John Calvin: Lactivist?

Yep, according to TulipGirl. Apparently while Luther was thinking about tippling, Calvin was writing about, er, nippling.

". . .the Lord does not in vain prepare nutriment for children in their mothers' bosoms, before they are born. But those on whom he confers the honor of mothers, he, in this way, constitutes nurses; and they who deem it a hardship to nourish their own offspring, break, as far as they are able, the sacred bond of nature. If disease, or anything of that kind, is the hindrance, they have a just excuse; but for mothers voluntarily, and for their own pleasure, to avoid the trouble of nursing, and thus to make themselves only half-mothers, is a shameful corruption."

This was big fun for TulipGirl. If she'd been around in the 16th Century, there would have been a sixth 'sola' for the Reformation -- Sola Mammaries.

TheoBlogging: Expository Preaching

Reformation 21 has posted a good, long article on expository preaching. It'll be review for you theology mavens, but a lot of you might find it a good intro to the subject.

Also be sure to check out Fide-O's post: "Here are seven important principles of inductive Bible study that produces a genuine exposition... (lots of good stuff in-between)... In summary, just because a someone preaches verse-by-verse does not mean that they are doing expository preaching."

Al Mohler, the greatest Calvinist Baptist since Spurgeon, has written a three part series on it which starts here.

PIN(K)O -- Presbyterian In Name Only

Just when you think the mainline Presbyterians can't get any more embarrassing, they go and play kissy-face with Hezbollah.

"On October 20, 2005, the Lebanese press reported that a delegation from the Presbyterian Church USA, headed by Father Nihad Tu'meh and with Robert Worley as its spokesman,[1] visited southern Lebanon at the invitation of Hizbullah, and met there with the terrorist organization's commander in southern Lebanon, Nabil Qawuq.

During the meeting, Qawuq expressed his doubts about U.S. actions in the region and the intentions of the Bush administration. Worley, on his part, assured Qawuq that he was not defending the U.S. administration, that all delegation members had voted Democratic, and that the Presbyterian Church had been pressured by U.S. Jewish organizations because of its campaign to divest from corporations working with Israel."

Any PC(USA) folks who are sick of this, just remember the PCA is always waiting with open arms. :-)

They were followed by a delegation from the '9/11 Families.'

"Delegation spokesman Robert Worley said: "We do not wish to defend the U.S. administration. We all elected the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. Rest assured that we will return to the U.S. in order to continue our activity for peace, and we want to hear about the charity activities and the cultural and social activities organized by Hizbullah in south [Lebanon]."

Remember this the next time they pose as non-partisan. And remember, kids, don't question their patriotism!

Yes, but did he bring her TULIPs?

For those of you not up on zany Calvinist humor, click here for elaboration. Thanks go to TulipGirl for bringing it to our attention.

More Evangelical smack-down for Pat Robertson

Biblical Christianity goes after Robertson for his kill-a-caudillo-for-Jesus comments about Hugo Chavez.

Also check out our buddy PG Epps at Comment Me No Comments with Keep God and Kill the Pig.

I especially liked this graph: "Public schooling was born of the universalizing ethic of liberalism, of a fusion of American "Manifest Destiny" and the sort of political co-opting of evangelicalism represented in the lyric "Till we have built Jerusalem / In England's green and pleasant land!" (Prohibition was another such fool's errand for American Christians, a spectacular result of newborn feminism and a zeal for "visible results" going off half-cocked)."

Keywords: Pat Robertson, Stupid Christian Tricks, Evangelical silliness, False prophet, Pat Roberson, Christian Ghetto

The Bible doesn't mention wrath for Dover, PA. . . But it does for false prophets.

One of our people here asked in comments about the whole Pat Robertson thing:

"I understand that your guy Pat Robertson suggested that the heathens in Dover, PA pray to Darwin after Pat's friend God wipes the Patforsaken place off the face of the earth. But I'm left wondering about the people in Massachusetts. Presumably Pat's going to ask God to wipe out that limp-wristed state for their support of gay marriage. My question is this: When God wipes out Massachusetts who do the people there pray to, Liberace?"

This was a great comment, love the snark. But just in case anyone else is wondering, Robertson is not 'my guy.' He's the Al Sharpton of Evangelicalism -- only a fringe really listen to him, most of us think he's an embarrassment, and he's a media magnet because he's always good for an incendiary, stupid quote.

Here are some of the things I've written here about Robertson and Falwell in the past:

Needed: An Evangelical "Sister Souljah" Moment

More Politico-Clerics!

Illuminati Under the Bed

Thankfully, there are many, many, many faithful pastors for every chucklehead like Robertson.

UPDATE: To see just how isolated Robertson is, do a technorati search and try to find Evangelicals doing anything but criticizing him. Examples:

Mariner Ministries -- Call on Charles Darwin

Broken Messenger -- False Prophet: Pat Robertson?

Ordinary Everyday Christian -- Loons of the Month

Keywords: Pat Robertson, Pat Roberson, Stupid Christian Tricks, Evangelical silliness, false prophet, Christian ghetto

The Song of the Strange Ascetic

If I had been a Heathen,
I'd have praised the purple vine,
My slaves should dig the vineyards,
And I would drink the wine.
But Higgins is a Heathen,
And his slaves grow lean and grey,
That he may drink some tepid milk
Exactly twice a day.

If I had been a Heathen,
I'd have crowned Neaera's curls,
And filled my life with love affairs,
My house with dancing girls;
But Higgins is a Heathen,
And to lecture rooms is forced,
Where his aunts, who are not married,
Demand to be divorced.

If I had been a Heathen,
I'd have sent my armies forth,
And dragged behind my chariots
The Chieftains of the North.
But Higgins is a Heathen,
And he drives the dreary quill,
To lend the poor that funny cash
That makes them poorer still.

If I had been a Heathen,
I'd have piled my pyre on high,
And in a great red whirlwind
Gone roaring to the sky;
But Higgins is a Heathen,
And a richer man than I:
And they put him in an oven,
Just as if he were a pie.

Now who that runs can read it,
The riddle that I write,
Of why this poor old sinner,
Should sin without delight-
But I, I cannot read it
(Although I run and run),
Of them that do not have the faith,
And will not have the fun.

(G. K. Chesterton - 1913)

Paganism and Rome

While Barzun pulls plenty of punches in his survey of the Reformation, he does get some things right:

"To invoke the Saviour in place of works was to change reality; that is, to reshape culture and and individual behavior. Worshipping the saints had become a kind of polytheism: they were powers to entreat. Every living person, every activity and institution, every town and village was dedicated to a patron saint, and aware of living under his or her protection. . .

This distributed worship had come into being as the early church converted the pagan populations of the West. To make the new creed intelligible and congenial, Christian rites and holidays were adapted to existing customs. Saints took the place of local deities: Christmas, Easter, Rogations (the springtime blessing of the fields) re-enacted the original pagan festivals. . .

Luther was induced by overwhelming tradition to condone the worship of the Virgin Mary. The late Middle Ages, thinking of mercy as peculiarly maternal had made her, not Christ, the intercessor in forgiveness. Luther recalled that in his youth to mention Christ in a sermon was considered 'effeminate'." (Barzun, 22)

Sorry for falling back on quotes today, I'm too muddled for creative thought. Check back mañana!

Baptism.

This is a spin-off of the De Facto Baby Sprinklers thread. Anyone who wants to weigh in on baptism -- paedo, credo or other -- please feel free to jump in.

Prayer Request

The death of Communism left a vacuum that was quickly filled from all quarters -- a resurgent Orthodox Church, Western missionaries, thousands of Korean Presbyterians, and unfortunately. . . cults. The Mormons and JWs have expanded aggressively.

A Ukrainian colleague and I are organizing a cult conference for the end of March. One thing it'll cover is the marks of a cult, and how to differentiate cults from other Western churches (we often all get lumped into the sektanti pile by the average person.) We'll also be looking at the distinctives of Mormonism and the JWs, and teaching people how to defend their faith when approached by cultists.

One of the great things to come out of the Orange Revolution was a very healthy ecumenism, with leaders of the Kiev Patriarchate, the Protestant and Catholic churches all meeting and praying together. We're hoping to help further this with the conference by inviting the leaders of the various local churches to take part.

There are a lot of details still to be worked out. So please be in prayer for the conference -- especially location, turn-out and impact. Thanks!

Cat-Ma vs. Dog-Ma

Batesline Blog posts good stuff daily daily. Here's a great one:

What's the difference between dog theology and cat theology?

A dog says: "You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me. You must be God."
A cat says: "You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me. I must be God."

"Cat theologians don't necessarily believe that they are God; they (we, really) just act that way. We search the Bible for God's promises of blessings. We come to church to learn how to have happier marriages, how to be better parents, how to have more satisfying careers. . . Dog theology doesn't deny that God seeks to bless his people, but it puts that fact into perspective."

Pop over and read the whole post.

Design Your Own Purgatory

If I believed in purgatory, there's one group I'd send there for a nice, long time. Tetzel couldn't even save them. It's a certain category of online Christians who say cutting, ugly things to other believers, but cloak it all in pious language. They basically borrow the flaming sword from the angel which guarded Eden, dice the other person into tiny bits, and then sign off with, "Your brother in Christ. . ."

There's a related tribe of unbelievers who does the same thing but uses smiley emoticons instead. Being infidels, they don't even rate purgatory, poor souls.

Calvinism, not Fatalism

One of the perennial charges made against Reformed Christianity is that it's "fatalistic." The idea is that because Calvinists believe God actively works out everything that happens in the universe, we also believe that humans have no will or range of action. So you get comments like, "Well, prayer doesn't mean anything if God predestined everything." Or "you don't believe in evangelism, because God's just going to save people anyway."

The problem these people have is that they aren't arguing with Calvin, but with the Word of God. If their critique was true, they'd have disproved not just the great Frenchman and predestination. The Bible itself posits both human responsibility AND the total, active sovereignty of God.

"In Him we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will. . . -- Ephesians 1:11"

God is working everything that happens in the Universe according to his own divine plan and will. But He's chosen to work out this will through means. No Calvinist believes that God makes robots of us. The Westminster Confession itself says that God does no violence to our wills in predestination. Instead He works through our own actions -- both good and evil ones.

So how does this work out practically? Take prayer as an example.

God has ordained that prayer changes things. When I pray, God really does hear and respond to it. But if God has a purpose to be accomplished, there WILL be prayer for it. God ordains both the ends, and the means to accomplish it. Far from fatalism, I have the comfort of knowing that my prayers fit perfectly into the gracious plan of God's predestination.

Evangelism is the same. God has ordained the foolishness of preaching as his primary means of reaching the lost. So I can never say, "Ah, no need to evangelize. God'll save them anyway." No, He won't. I'm responsible to preach both in season and out. But it is true that if God has predestined that someone will hear the Gospel, it WILL invariably be preached to them. Again, both means and ends.

Philippians has a great example of the two elements working together:

". . .work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:12,13

Paul is exhorting us as beings who have a will and the ability to choose our actions. At the same time, however, he shows us a second aspect of our reality -- that the will we exert and the actions we peform are actually thanks to the working of God within us. And that He's guiding them according to His "good pleasure."

Fatalism accepts what the Bible says about God's sovereignty without acknowledging the verses about human responsibility and free agency. Much of the rest of contemporary Christianity does just the opposite -- swallowing free agency without facing up to the sovereignty verses. Both approaches leave one with a truncated Bible and a distorted image of God.

Good Reads: Challies is doing some beautiful posting on Calvinism and predestination. Also pop over to Dave's Exegesis for a Scripture-chocked look at God's sovereignty and predestination.

Keywords: Predestination, Calvinism, Reformed Christianity, Calvinist, Reformed Theology

a quick theology primer

- Protestants don't recognize the authority of the Pope.

- Orthodox don't recognize the Filioque.

- Catholics don't recognize Sola Fide.

- Baptists don't recognize each other in the liquor aisle.

More on Art and the Christian Ghetto

Greg added this bit of helpful but bleak commentary:

"My job has me out this week working in our company's exhibit booth at the National Religious Broadcaster's convention. In Anaheim, CA. Across the street from Disneyland. I am not making this up.

All except the "Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" movie. It looks well-done. A gem in a septic tank."

He's not normally so reticent, but I think you can read between the lines and surmise his opinion.

You can also pop over to Winston's place and check out Christianity and the Arts. He overviews some Christian books which can help us transcend kitsch and banality.

grace and gays

Other than abortionists, no group in America is more reviled by the Church than gay people. As I've said here before, many seem to have set up barricades at the Gates of Grace and decided unilaterally that homosexuals are barred.

Yes, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. But the Church has taken it so far beyond that, elevating it above all other sins into its own category of evilness. Fornication might be evil, but homosexual fornication is "Eeevil, like the fru-its of the De-vil", as Mike Myers might say.

This is the saddest irony imaginable. Looking around contemporary America, I can think of few groups Jesus would reach out to sooner than gays. He was drawn to the outcast and the suffering.

As much as a fifth of gay men are living under the death sentence of HIV. Studies show 54% of gay men and 55% of lesbians report physical abuse in their relationships. Major Depression rates are up to four times that of the general population. Levels of alcoholism, anxiety disorders, suicide and drug abuse are incredibly high as well. These factors conspire to take twenty-five years from the average gay male's life expectancy. We're talking death statistics straight out of the 1870's.

This post isn't about the immorality of the gay lifestyle. It's about the immorality of turning a large group of people into an untouchable caste.

Yes, gays are unworthy of God's grace. So are you. That's why it's called grace.

Free the Philly Five

I wrote not long ago about the "Philly 5" -- Christian activists who were arrested for counter-demonstrating at a gay rights "Outfest."

By all accounts, they're pretty chuckleheaded -- confrontational and obnoxious rather than gracious and loving. But their actions were misdemeanors at most. They're being charged with felony counts, not because of what they did, but because of what they believe. Thought crime.

Anyone with a sense of justice or even a sense of self-preservation should be against this. Giving people prison terms for their beliefs has no place in a free society.

Here's a petition to free the Philly Five. Regardless of your feelings about them, justice should be blind.

The Indigenous Principle and the Pilgrim Principle

I'm teaching in Romans 12 for the next couple of weeks. During my research today, I came across a sermon by John Piper -- Do Not Be Conformed to This World. This excerpt is simple, but it stood out to me:

"These two impulses are always in tension with each other. At times they push in opposite directions, and the great challenge is to find the biblical balance. Andrew Walls, in his book, The Missionary Movement In Christian History, calls these two impulses the Indigenous Principle and the Pilgrim Principle (Mary Knoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2001, pp. 7-9). In other words, the gospel can and must become indigenous in every (fallen!) culture in the world. It can and must find a home in the culture. It must fit in. That’s the indigenous impulse.

But at the same time, and just as powerful, the gospel produces a pilgrim mindset. It loosens people from their culture. It criticizes and corrects culture. It turns people into pilgrims and aliens and exiles in their own culture. When Paul says, 'Do not conformed to this world,' and 'I became all things to all people,' he is not confused; he is calling for a critical balance of two crucial biblical impulses."

Pentecostals, Christian Anthropology, and Anti-Intellectualism

It was the endemic anti-intellectualism which finally drove me from the Charismatic and Pentecostal world in which I came of age (that and the naked corruption of a couple of Name-it Claim-it pastors of mine. . .) Part of that hostility to the life of the mind has cultural roots. But it wasn't until later that I realized it was also a fault of their anthropology.

Contrary to the historically dominant Christian view of man as a 2-part being -- a body and a spirit/soul, the churches I grew up in believed in a trichotomous man -- body, soul and spirit. It was an incredibly Gnostic construct. The Body is always sinful. The Spirit is always perfect. And the Soul, which is a mix of good and bad, is the deciding vote in whether man sins or not. Let's see. . . Matter=Bad, Spirit=Good. Could we even try to resurrect early heresies a little more openly?

So anyway. The Soul was the seat of reason and intellect, in their view. It's good and bad. The Spirit is unadulterated good. It's where they felt the "leading of the Spirit", and had God "speak to them in their spirit."

So which one would you trust -- the fallible soul or the perfect spirit? So naturally the soul is subordinated to spirit -- the life of the mind falls to the whims of emotion. Systematic study of the Word gives way to searches for new emotional experiences.

Is it this way in all Charismatic and Pentecostal churches? No. But certainly in a majority of the ones in which I grew up.

Some are going to wonder what I'm talking about. If the Bible speaks of both spirit and soul, how can I say they're the same thing? The Bible uses them interchangeably. They are two aspects of the same, incorporeal element of man's composition, with the differing words conveying nuance. The Bible almost universally speaks of man dichotomously -- either body-and-soul or body-and-spirit.

A natural question then is in regard to Hebrews 4:12, where it mentions the Word dividing spirit and soul. Here it means nothing more than that the Word has power even to divide the thoughts and intents of the heart. Following his analogy, we can see he doesn't portray soul and spirit as two separate elements -- he says it separates joints and marrow (the body) and soul and spirit (the second aspect, man's incorporeal element.)

If someone wanted to be hyperliteral and accept that Heb. 4:12 has to mean a 3 part man, then he's going to run into a further problem -- similar verses enumerate other elements. For example -- mind, will, heart, etc. You can end up with a nine part human by the time you're finished. . .

PCA Blogroll/Aggregator and the new Decablog

Jollyblogger has a great new project going -- a PCA blogroll/aggregator for all you edgy/rock-ribbed/cerebral Presbyterian types out there.

Also, here's another nudge for you to check out:

Remembering the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Humbled by Grace?

Researching for Bible study today, I came across a sermon on Romans 11. This quote struck me:

"You can be proud or you can be Presbyterian, but you can’t be both consistently. If you’ve really seen God’s grace it always has the quality of humbling you in the dust."

This is something I'll be meditating on this week. If only I could really grasp that I was saved by grace -- that there was nothing smarter, better or fresher tasting about me than anyone else, that it was totally a free act of God's mercy. . . I think it would be life-changing. Of course, I believe it already. But I want this belief to sink deeper into my heart. It seems to me there's a cure here for spiritual arrogance, both in my relationship with God and with non-Christians.

Pravda, UFOs and Nietzsche's "Rain of Gods"

G.K. Chesterton said "When men stop believing in the one, true God, it's not that they don't believe in anything, but that they believe in everything and anything."

This quote came home to me today when a nice old woman in Intermediate English mentioned "energy vampires", and then pulled out a tabloid to prove they exist. My friend Roma, a very smart young chemist, also reads such papers and believes them implicitly. You can see businessmen on the metro intently reading rags with names like "Secret Knowledge."

Virtually every young man I work with has been involved in either the occult or Eastern religions at some point in his life. Metro stations have kiosks full of New Age books. Pravda, once the voice of the Communist Party, now features stories on Boriska -- Boy from Mars, Aliens Live on Earth, and Soviet Army Fought UFOs.

The occult was popular during the Soviet Union. Denied a traditional outlet, man's innate religious sense sought mystical experiences in psychic phenomenon and pseudo-scientific speculation. It then exploded during glasnost and immediately following, as the Communist collapse left a vaccuum to be filled.

While a bit clichéd, Nietzsche's belief that "When Christian dogma falls apart there will be a rain of gods" seems to be as prophetic as his other writings. The decline of organized religion won't usher in the secular, rationalist Utopia many would like. Instead, the post-Christian era, both in Ukraine and the States, is characterized by an ever-increasing array of irrational and superstitious beliefs.

Those who see organized Christianity as an obstacle to a free, rational society should think twice before removing it. You might like what fills the vaccuum even less.

ATheology of Suffering

One of the biggest differences between Christian culture in Ukraine and the States would be the emphasis here on suffering. This is partly a matter of Ukraine's tortured history, and partly something inherent in Orthodoxy. Many times it seems to cross over into something unhealthy -- suffering as an end in itself. But overall I think they do a good job recognizing the value of trials, the ways God uses difficulty in our life to mold us into the image of his Son.

Too often, American churches lack a theology of suffering. I grew up in Happy-Clappy churches where "the joy of the Lord is your strength," and that smile better not waver. When I moved into a conservative Presbyterian church, one of the things I came to love was their recognition that while we work to alleviate suffering, it still has a valuable place in a Believer's life. It's a sculpting tool in the hands of God.

My favorite Christian magazine, Modern Reformation, devoted this month to the theology of suffering and Blues music. I was shocked to see that U2's Bono wrote an article called The Bible & The Blues.

Two of the other articles are online:

Singing the Blues with Jesus and Aint It Hard: Suffering & Hope in the Blues

Progress in the Christian Ghetto

There are many things in the Christian subculture that make me want to hide under a rock (for example, the fact that we've allowed ourselves to decline to subcultural status.) A short list would begin with the Left Behind series, extend through the Brownsville Revivals, and culminate in the execrations of Thomas Kinkade.

So it was nice to be reminded yesterday that Christians have no monopoly on goofiness -- I was standing at the desk of the Globe Bookstore and leafed through the "Little Book of Calm" and "Chicken Soup for the Superficially Spiritual."

More good news appeared today on Opinionjournal.com -- Their Idea of a University, a play on Newman's The Idea of a University. It turns out, Christian colleges are growing like crazy, and the quality of research and instruction is growing right along with them.

Overall, my bent is toward Christians taking an active, reforming part in society's institutions, rather than enclaving. Salt needs to be mixed into the bunch to have a flavouring effect. But Christians built Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like, and there is something encouraging in seeing them once again build first-rate universities.

Just as exciting are the developments at the school-age level -- the most interesting debates about educational theories and school reform all seem to be within Christian circles, and some dynamic schools have sprung up in recent years.

United with Christ

Theology gets a bad rap these days. As we slide back towards paganism, theology seems farther and farther from the ecstatic, individualistic spiritual ideal to which we're descending.

That's why I love the Puritans so much, and their immediate spiritual children. They had a faith that hit you both in your heart and your head.

I recently taught through the book of Ephesians. One thing that struck me was how often the phrase "in Christ" appeared. I meditated on that a lot. What is this mystical union we have with Him? What does it mean to be "in Christ"?

According to Ephesians 1, it means everything. In Him we have redemption, we've been blessed with every spiritual blessing, we've been predestined, and have been marked with a seal.

The theme is too vast for a blogging format, but I wanted to link you to a piece written by that great Calvinist "Prince of Preachers", Charles Spurgeon -- Bands of Love, or Union to Christ.

"When the eye is clear and the soul can evidently perceive this oneness between the soul and Christ, the pulse may be felt as beating for both, and the one blood may be known as flowing through the veins of each. Then is the heart made exceedingly glad, it is as near heaven as it ever can be on earth. . .

a prayer for the suffering

I have nothing of any worth to add to what others have already said about the tsunami and the resulting devastation. The mind freezes even trying to imagine the extent of the thing. So in lieu of comment I'm posting a prayer for those in danger from the sea:

"O MOST glorious and gracious Lord God, who dwellest in heaven, but beholdest all things below; Look down, we beseech thee, and hear us, calling out of the depth of misery, and out of the jaws of this death, which is now ready to swallow us up: Save, Lord, or else we perish. The living, the living shall praise thee. O send thy word of command to rebuke the raging winds and the roaring sea; that we, being delivered from this distress, may live to serve thee, and to glorify thy Name all the days of our life. Hear, Lord, and save us, for the infinite merits of our blessed Saviour, thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

-- from the 1789 US Book of Common Prayer

Silliman blogs my childhood

Daniel Silliman, of the eponymously named blog, captures so much of the wackiness that was my childhood religion. This is what every Sunday and Wednesday were like in a Word-of-Faith church:

"We prayer there, rocking back and forth in our fold-out chairs . . . like mental patients confined to wheel chairs, rocking back and forth and praying.

My dad said we would’ve swung on the chandeliers, but we didn’t have any. So we danced in our seats and on our seats and ran through the aisles around the building in a procession going nowhere. . .

We’d pray like that to exhaustion, until we’d slow down, calm down, still out into a mumble, tired by the fervor fever, worn out on the excess and you’d hear some sister sobbing and the usher at the door hissing by threes the One Name of Jezzusss, Jezzusss, Jezzusss. . .

Aaaaaa-men, and we’d rise to it, shouting Jesus Lord God Yahweh Jesus Amen Hallelujah Amen Hellelujah Jesus Jesus raising prayers to the decibel we called zealous."

I've never been able to take the Wicca-types seriously. Don't look for true paganism among a handful of patchouli-reeking LARPers gathered in a darkened city graveyard. . . REAL paganism is best found on the outer fringes of the Charismatic movement. Nothing else so captures the orgiastic loss of reason, the fetishism, the sensualism or the giving over to the Dionysian aspect of our nature than a typical Word of Faith miracle service.

Sadly, the largest Protestant church in Kiev is WoF. Imagine the cruelty of telling people making $60 a month that the only reason they aren't rich is because they don't give enough money and don't have enough faith.

Needed: An Evangelical "Sister Souljah" Moment

To my mind, the Left has lowered itself through its infatuation with Michael Moore. No matter how popular a showman, a self-promoting compulsive liar like Moore is a disgrace to any movement.

On my side of the fence, Jerry Falwell is no less embarrassing. But he's been marginalized for a long time now, kept in the same has-been menagerie as Pat "Illuminati-Jews-run-the-World" Robertson.

Now he's looking for a comeback. Fox is reporting that he's restarting his Moral Majority.

Evangelicals have a chance to do both the country and themselves a favor -- let this thing die a mercifully fast death.

Does anybody know. . .

. . .if Bill Gothard is still living with his mom?

More Papal Senility

More evidence of the senility of the current Pope Bishop of Rome.

"Earlier, a statement by the Vatican's chief spokesman called Mr Arafat the "illustrious deceased" and asked God to grant eternal rest to his soul. "The Holy See joins the pain of the Palestinian people for the passing of President Yasser Arafat. He was a leader of great charisma who loved his people and tried to guide them towards national independence. . ."

Let me get this straight -- John Paul is requesting 'eternal rest' for an embezzling kleptocrat/founder of modern terrorism? I realize the Roman doctrine of justification is a little screwed up, but didn't they once at least hold to something like, I dunno, FAITH being necessary for eternal rest? Maybe even some spiritual fruit beyond encouraging suicide bombings and pimping your own people for aid money?

Now I remember why we had a Reformation. . .

Hat tip: The Rough Woodsman

One thing you can say for Calvinists. . .

Anyone who says that man is totally depraved couldn't be all bad.

Worse than Michael Moore.

This picture is more offensive than anything I saw coming from the Left this campaign cycle. I'd like to give both of these guys a good, solid kick somewhere vulnerable -- I'm not particular. Because while Moore insults our country and our ancestors, these two chuckleheads are demeaning something infinitely more precious -- the Cross of Christ.

The Cross has one name on it, and it is NOT George Bush. Christ transcends party lines, and they are tools in HIS hands. How dare these fools seek to make a tool of Christ instead.

I'm a Republican because the things I value as a Christian find more support there. But my party loyalty is a contingent thing; my loyalty to Christ is not. And the line between the two needs to be marked out with double-thick, permanent black magic marker.

A Prayer for Our Troops in Fallujah

"O ALMIGHTY God, the supreme Governor of all things, whose power no creature is able to resist, to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to those who truly repent; Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; that we, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee, who art the only giver of all victory; through the merits of thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." --From the 1892 Common Book of Prayer

May the Lord also change the hearts of our enemies, and may He spare the lives of the civilians inside Fallujah as well. Amen.

A Homefront Christian in Wartime

In the past I've generally thought of the hard Left as well-meaning, but misguided. The Iraq War has opened my eyes. There's a subsection of the Left which is truly and fundamentally evil. They hate my faith, my way of life, and my country. They publish fawning articles in Islamist journals and give overt and covert support to those killing our soldiers. There's a special word for that -- treason.

In an insurgent war, the homefront is every bit as vital as the battlefront. The hard Left is emboldening our enemies and demoralizing our people. They came within 3% of unseating a wartime president and installing their candidate of choice. They need to be answered; they need to be exposed. We need to work for justice and speak truth, and it would be the highest moral cowardice to retreat from the enemies of one's country.

At the same time, how does a Christian reconcile that with the imperative to love, and to preach and demonstrate grace to these people? I'm not saying that there's an inherent contradiction, but it seems easy to err badly on one side or the other. So where's the balance? And what place do parody or sarcasm have in this?

Happy Reformation Day!

On this day, nearly 500 years ago, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses. God used one man’s brave action to help launch the greatest revival in the history of Christianity. Good on ya, Martin Luther. Oh, that the Lord would send us more uncompromising men.

God Gives the Increase

While being careful not to say, “I am of Calvin”, I’m curious to hear a free-willist interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:5-8:

”Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither who he plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.”

Phrases like, “as the Lord gave to each one” and “God gave the increase” become mere platitudes in the mouths of wishy-washy modern Evangelicals. If “God is a gentleman,” and regeneration is contingent solely upon the will of man, then Paul’s statements about the working of God are mere pious noises.

Arminian adoption -- Theology has consequences?

A family in Donetsk adopted a boy, and he lived with them for 8 years. He has an attachment disorder, and they decided he was simply too troublesome and they gave him back to the orphanage. Now a friend of mine is adopting the boy, even knowing just how messed up he really is. They’re committing to keep him as their son for life.

This is a great picture of the Arminian versus the Calvinist understanding of adoption. In the free willish view, God makes you his son, and then tosses you back into the orphanage if you’re a problem child. Calvinists know their Father in a different way – a God that supports, enables and loves his children all the way through to adulthood – their glorification.

In one of the perverse twists of life, the family that gave up the boy is Arminian Baptist. The new father is a Reformed pastor. Right theology leads to right practice?

The Genius of Calvinism

The focus of our devotions lately has been the presence of God -- that central Biblical thread running from Adam walking in the garden with Him through His covenant promise to us and Abraham, all the way into eternity when God will once again dwell with us in the fullest of senses. I like what Abraham Kuyper had to say in his 'Lectures on Calvinism':

"Thanks to this work of God in the heart, the persuasion that the whole of a man's life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence has become the fundamental thought of Calvinism. By this decisive idea, or rather this mighty fact, it has allowed itself to be controlled in every department of its entire domain. It is from this mother-thought that the all-embracing life system of Calvinism sprung."

While we're on theology, I have to brag on the Duchess a bit. I just popped into our bedroom and found her curled up with Berkof's Systematic. You gotta love a woman who reads systematic theology for fun.

Willing to Believe?

Continuing on with our discussion of man's (un)free will. . . I wanted to comment a bit more on those who accept that there exists a universal ability of all men to believe in Christ to their salvation. In their words, an ability to "make a decision for Jesus."

I have a question for those people -- have you ever considered what it actually means to believe? Have you ever considered that belief isn't initially a function of the will? You can't decide to believe something is true.

I'll clarify with a secular example:

Someone presents a group of people with the details of a new diet fad. These folks listen carefully, and their minds analyze what they've been told. At the end of this process, some believe this information to be true, others think it's bunk. Those who think it's blatantly foolish cannot then use their wills to decide to believe it. Nor can those who have a sincere conviction that it's true then decide to believe it's false.

This is neither controversial or complicated when we're speaking of secular subjects. But for some people, it becomes murky when we begin speaking of spiritual things.

When we share the details of the Gospel, the same process takes place. Some people will believe that there really is a Trinitarian God in Heaven, that the Father sent the Son to die for sinners, and that there really is such a thing as eternal life. Others will not believe this. And there is no choice they can make to cause themselves to believe what seems foolish to them. Apart from self-delusion, there is no act of will to make that which we find ridiculous suddenly seem true.

So even the most basic aspect of saving faith -- intellectual agreement -- is impossible for many, many of the people who hear the Good News. We saw last time that man's will is unfree. We can now add to that an intellect bound by sin.

So what makes these two groups to differ -- those who assent to the claims of the Gospel, and those who find them foolish? We'll talk about that next time.

Love the Sinner/ Disrelish the Sin?

Rong, over at The Requiest has a thoughtful post on hating sin. He has trouble hating sin while still engaging the sinners in the culture around him. God has been convicting me lately that I have a different struggle -- too often I love the sinner while having a mild distaste for the sin.

I realized that I've always taken a certain pride at not being shocked by sin. Growing up in Sarasota, a very liberal city, and spending a lot of years in the punk rock scene can make you a little jaded. And so I freely form friendships and share the Gospel with punks, Pagans, gays and a lot of other groups that many Christians recoil from. They don't shock me.

But I realized I needed to repent of that pride. In large measure my openness with them isn't because I'm just overflowing with the love of Christ (though I do care about them), but because I don't hate sin the way I ought. I hate sin in my own life, but I see now that I've been a bit blasé about its existence in the world around me.

That's not to say that I water down the Bible's ethical teachings, or that I've "gone wobbly" on morality. But knowing, believing and teaching that something is wrong isn't the same thing as hating it. There's something visceral about hate -- it touches the heart as well as the mind.

So that's been my prayer recently -- that I would hate the things that God hates, while loving those that He loves.

Man's Unfree Will

We've been discussing man's will on a previous thread, and it's reminded me of how many humanistic assumptions have crept into Evangelicalism. Man's autonomy is simply assumed by many, and then made the starting point for all subsequent thought on matters salvific. For some reason, Adam's "free will" is the portion of Scripture most commonly referenced. But how much sense does this make?

I have a friend here in Kiev, a former professional footballist footballer soccer player. He was able to play at that level. He had that freedom. Then he suffered a crippling accident that left him an invalid. While still "free" to play football professionally, he completely lost the ability to do so.

Pointing to Adam as an example of man's free will is about as sensical as me pointing to my friend's pre-accident state as evidence of his current ability to be a professional footballer. Except that the analogy is flawed. My friend would have needed to be struck stone dead by the accident for the analogy to work.

Because that's exactly what the Fall did to us. It didn't cripple us; it killed us. So when we speak of man's will, we should look to see what the Scripture says about man's nature post-Fall. It's remarkable how many Christians who claim to believe in the primacy and suffciency of Scripture completely fail to do this, and instead rely on statements that begin with "it's only logical that. . ." They then skip merrily off into semi-Pelagianism, positing a Fall that somehow managed to affect every aspect of man except his will.

As a starting point for tonight, here are a few insights the Word gives us about the nature of man:

He is spiritually DEAD. -- "And you did He make alive, when you were dead in your trespasses and sins. . ." Ephesians 2:1

He is in SLAVERY to sin. -- "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin." John 8:34

He has the DEVIL for a father. -- "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do." John 8:44

He drinks iniquity like water. -- "How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, and drinks inquity like water!" Job 15:16

His mind is in HATRED of God -- "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can it be." Romans 8:7

He doesn't seek God -- "There is none who seeks after God. . . There is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:11,12

The Gospel itself is FOOLISH to him -- "For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. . ." 1 Cor. 1:18 "The natural man receives not the things of God, because they are foolishto him, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14

His mind is BLINDED against the Gospel -- "But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe lest the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. . ." 2 Cor. 4:3

His very nature is as a child of WRATH -- ". . .fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath." Ephesians 2:3

To read these verses and then still talk blithely about man's 'free' will is to invert Orwell's 1984 slogan to read "Slavery is freedom." Because that's what you have to believe to still hold to "free" will.

Does this mean man lacks a will entirely? Not at all. Like everything, he is "free" to choose within the limits of his nature. So he has all the spiritual freedom of a being that is dead in sin, in slavery to sin, in slavery to Satan, a child of the devil, a child of wrath, who drinks iniquity like water, whose mind is in enmity against God, who doesn't seek God, whose eyes are blinded to the very Gospel that can save him and whose mind finds this Gospel utter foolishness.

As one man put it, it's unwise to believe that water can flow uphill, simply because it has the ability to flow downhill.

As Christ Loved the Church. . .

We were studying the second half of Ephesians chapter 5 this evening. During my prep, I came across a wonderful 29-part series on the book.

Our focus tonight was on the parallels between Christ's relationship with the church, and the husband's with his wife. The series made an interesting connection between the electing love of God, and the selecting love of the husband:

"There may be a sense in which we may say that God loves the whole world (see John 3:16), but the love which the husband is to have for his wife is not all-encompassing; it is a selective love. The love of Christ which we husbands are to imitate is a love for the church. Christ, our Model, “loved the church” and “gave Himself up for her.” His love in Christ was a selective love, or, to put the matter in theological terms, it is an elective love. Christ died to save those whom the Father had chosen in eternity past (see Ephesians 1:3-14).

When a man sets his heart upon a woman whom he desires to be his wife, he sets her apart from all other women. He seeks companionship with her, with the goal of making her his wife. While he can love his neighbor, and even his enemy, his love for his wife is unique. It sets her apart from all other women. . ."

I had never really considered before how the Arminian view of election precludes Christ having the sort of love that a husband rightly has for his wife. Instead we're left with a Husband who loves all the women of the world indiscriminately, and for whom no pride of place is reserved for the Bride. Or at the very least we have a very modern Bride, who does the proposing to a rather passive Groom, who only then gives her special consideration vis-a-vis the other women of the world. . .