sentencing, it made a front page headline in the Edmonton Journal. It was hard to write a paragraph that acknowledged that reality in our church life without unnecessarily poking at fresh wounds (I don’t want to do that here, either).
Secondly, I – among others – believe it is time to seriously consider hiring a family ministries pastor. Multiple staff would be a first for me. I have sought advice on how to best bring this up to the congregation. I don’t want to push the agenda, but I don’t want to let it slide.
With such a nervous ramp-up to this years meeting, why did I title this post ‘Thankful’? I’m thankful because of God’s faithfulness expressed through the people of this church. The unity and good spirit at the church is very encouraging, given the tough year last year especially. Giving was amazing last year. There was very little controversy at the meeting (a little regarding some proposed renovations, but that’s it).
Most of all I’m thankful that God is good even when I have so little faith. I tend to get tied-up in knots for no good reason. A little tension is good – after all, even the Apostle Paul was anxious about his churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
Is anxiety about God’s work and God’s people a bad thing? Not if it drives the pastor to watch, pray and preach. I did my little devotional last night on Acts 20:17-38 – Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesians elders. Now, I’m no Apostle Paul. I don’t weep, work, pray and warn my people enough for one thing. I’m not an Apostle for another.
As I reflected about my level of concern for my people, I was reminded of a quote from Mark Dever. I think I’ve posted it here before, but it bears repeating:
I remember reading a quote by John Brown, who, in a letter of paternal counsels to one of his pupils newly ordained over a small congregation, wrote, "I know the vanity of your heart, and that you will feel mortified that your congregation is very small, in comparison with those of your brethren around you; but assure yourself on the word of an old man, that when you come to give an account of them to the Lord Christ, at his judgment-seat, you will think you have had enough." As I looked out over the congregation I had charge of, I felt the weightiness of such an accounting to God.
There is useless worry and there is constructive concern. I hope that 2006 will produce more of the latter and less of the former in the pastor of Edson Baptist Church. I am very thankful to be here.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Anabaptists, Baptists and the Reformation
This being a meager little blog, I run the risk of oversimplification when I bite off such big topics. No, scratch that. What I am doing on this Composite Society theme is gross oversimplification. Why don’t I recommend a book? Here’s one. If fact, if what I’m told is true, this book is unique. If anyone else has a source that explains this Unitary Sacral Society / Composite Society issue other than Verduin’s book, The Anatomy of a Hybrid, I’d love to hear about it. You won’t find Verduin’s book new in bookshops – online or otherwise. That’s why I linked you to www.abebooks.com. Anatomy is a fascinating read, even if you don’t agree with all of its conclusions (I don’t).
From the time of Constantine, there have been dissenters that decried the corruption that magisterial power inevitably brought to the church. These dissenters were all over the map theologically. However, when the non-conformists were complaining about the USS relationship between the church and the state, they were barking up the right tree.
History has not been kind to these dissenters. If, when you don’t conform, the government burns you and all your records, it’s hard to make a big splash, legacy-wise. God had his purposes in these dark times, and God’s Word and Christ’s Church have survived.
Fast-forward to the 16th Century. Here we meet the Anabaptists – reviled by the Roman Catholic and Protestant authorities alike. These peaceful dissenters were the predecessors of the Mennonites, the Amish and the Hutterites today. To give you an idea of what these people were up against, consider this: Of eight leaders who met to discuss the movement in 1523, not one was alive by the end of 1528.
Even today, if you hear a Lutheran or Reformed theologian talking about Anabaptists, you’ll likely hear scorn and contempt (there are, thankfully, exceptions). Extreme representatives of the movement, like Thomas Müntzer, gave their opponents the opportunity to tar all Anabaptists with the same brush and dismiss them (or worse). If you want to know more about Anabaptist beliefs, check out the Schleitheim Confession of 1527.
I was born into a Mennonite home. I’m a Reformed Baptist now, and I don’t agree with Anabaptist positions on pacifism and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Like many reactionary movements, they reacted too far in the direction of individualism and away from a catholic (small ‘c,’ as in universal) view of the church. I would argue, with the Anabaptists, however, that the 16th Century Reformation didn’t reform far enough in terms of redefining the church/state relationship in biblical terms. I will concede, gladly, that Providential Timing is everything, however!
What was it about the Anabaptists that incited such hatred from the religious/civil authorities? If you take a quick look at the history, you might say ‘believers’ baptism.” Yes, Anabaptists incurred the wrath of the authorities because they would not baptize their infants (that’s where they picked up their name – a term of derision that means “non-baptizers”). Infant baptism was a mark of civil identification as it was church identification. However, the issue was deeper than the mark of baptism. Anabaptists were hated because they believed that a church could be made up of truly regenerate members. They thought that a church was defined by something much narrower than the ‘parish’ concept allowed. Again, there is a spectrum on this point – even Calvin taught that one of the marks of a true church was discipline. Anabaptists usually applied this discipline quite rigidly, however.
The Anabaptists, then, had the audacity to say that church members must be demonstrably different than the world around them. Remember, the world around them at the time was virtually all ‘church.’ They were pronouncing their judgment upon the mainline church by their separate life and morality. This attempted separation between the ‘worldly’ and the ‘spiritual’ was highly offensive to the leaders of the day and to most of the general population.
What about the Baptists? I have about two more paragraphs before this post becomes too long. There are many varieties of Baptists, but one of the distinguishing marks of Baptists – historically – is this very idea of a regenerate, disciplined church membership. In highly culturally diluted areas – where almost everyone is a ‘good Baptist’ – this distinctive must be recovered. The right understanding of ‘church’ can only be recovered by a return to a biblical understanding of the church-creating Gospel. I don’t think I would be going too far to say that this need for reformation is why both Founders Ministries and Nine Marks Ministries were developed.
I’m itching to draw some conclusions regarding this topic of the relationship between Christianity and civil societies, but I have two more background topics to put on the table first: The effect of the Enlightenment and the influence of Islam. Please stay tuned.
From the time of Constantine, there have been dissenters that decried the corruption that magisterial power inevitably brought to the church. These dissenters were all over the map theologically. However, when the non-conformists were complaining about the USS relationship between the church and the state, they were barking up the right tree.
History has not been kind to these dissenters. If, when you don’t conform, the government burns you and all your records, it’s hard to make a big splash, legacy-wise. God had his purposes in these dark times, and God’s Word and Christ’s Church have survived.
Fast-forward to the 16th Century. Here we meet the Anabaptists – reviled by the Roman Catholic and Protestant authorities alike. These peaceful dissenters were the predecessors of the Mennonites, the Amish and the Hutterites today. To give you an idea of what these people were up against, consider this: Of eight leaders who met to discuss the movement in 1523, not one was alive by the end of 1528.
Even today, if you hear a Lutheran or Reformed theologian talking about Anabaptists, you’ll likely hear scorn and contempt (there are, thankfully, exceptions). Extreme representatives of the movement, like Thomas Müntzer, gave their opponents the opportunity to tar all Anabaptists with the same brush and dismiss them (or worse). If you want to know more about Anabaptist beliefs, check out the Schleitheim Confession of 1527.
I was born into a Mennonite home. I’m a Reformed Baptist now, and I don’t agree with Anabaptist positions on pacifism and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Like many reactionary movements, they reacted too far in the direction of individualism and away from a catholic (small ‘c,’ as in universal) view of the church. I would argue, with the Anabaptists, however, that the 16th Century Reformation didn’t reform far enough in terms of redefining the church/state relationship in biblical terms. I will concede, gladly, that Providential Timing is everything, however!
What was it about the Anabaptists that incited such hatred from the religious/civil authorities? If you take a quick look at the history, you might say ‘believers’ baptism.” Yes, Anabaptists incurred the wrath of the authorities because they would not baptize their infants (that’s where they picked up their name – a term of derision that means “non-baptizers”). Infant baptism was a mark of civil identification as it was church identification. However, the issue was deeper than the mark of baptism. Anabaptists were hated because they believed that a church could be made up of truly regenerate members. They thought that a church was defined by something much narrower than the ‘parish’ concept allowed. Again, there is a spectrum on this point – even Calvin taught that one of the marks of a true church was discipline. Anabaptists usually applied this discipline quite rigidly, however.
The Anabaptists, then, had the audacity to say that church members must be demonstrably different than the world around them. Remember, the world around them at the time was virtually all ‘church.’ They were pronouncing their judgment upon the mainline church by their separate life and morality. This attempted separation between the ‘worldly’ and the ‘spiritual’ was highly offensive to the leaders of the day and to most of the general population.
What about the Baptists? I have about two more paragraphs before this post becomes too long. There are many varieties of Baptists, but one of the distinguishing marks of Baptists – historically – is this very idea of a regenerate, disciplined church membership. In highly culturally diluted areas – where almost everyone is a ‘good Baptist’ – this distinctive must be recovered. The right understanding of ‘church’ can only be recovered by a return to a biblical understanding of the church-creating Gospel. I don’t think I would be going too far to say that this need for reformation is why both Founders Ministries and Nine Marks Ministries were developed.
I’m itching to draw some conclusions regarding this topic of the relationship between Christianity and civil societies, but I have two more background topics to put on the table first: The effect of the Enlightenment and the influence of Islam. Please stay tuned.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Sunday Sermon Summary - February 19
Is it possible to do an ‘overview’ message on only 28 verses? Yes, preachers have done single messages on whole books of the Bible, and even on the whole Bible. But 28 verses?
In my series on Matthew, I have been amazed at how densely packed the text is in this Gospel. In those 28 verses – Matthew 17:14-18:14 – I could have preached quite a long series of messages. I felt this morning that I just did a ‘fly-over,’ an aerial picture of this passage in 40 minutes.
Sandwiched between the account of the Transfiguration and our Lord’s instruction regarding forgiveness and discipline, the thread that ties the seemingly random events and teaching of this passage together is Jesus’ teaching on faith. Here’s my outline:
For my introduction, I contrasted the teaching of the all-too popular ‘Word-Faith’ teachers with the biblical understanding of faith. Our Lord’s person and work is a fitting object for our faith. Our own conjured up power to believe is bankrupt from the get-go.
Our Scripture reading was Hebrews 11:1-16. What is striking about that passage is that none of the heroes received what they were looking for in this life – again, contrast the claims of the ‘Word-Faith’ teachers. Also – a la John Piper – Hebrews 11:6 reminds us of the important fact that the benefactor gets the praise and glory. If we hold up the size of our faith to God and say, ‘what a good boy am I,’ we are totally missing the point of faith.
I haven’t done a Sunday Sermon Summary for a while. Last week I preached on the Transfiguration from Matthew 17:1-13. Our gracious people received the message well, but I felt that I was in way over my head. How can I communicate the glory of God in such passages? Preaching is humbling business at the best of times. There are some particularly glorious passages that make me particularly aware of my need for mercy, and my need to spend more time on my knees before Sunday comes.
In my series on Matthew, I have been amazed at how densely packed the text is in this Gospel. In those 28 verses – Matthew 17:14-18:14 – I could have preached quite a long series of messages. I felt this morning that I just did a ‘fly-over,’ an aerial picture of this passage in 40 minutes.
Sandwiched between the account of the Transfiguration and our Lord’s instruction regarding forgiveness and discipline, the thread that ties the seemingly random events and teaching of this passage together is Jesus’ teaching on faith. Here’s my outline:
- Faith for our Bodies – 17:14-21
- Faith for our Finances – 17:24-27
- Faith in God’s Judgment – 18:6-9
- Faith in God’s Love – 18:10-14
- Faith of a Child – 18:2-5
- Faith in the Cross – 17:22-23
For my introduction, I contrasted the teaching of the all-too popular ‘Word-Faith’ teachers with the biblical understanding of faith. Our Lord’s person and work is a fitting object for our faith. Our own conjured up power to believe is bankrupt from the get-go.
Our Scripture reading was Hebrews 11:1-16. What is striking about that passage is that none of the heroes received what they were looking for in this life – again, contrast the claims of the ‘Word-Faith’ teachers. Also – a la John Piper – Hebrews 11:6 reminds us of the important fact that the benefactor gets the praise and glory. If we hold up the size of our faith to God and say, ‘what a good boy am I,’ we are totally missing the point of faith.
I haven’t done a Sunday Sermon Summary for a while. Last week I preached on the Transfiguration from Matthew 17:1-13. Our gracious people received the message well, but I felt that I was in way over my head. How can I communicate the glory of God in such passages? Preaching is humbling business at the best of times. There are some particularly glorious passages that make me particularly aware of my need for mercy, and my need to spend more time on my knees before Sunday comes.
Friday, February 17, 2006
The Biblical Development and Christian Origins of the Composite Society
Assuming that my readers now know the difference between a Unitary Sacral Society and a Composite Society, let me ask a question: Was the society of Old Testament Israel a USS or a Composite Society?
If you believe it was an example of a USS, you would be mostly right. Certainly, the religion and the civil society were one and the same – there was a marriage of ‘church and state,’ if you will. My fudge in using the word ‘mostly’ in the first sentence of this paragraph will twig the alert reader to the fact that there are qualifiers. Here are a few:
Throughout Christian history, believers who stood firm for the distinction between the kingdoms of men and the Kingdom of God suffered terribly at the hands of those who would not recognize the difference. For centuries, the worst persecution came from the official church. This was the cost of being ‘strangers and aliens’ on earth. The story of some of these dissenters is the subject of the next post.
If you believe it was an example of a USS, you would be mostly right. Certainly, the religion and the civil society were one and the same – there was a marriage of ‘church and state,’ if you will. My fudge in using the word ‘mostly’ in the first sentence of this paragraph will twig the alert reader to the fact that there are qualifiers. Here are a few:
- Old Covenant Israel was not just any human society. God put this people together supernaturally for a redemptive purpose for the whole world.
- National Israel served as a type of Christ and Christ’s New Covenant people, made up of Jews and Gentiles from all nations – a kingdom that belongs to no particular earthly kingdom (including physical Israel). In other words, the USS, Israel, carried the seeds of the Composite model of the people of God within all the kingdoms of the world.
- God, as the One True Living God, ruled His people directly for the first several centuries. He raised up rulers and judges, but God was recognized as King (when Israel was doing well, at least).
- Even when Israel cried out for a king so that they could be like the other nations (1 Samuel 8ff), we are told that the true King of Israel was the Lord Himself.
- Evidence of God’s particular rule of Israel was indicated in specific incidents that highlighted the superiority of ‘sacral/spiritual rule’ over civil authority. Examples:
- Saul was rejected as king largely because he presumed to take the role of a priest (1 Samuel 13:9 and context).
- Uzziah was a good king for many years, but “when he was strong, he grew proud to his destruction” (2 Chronicles 26:16 ESV). Again, he presumed the role of a priest – like Saul had – and was judged by God. God afflicted him with leprosy for his intentional confusion of spiritual and civil authority. Those 80 brave priests (26:17) knew their sacred/secular categories!
Consider the role of prophets and priests in Israel compared to the kings. Even David deferred to Nathan in the matter of building the temple (2 Samuel 7). The first time David asked the prophet about the temple, Nathan said, “sure, King, go ahead, do whatever you think is best” (my loose paraphrase). But then, Nathan enquired of the Lord and God said that David was not to build the temple. David accepted this. Can you imagine any other king in a USS falling in line behind a prophet? An Egyptian, Assyrian or Philistine king could have wiped out any prophet or priest that stood in his way. Who would have stopped him? Of course, at its worst moments, the kings did control the prophets in Israel and Judah. At least they thought they did (see 1 Kings 22 – that’s another story altogether!).
Of course we must recognize that the real Composite Societies were many centuries away from Old Testament Israel, but it is worth reflecting of the seeds of separation that are present even in the Old Covenant testimony.
The New Testament is where we really see the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world come to the forefront. There are many, many examples of this:
- The nature of our Lord’s Kingdom and Messianic reign in His earthly ministry and in the present age since Pentecost. There is an ‘already/not yet’ aspect, of course, but Jesus did say that the Kingdom had arrived – with Him!
- The testimony of Christ and the Apostles to the believer’s relationship with the state demonstrates a separation between the kingdoms of God and man (‘render to Caesar’ – Luke 20:25; Romans 13, 1 Peter 2). Christians are responsible to be good citizens, but our first allegiance is to the Kingdom that is ‘not of this world.’
Throughout Christian history, believers who stood firm for the distinction between the kingdoms of men and the Kingdom of God suffered terribly at the hands of those who would not recognize the difference. For centuries, the worst persecution came from the official church. This was the cost of being ‘strangers and aliens’ on earth. The story of some of these dissenters is the subject of the next post.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
USS and Composite Societies – Part I: Definitions and Description
In seminary, my history professor, Dr. Kenneth Davis, taught us to recognize the significance of our Western, Composite Societies. The Great Experiment of the government of the USA was unique in the history of the world, though the seeds of this system were planted in Europe centuries earlier. Other Western and developing nations around the world have followed this experiment in democracy, though there are variations in detail in different countries.
Christians need to recognize the wisdom of Composite Societies. History teaches us that this form of society will not continue unless people fight for it. I am launching a five part series on this important worldview issue with this post.
There are differences in composite societies. For instance, Canada is more of a ‘Multicultural Mosaic’ – at least since the Trudeau era (1968 and following). The Mosaic model says, be a Canadian – embrace ‘da Canadian values’ – but hold onto your distinct culture and religion on Canadian soil. Historically, the United States has been more of a ‘Melting Pot’ (though it is much more multicultural than it used to be). The melting pot model says, yes, hold onto your religion and culture privately, but learn English and adapt to and embrace the American culture. In modern, liberal democratic societies, multiculturalism is winning the day (that, too, is another story for a later post).
Freedom of religion and freedom of expression in composite societies means that the description of a ‘Christian country’ under this system is not accurate. Composite societies cannot be defined by one particular religion. Of course, the dominant religious and/or cultural group will have significant influence. For the Western world, the dominant religion is secular humanism. Not by numbers, perhaps, but by influence in the power centers of media, education and government.
Living as we do in a Composite society, it is easy to forget that throughout history and around the world, most societies have considered the religious and the civil branches of government to be one system – The Unitary Sacral Society (USS). This means that it has combined a single, religion (the sacred = sacral) with the government system. Thus, the king and the highest religious official are either the same person or the king pulls rank over the highest religious officials.
In the most primitive tribes, the chief and the witch doctor / priest preside over the same system. Which one has the most power is irrelevant for this model – they are both in the same system.
In more sophisticated systems, such as the Roman Catholic Church in Medieval Europe, the Emperor and the Pope presided over the same system. During some periods, the Emperor had more power. Other times, like the ‘Golden Age’ of the 13th Century, the Pope and the Church had supreme power.
In secular systems, like Communism, the USS model still fits. Have you seen the religious fervour of Communist rallies and propoganda? The religion and civil government are uniformly applied in Communist countries.
Even in the Ancient Roman Empire – an apparently Composite Society – the Unitary Sacral Society won the day. This was true under pagan Emperors and under the ‘Christian’ Emperors alike. Even though ‘The Peace of Rome’ allowed conquered religions to keep their religion and culture, they were coerced to bow to Roman gods – including the Emperor – first.
In the post-Constantine Roman Empire, toleration of Christians (313) soon became intolerance of any other religion (c. 380, officially). History teaches us that politics of expediency inevitably swallows up religion and culture into the USS system.
As evangelical Christians in a Composite society, we need to understand and defend our freedom to be Christians – to worship as local churches, to evangelize and do Christian service. We need to be thankful for our inheritance of freedom and take note of the warning signs in the world. The instinct of human society runs towards an oppressive, pragmatic USS model. If we want to keep our Composite Society, we’re going to have to learn what we have to lose and fight to hold onto the vision of our founding fathers from Europe, the USA and Canada.
Next Time: Part II: The Biblical Development and Christian origins of the Composite society
Christians need to recognize the wisdom of Composite Societies. History teaches us that this form of society will not continue unless people fight for it. I am launching a five part series on this important worldview issue with this post.
- Definitions and Description
- The Biblical Development and Christian origins of the Composite society
- Anabaptists, Baptists and the Reformation
- The Enlightenment – Borrowed Capital of the Christian Worldview.
- The USS, Secularism and Islam – Understanding the Times.
There are differences in composite societies. For instance, Canada is more of a ‘Multicultural Mosaic’ – at least since the Trudeau era (1968 and following). The Mosaic model says, be a Canadian – embrace ‘da Canadian values’ – but hold onto your distinct culture and religion on Canadian soil. Historically, the United States has been more of a ‘Melting Pot’ (though it is much more multicultural than it used to be). The melting pot model says, yes, hold onto your religion and culture privately, but learn English and adapt to and embrace the American culture. In modern, liberal democratic societies, multiculturalism is winning the day (that, too, is another story for a later post).
Freedom of religion and freedom of expression in composite societies means that the description of a ‘Christian country’ under this system is not accurate. Composite societies cannot be defined by one particular religion. Of course, the dominant religious and/or cultural group will have significant influence. For the Western world, the dominant religion is secular humanism. Not by numbers, perhaps, but by influence in the power centers of media, education and government.
Living as we do in a Composite society, it is easy to forget that throughout history and around the world, most societies have considered the religious and the civil branches of government to be one system – The Unitary Sacral Society (USS). This means that it has combined a single, religion (the sacred = sacral) with the government system. Thus, the king and the highest religious official are either the same person or the king pulls rank over the highest religious officials.
In the most primitive tribes, the chief and the witch doctor / priest preside over the same system. Which one has the most power is irrelevant for this model – they are both in the same system.
In more sophisticated systems, such as the Roman Catholic Church in Medieval Europe, the Emperor and the Pope presided over the same system. During some periods, the Emperor had more power. Other times, like the ‘Golden Age’ of the 13th Century, the Pope and the Church had supreme power.
In secular systems, like Communism, the USS model still fits. Have you seen the religious fervour of Communist rallies and propoganda? The religion and civil government are uniformly applied in Communist countries.
Even in the Ancient Roman Empire – an apparently Composite Society – the Unitary Sacral Society won the day. This was true under pagan Emperors and under the ‘Christian’ Emperors alike. Even though ‘The Peace of Rome’ allowed conquered religions to keep their religion and culture, they were coerced to bow to Roman gods – including the Emperor – first.
In the post-Constantine Roman Empire, toleration of Christians (313) soon became intolerance of any other religion (c. 380, officially). History teaches us that politics of expediency inevitably swallows up religion and culture into the USS system.
As evangelical Christians in a Composite society, we need to understand and defend our freedom to be Christians – to worship as local churches, to evangelize and do Christian service. We need to be thankful for our inheritance of freedom and take note of the warning signs in the world. The instinct of human society runs towards an oppressive, pragmatic USS model. If we want to keep our Composite Society, we’re going to have to learn what we have to lose and fight to hold onto the vision of our founding fathers from Europe, the USA and Canada.
Next Time: Part II: The Biblical Development and Christian origins of the Composite society
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
A Pyro on Proverbs
The book of Proverbs has always been something of a mystery to me. I’ve read them several times, but I don’t really understand the genre. I’m not proud of this fact. I’ve known people that have taken seminary courses on this fine book and have benefited greatly. I’d like to someday. When I went to ACTS, a few returning students spoke very highly of a course on Proverbs they had taken with a prof that wasn’t there anymore. I really do need to do some work on this book in the near future.
What primed the pump for this confession was a blog. Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has done an excellent series on Proverbs (Part I, Part II, Part III). I highly recommend these ‘pump-primers.’ The comments are quite interesting, too, though, not surprisingly, they’re not always on topic.
What primed the pump for this confession was a blog. Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has done an excellent series on Proverbs (Part I, Part II, Part III). I highly recommend these ‘pump-primers.’ The comments are quite interesting, too, though, not surprisingly, they’re not always on topic.
Messing with the Template
My family didn’t like my last template, so I’m trying again. Maybe I’ll learn html someday. Maybe I’ll learn to play the piano. Maybe I’ll weigh 180 someday. Sigh.
I did save my links in a word document this time. Last time I had so start from scratch. Live and learn.
I did save my links in a word document this time. Last time I had so start from scratch. Live and learn.
My little girls are celebrities. Okay, pretty small-scale celebrities (nothing personal, Angie), but I've never been on a magazine cover! They're cute, aren't they? They get it from their mother.
Homeschooling Horizons' site is here.
Monday, February 13, 2006
More on Revolution
About six weeks ago, I did a post on George Barna’s latest book Revolution. An excellent review by Dr. Albert Mohler is now available. There is a follow up post on the review by Dr. Mohler at the Together for the Gospel Blog as well.
Although I believe the thesis of Barna’s book is wrong and even dangerous, I also think that there is a potentially positive flipside. Those readers who love the church may be disturbed by Barna’s assertions and driven to rethink their doctrine of the church in light of what the Bible actually teaches. This hope is based on the clarity that the church gained in defining crucial doctrine throughout history as it confronted challenges to orthodoxy. Call it the church’s debt to heresy.
In response to Barna’s thesis, I hope many are driven to the Bible first, but I also hope they are driven to such books as Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Mark Dever), The Deliberate Church (Mark Dever and Paul Alexander) and The Church by Edmund Clowney (stick with Dever and co. regarding Baptism, however).
Given my study and experience of the local church, I am more convinced than ever that the hope for authentic evangelism lies with healthy local churches – healthy in the sense of the biblical marks of a true church.
Much as a wise sawyer knows to stop and sharpen his saw, we need to be sharpened in our fellowship with other believers as we gather and grow more mature around the Gospel (Ephesians 4:1-16). More than this, participation in the local church is an essential component of Christian discipleship. If we don’t love the Bride of Christ – the people for whom Christ died – do we really know Christ? Christians need the spiritual food, accountability and discipline of the local church as we seek to glorify God and be salt and light to a dark and decaying world.
Although I believe the thesis of Barna’s book is wrong and even dangerous, I also think that there is a potentially positive flipside. Those readers who love the church may be disturbed by Barna’s assertions and driven to rethink their doctrine of the church in light of what the Bible actually teaches. This hope is based on the clarity that the church gained in defining crucial doctrine throughout history as it confronted challenges to orthodoxy. Call it the church’s debt to heresy.
In response to Barna’s thesis, I hope many are driven to the Bible first, but I also hope they are driven to such books as Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Mark Dever), The Deliberate Church (Mark Dever and Paul Alexander) and The Church by Edmund Clowney (stick with Dever and co. regarding Baptism, however).
Given my study and experience of the local church, I am more convinced than ever that the hope for authentic evangelism lies with healthy local churches – healthy in the sense of the biblical marks of a true church.
Much as a wise sawyer knows to stop and sharpen his saw, we need to be sharpened in our fellowship with other believers as we gather and grow more mature around the Gospel (Ephesians 4:1-16). More than this, participation in the local church is an essential component of Christian discipleship. If we don’t love the Bride of Christ – the people for whom Christ died – do we really know Christ? Christians need the spiritual food, accountability and discipline of the local church as we seek to glorify God and be salt and light to a dark and decaying world.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Reflections on a Future ‘Antiques Road Show,’ c. 1889
Another Excerpt from Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog):
"(A)ll our art treasures of to-day are only the dug-up commonplaces of three or four hundred years ago. I wonder if there is real intrinsic beauty in the old soup-plates, beer-mugs, and candle-snuffers that we prize so now, or if it is only the halo of age glowing around them that gives them their charms in our eyes. The "old blue" that we hang about our walls as ornaments were the common every-day household utensils of a few centuries ago; and the pink shepherds and the yellow shepherdesses that we hand round now for all our friends to gush over, and pretend they understand, were the unvalued mantel-ornaments that the mother of the eighteenth century would have given the baby to suck when he cried.
Will it be the same in the future? Will the prized treasures of to-day always be the cheap trifles of the day before? Will rows of our willow-pattern dinner-plates be ranged above the chimneypieces of the great in the years 2000 and odd? Will the white cups with the gold rim and the beautiful gold flower inside species unknown), that our Sarah Janes now break in sheer light-heartedness of spirit, be carefully mended, and stood upon a bracket, and dusted only by the lady of the house?
That china dog that ornaments the bedroom of my furnished lodgings. It is a white dog. Its eyes are blue. Its nose is a delicate red, with black spots. Its head is painfully erect, its expression is amiability carried to verge of imbecility. I do not admire it myself. Considered as a work of art, I may say it irritates me. Thoughtless friends jeer at it, and even my landlady herself has no admiration for it, and excuses its presence by the circumstance that her aunt gave it to her.
But in 200 years' time it is more than probable that that dog will be dug up from somewhere or other, minus its legs, and with its tail broken, and will be sold for old china, and put in a glass cabinet. And people will pass it round, and admire it. They will be struck by the wonderful depth of the colour on the nose, and speculate as to how beautiful the bit of the tail that is lost no doubt was.
We, in this age, do not see the beauty of that dog. We are too familiar with it. It is like the sunset and the stars: we are not awed by their loveliness because they are common to our eyes. So it is with that china dog. In 2288 people will gush over it. The making of such dogs will have become a lost art. Our descendants will wonder how we did it, and say how clever we were. We shall be referred to lovingly as "those grand old artists that flourished in the nineteenth century, and produced those china dogs."
The "sampler" that the eldest daughter did at school will be spoken of as "tapestry of the Victorian era," and be almost priceless. The blue-and-white mugs of the present-day roadside inn will be hunted up, all cracked and chipped, and sold for their weight in gold, and rich people will use them for claret cups; and travellers from Japan will buy up all the "Presents from Ramsgate," and "Souvenirs of Margate," that may have escaped destruction, and take them back to Jedo as ancient English curios.
At this point Harris threw away the sculls, got up and left his seat, and sat on his back, and stuck his legs in the air. Montmorency howled, and turned a somersault, and the top hamper jumped up, and all the things came out.
I was somewhat surprised, but I did not lose my temper. I said, pleasantly enough: "Hulloa! what's that for?"
"What's that for? Why - "
No, on second thoughts, I will not repeat what Harris said. I may have been to blame, I admit it; but nothing excuses violence of language and coarseness of expression, especially in a man who has been carefully brought up, as I know Harris has been. I was thinking of other things, and forgot, as any one might easily understand, that I was steering, and the consequence was that we had got mixed up a good deal with the tow-path. It was difficult to say, for the moment, which was us and which was the Middlesex bank of the river; but we found out after a while, and separated ourselves."
"(A)ll our art treasures of to-day are only the dug-up commonplaces of three or four hundred years ago. I wonder if there is real intrinsic beauty in the old soup-plates, beer-mugs, and candle-snuffers that we prize so now, or if it is only the halo of age glowing around them that gives them their charms in our eyes. The "old blue" that we hang about our walls as ornaments were the common every-day household utensils of a few centuries ago; and the pink shepherds and the yellow shepherdesses that we hand round now for all our friends to gush over, and pretend they understand, were the unvalued mantel-ornaments that the mother of the eighteenth century would have given the baby to suck when he cried.
Will it be the same in the future? Will the prized treasures of to-day always be the cheap trifles of the day before? Will rows of our willow-pattern dinner-plates be ranged above the chimneypieces of the great in the years 2000 and odd? Will the white cups with the gold rim and the beautiful gold flower inside species unknown), that our Sarah Janes now break in sheer light-heartedness of spirit, be carefully mended, and stood upon a bracket, and dusted only by the lady of the house?
That china dog that ornaments the bedroom of my furnished lodgings. It is a white dog. Its eyes are blue. Its nose is a delicate red, with black spots. Its head is painfully erect, its expression is amiability carried to verge of imbecility. I do not admire it myself. Considered as a work of art, I may say it irritates me. Thoughtless friends jeer at it, and even my landlady herself has no admiration for it, and excuses its presence by the circumstance that her aunt gave it to her.
But in 200 years' time it is more than probable that that dog will be dug up from somewhere or other, minus its legs, and with its tail broken, and will be sold for old china, and put in a glass cabinet. And people will pass it round, and admire it. They will be struck by the wonderful depth of the colour on the nose, and speculate as to how beautiful the bit of the tail that is lost no doubt was.
We, in this age, do not see the beauty of that dog. We are too familiar with it. It is like the sunset and the stars: we are not awed by their loveliness because they are common to our eyes. So it is with that china dog. In 2288 people will gush over it. The making of such dogs will have become a lost art. Our descendants will wonder how we did it, and say how clever we were. We shall be referred to lovingly as "those grand old artists that flourished in the nineteenth century, and produced those china dogs."
The "sampler" that the eldest daughter did at school will be spoken of as "tapestry of the Victorian era," and be almost priceless. The blue-and-white mugs of the present-day roadside inn will be hunted up, all cracked and chipped, and sold for their weight in gold, and rich people will use them for claret cups; and travellers from Japan will buy up all the "Presents from Ramsgate," and "Souvenirs of Margate," that may have escaped destruction, and take them back to Jedo as ancient English curios.
At this point Harris threw away the sculls, got up and left his seat, and sat on his back, and stuck his legs in the air. Montmorency howled, and turned a somersault, and the top hamper jumped up, and all the things came out.
I was somewhat surprised, but I did not lose my temper. I said, pleasantly enough: "Hulloa! what's that for?"
"What's that for? Why - "
No, on second thoughts, I will not repeat what Harris said. I may have been to blame, I admit it; but nothing excuses violence of language and coarseness of expression, especially in a man who has been carefully brought up, as I know Harris has been. I was thinking of other things, and forgot, as any one might easily understand, that I was steering, and the consequence was that we had got mixed up a good deal with the tow-path. It was difficult to say, for the moment, which was us and which was the Middlesex bank of the river; but we found out after a while, and separated ourselves."
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Bloggity Blog Blog Blog
Nobody asked for any excuses, but here they are anyway. My blogging has been light lately because:
I still like blogging, but it’ll have ebbs and flows as life happens. I’ll keep throwing stuff out a few times a week, but sometimes – like tonight – it’ll be weak. It was a dark and stormy blog. Suddenly, a post rang out . . . (Courtesy of my 13 year-old son from the supper-table conversation this evening).
- I’m too busy reading other people’s blogs
- I’ve been reading the political news more closely lately. Certain events lately may even drive me – Mr. Formally non-partisan – to post a political opinion piece.
- Our church annual meeting is coming up soon
- After many years I’m following hockey again because my son is into it this year
- My preparation for preaching and Bible Study has been particularly challenging these past few weeks – Matthew on Sunday mornings and a systematic theology study on Wednesday nights. Matthew is a hard book to preach through, but rewarding (at least for me – there were several glazed over stares out in the pews at about 12:05 last Sunday).
- I have some excellent new books to finish (I just ordered three more yesterday).
- My late night blogging hasn’t materialized lately. By the time everyone else is in bed, I’ve been pooped enough to join them (that is, join them in the practice of going to bed, not join them in bed – all six of us would be a little crowded).
I still like blogging, but it’ll have ebbs and flows as life happens. I’ll keep throwing stuff out a few times a week, but sometimes – like tonight – it’ll be weak. It was a dark and stormy blog. Suddenly, a post rang out . . . (Courtesy of my 13 year-old son from the supper-table conversation this evening).
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Dever on Discipline at Duke St.
If you have been following the Together for the Gospel Blog, you will know that Mark Dever has recently been ‘across the pond.’ If you would like to hear a message from that trip, you can find one at the Duke Street Church website, or just click here (select 'January' from the drop-down box). If you want to hear messages by Dr. Dever at his home church (Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.), you can find them here.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Moving Mom
We moved my mom from Edmonton to Edson on Friday. So, instead of being two hours away, she’s about three minutes away. It was nice have her at church today. We had her over for dinner afterwards. The move itself went well – we had lots of help. Two of my brothers and their wives came to help get mom settled in as well. She’s getting around much better after her hip surgery in December, but there’s still room for improvement. I was pretty useless for moving stuff – my arm will be weak for quite a while yet, I think. I wandered around getting in people’s way while they were carrying the heavy stuff. I do my part. I got to drive a friend’s truck – a long-box crew cab GMC with a Duramax (360 h.p. and 650 ft. lbs., for those who care) and 6-speed Allison pulling a 24 ft. stock trailer. It is a real Cowboy Cadillac. My friend is really trusting – the truck had 820 km on it when I picked it up. I’m very thankful nothing went wrong, thankful for friends and family, and thankful that mom is in Edson now.
Dr. Mohler on Reading
Dr. Mohler’s latest post at the Together for the Gospel Blog is a great read. The best line is to pastors regarding reading occasional bad theology to keep up with the latest heresies: “Be brave and go into a Christian bookstore.” I was in a big Christian ‘marketplace’ last week with a man from our church. I always forget what vacuous places they are until I walk around again – thousands of book and there’s nothing there! In June, 2004, I had the opportunity to shop at the SBTS bookstore (Dr. Mohler’s school). What a treat! They had some schlock – for the purposes of research, don’t ya know – but tons of good theological books.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
"On the other hand, Bozo the Clown has much to teach us about Christian Education"
My apologies to Gospel-centered CE people out there. We need more of you! No apologies to these folks, however. Sheesh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)