Archive for the ‘Miscellany’ Category

I once heard R.C. Sproul, Jr. speak about the Calvinist “cage stage.”  This is that typical period when a young Calvinist, so zealous for the truth, starts blasting people with the more explicit predestinarian texts.  Sproul, Jr. suggested that when someone becomes a Calvinist, they be locked up for two or three years until they relax.  I couldn’t help remember this comment when I saw the following comics. Read the rest of this entry »

The latest offering from Westminster Seminary is the fine volume by the seminary’s professor of Practical Theology, Tim Witmer. The book is called “The Shepherd-Leader,” and you can find it here.

I really like this book and think that it has a great deal of strength to it. Its biblical-theological section and historical section are wonderfully done (well, other than the part about blending together ruling elder and minister – what we might call the “two-office view”). But there was one thing that jumped off the pages at me which has made me uncomfortable. Dr. Witmer makes the public and corporate reading and preaching and teaching of God’s word on the same level – equally ultimate – with personal one-on-one shepherding. I find this inaccurate and unfortunate. God has promised to specially bless the preaching of his Word in a way he has not promised to bless the personal speaking of his Word. And here I am thinking of Romans 10 and John 10. The conversion of sinners and the building up of the Body of Christ are absolutely dependent upon the voice of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, being heard through faithful preaching. This has a certain priority such that if you take away the personal one-on-one element, but have faithful preaching, you at least still have the church. However, if you have personal one-on-one ministry, but do not have the faithful preaching of God’s Word, then you no longer have a church (after all, a mark of the true church is faithful preaching). I think modern evangelicalism has plenty of the personal (their pastors are the most personal I know, and we can learn a lot here!), but very little if any of the public preaching of the Word. I think this goes a long way towards the increasing apostasy in the American church today.

Now, to be sure, it is most ideal to have both – the public and the personal. And this is where the book is helpful. It very clearly and helpfully directs us as under-shepherds as to how we are to work better and more closely with the sheep among us. The church is the healthiest, I believe, when both ministries are being discharged faithfully. But the public, corporate preaching of God’s Word has the priority.

Sovereign Grace Ministries has linked to several video tours of a few impressive libraries.  T4G speakers R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, John MacArthur and C.J. Mahaney each walk us through their collections and study centers.

This article is quite telling about the current situation in the PCUSA.

From what I gather from the article is that the conservatives in the PCUSA are pro-Israel and the liberals are anti-Israel with regards to the conflict in the Middle East.

The saddest part of this whole debate in the PCUSA is that its happening at all. This is telling for where the PCUSA is at. It is an unfortunate day when this is even an issue for the conservatives in the PCUSA.

I mean, why in the world is the church even discussing this?

That’s the first question. The second is this: why do the conservatives believe that being on the side of Israel is to be on the side of righteousness?

I mean, I suppose if this were the Southern Baptist Convention I can understand. After all, a hallmark of dispensationalist theology has been – because of its premillennialism – a pro-Isreali politics. But this is the PCUSA here . . . what gives?

I think that a partial explanation can be found in the fact that even the conservatives in the PCUSA are really so far away from historical Reformed theology that to call them conservative is to bend the meaning of the word beyond all reasonable recognition.

Further explanation may be in order here. I actually think that the left wing and right wing of the PCUSA have far more in common than they think. And that commonality is what we might call New Schoolism. New Schoolism can be characterized by at least two points. One, an all consuming desire to be relevant among the culture and society in which the church finds herself. Second, a low-to-no doctrine of the spirituality of the church.

Now, at least one aspect of the latter of these points is that the church ought to concern herself with that which is biblical and that which concerns the Gospel. I fail to see how this issue of the Middle East is about either of these. After all, where in Scripture does it say that we ought to be pro-Israeli? The New Covenant is, after all, spiritual in nature and not national or political. The Gospel is for both Jew and Gentile, and not on the basis of blood and flesh. God’s promises are all yes and amen in Christ, not in the national political entity called Israel. So, how is the Middle East conflict as issue that the church ought to be concerned with?

Now, I am sympathetic with the Israelis. But I am not because the Bible tells me so.

What is even more amazing . . . speaking of the Bible . . . is that the conservatives are fighting this battle over an inferior country when they should be fighting for the better country. Or, to put it another way, why battle for the earthly Jerusalem when the heavenly one has already been lost in the PCUSA? The fact that conservatives will fight tooth and nail over Israel and homosexuality in the church, but not fight over the doctrine of the Bible (a battle lost by true conservatives long ago) smacks of putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

OK, lets say they win. Lets say ordaining homosexuals is banned in the PCUSA once and for all. Lets further say that the GA makes a pronouncement which is in support of Israel. So what? Is this not like winning some small battles in the backwoods while the war has already been lost? Its kind of like Germany taking back Normandy after Berlin has already fallen. What’s the point, really?

No, the soul of the PCUSA is still dead. This is something to lament. And until such a time as the church get’s rid of its Confession of 1967, reaffirms the Westminster Standards fully, unequivocally pronounces inerrancy as its official position, what life can it have? If you lose the standard by which you are to think and live, is there really any hope saving the PCUSA from a slow and painful death? After all, by all indications, that is where its heading. Being “relevant” and being political (whether conservative or liberal) doesn’t seem to be working. Why not try something new? Why not try the Bible, being committed to the narrow way, and seeking a better country . . . a heavenly one. Certainly, such a tact can’t possibly do worse.

I’m not a big fan of 12 step programs, but I’ll except Web Work Daily who have posted a very helpful plan for increasing productivity.  These tips should prove useful for all people.

ChurchRater is a controversial new website that acts as a Yelp or Zagat for churches.  Here is how ChurchRater describes their purpose.

Every Sunday close to 350,000 churches open their doors to the public. How do you know what you’re walking into? What will the pastor be talking about? What kind of people attend?  ChurchRater lets you read what others say about the church and rate your own experience. ChurchRater lets you talk back after sitting through a sermon. ChurchRater lets you…  find a church that fits.

ChurchRater is paying reviewers who are accepted through their process.  Churches will contact ChurchRater seeking people to come rate their church.  ChurchRater then posts an ad on Craigslist and selects from those who respond to the ad.

Jolie O’Dell at Read/Write Web had this to say:

The site began as a rather natural extension of two of the co-founders’ book, Jim and Casper Go to Church. The premise for the book “could be the pilot script for a sitcom: a pastor hires an atheist to help him critique several Christian churches throughout the United States.” Jim Henderson, the pastor, and Matt Casper, the atheist, traveled to several churches around the U.S. to get a fresh perspective on how people worship.  The website now allows any user to essentially replicate that feedback process.

Is a church service quantifiable?  Is this generally a misguided idea?   Or is this simply an extension of the conversations you would have with people anyway when speaking of different churches?

Here’s a quote to chew on regarding the ethics of labor.

… we can [...] be quite sure that a great many of our economic ills arise from our failure to recognize the sanctity of six days of labour.  Labour is not only a duty; it is a blessing.  And, in like manner, six days of labour are both a duty and a blessing.  If this principle were firmly established in our thinking, then the complications and hypocrisies often associated with the demand for a five-day week would not have so readily afflicted our economy, and moral degeneration would not have proceeded at the pace we have witnessed.

John Murray.  Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 83.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Sunday that Pope Benedict XVI has urged priests to engage in new media. Even the original Westminster Confession antichrist is all for Web 2.0.

The spread of multimedia communications and its rich ‘menu of options’ might make us think it sufficient simply to be present on the Web,” but priests are “challenged to proclaim the gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources.

I’m still trying to deconstruct this one, but I’m not sure it deserves any attention.  I saw the trailer for the new Denzel Washington movie before Avatar.  The movie is getting a lot of press, but the reviews are generally not favorable.  As the Hebrew students out there should know, Eli means “my God” and from what I gather, the gist of the movie is that Denzel Washington wanders through a post-apocalyptic world in possession of the last Bible.  The antagonists are attempting to get the Bible from him in order to place it in the kingpin’s collection of rare artifacts.  I’m puzzled at the motivation for the premise of this plot, but I fear the movie may be too gimmicky or shallow for the effort.

You all may have seen the recent You Tube video with Dr. Oliphint posted here at Reformed Forum. If not, check it out and then come back and read this post. (By the way, only part 1 is posted here, but you can find parts 2 and 3 at You Tube).

What struck me about Dr. Oliphint’s presentation of Van Til’s apologetic method (properly called “Covenantal Apologetics” as opposed to “Presuppositionalism”), is that biblically faithful apologetics is not a matter of bait and switch. In other words, we don’t pretend that we can agree with the unbeliever on some neutral footing for the sake of winning him to Christ. So, we don’t pretend with the unbeliever that reason or evidence is our final authority in all things. We don’t do that because eventually we will have to come to the God of the Bible and the Bible of God. At which point the unbeliever will say “Hey, wait, you can’t go there, you promised to stay neutral!” You see, if we begin somewhere else other than the Bible and the Triune God and later seek to back track the reasonably intelligent unbeliever will rightly call “foul” and say that we are trying to switch up authorities on him. And he would be correct, we did try to pull the old bait and switch. As those committed to God’s word how can we be so dishonest with unbelievers and still seek to maintain a faithful witness to Christ? So, rather, we are to begin honestly with the unbeliever and seek to defend not generic theism, but the truth of the Christian Faith as such and as it is revealed in Scripture. The fact that the unbeliever doesn’t buy that does not change the fact that we called to honest and biblical apologetics! Read the rest of this entry »