Monthly Archives: February 2008

Another resurrection (and commission) in Mark’s Gospel

John Barah posts a fantastic observation on the resurrection theme which Mark laces throughout his Gospel. John shows that when Jesus rose up early in the morning on the first day of the week and his disciples had to hunt for him, that the event is described in ways that foreshadow the resurrection scene in Matthew 16. Jesus wants his disciples to leave and go out elsewhere.

It is an great point and is certainly backed up by the way Mark writes about other events. I argue, for example (following Austin Farrar, of course!) that Herod’s murder of John the baptizer is done in a way that is heavily reminiscent to what happens to Jesus at the hands of Pilate in Jerusalem. And this is all presented as the background for a “Great Commission” in Mark 6.7-13, following immediately on a story about how Jesus was rejected by his own countrymen (Mark 6.1-6).

The relationship is even more comprehensive because that we are explicitly told that when Herod hears the stories of the powers at work in Jesus’ disciples, he believes it is because murdered John is alive again. So even though Mark contains no explicit story of Pentecost, we see that the idea is quite evident in his Gospel that the Righteous One gets forcefully sentenced, as a favor on a feast day, and is killed and rises again to send out followers in the power of the Spirit….

The anachronistic nihilist

Since John Wright blogged about it, I decided to purchase a copy of The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane. I thought it might be OK at some point to encourage my boys to read.Don’t think so.For one thing, the racism about Africa is just too much to bear. Kane would never be a Nazi, and he would kill a Klansman without a second thought. But it is still just hard to read Howard on Africa and Africans. You can easily perceive this is the same era that gave us Tarzan and King Kong.

But, even more disturbing is the fact that the author, Robert E. Howard, killed himself at the age of thirty–partly out of grief over his dying mother, but also simply because, at that ripe age, he felt like he was past his prime.Wright blogs about a certain sort of pessimism in Howard’s vision…. Continue reading

An analysis of apostasy

James writes,

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

James cannot possibly be writing about sin in general. He is talking about the way people in the Church make shipwreck of the faith. Rather than growing by faith through trials into wisdom, they allow desires to grow into sins and then keep growing rather than repenting. The point is twofold: 1. sin is dangerous and will lead you to destruction and 2) you have time to repent and return so make use of that time to cut it short.

Of course, a person who has left his desires unchecked, so that they give birth to sin, might not be in the best mindset to turn from that path. Christians need help from their fellow Christians. So James ends his letter with an exhortation that hearkens back to what he wrote near the beginning of his letter:

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Samuel Miller on Deconesses and Elderesses

Before you read my quotations, feel free to look up all the praise heaped upon Samuel Miller’s book on The Ruling Elder.

Anyway, Miller writes in Chapter 7,

The celebrated Professor Neander, of Berlin, was mentioned in a preceding chapter, as probably, the most profoundly learned Christian antiquarian now living. In addition to the quotation from him presented in that chapter, the following, from the same work, is worthy of notice….

The same writer says:-“We find another office in the apostolic times-that of Deacons. The duties of this office were from the first only external, (Acts vi.,) as it seems to have taken its rise for the sole purpose of attending to the distribution of alms. The care of the poor, however, and of the sick, and many other external duties were, in process of time, imposed upon those in this station. Besides the Deacons, there were also Deaconesses appointed, who could have free access to the female part of the Church, which was, on account of the peculiar manners of the East, denied, to a great extent, to men. Here the female had an opportunity of exercising her powers for the extension of the true faith, without overstepping the bounds of modesty and propriety, and in a field otherwise inaccessible. It was their duty, too, as experienced Christian mothers, to give advice and support to the younger women, as seems to have been the case from Tertullian, De Virgin. Veland. c. 9.” [21]

Then in chapter 12,

But the eligible candidate for this choice [of Ruling Elder] must be a male member [of the congregation wherein he is nominated]. Some, indeed, have seriously doubted whether there were not in the apostolic Church, female Elders, or Elderesses; and also whether there ought not to be a similar class of Elders in every Church at the present day. A great majority, however, who have treated of this subject, believe, that the female officer,-apparently referred to in Titus ii. 3, and a few other passages in the New Testament, were intended to be merely a temporary appointment, arising out of that state of seclusion in which females lived, and do still live in the Eastern world, and not at all necessary in those countries where females may be approached and instructed without the intervention of individuals of their own sex. The Presbyterian Church has judged and acted in conformity with this view of the subject.[12]

I find this quite interesting. Here is an argument that there were some sort of female Elders permitted by Paul in the NT Church, but that we shouldn’t copy that today. Why? Because we allow for more mixing of the sexes.

I don’t agree with Samuel Miller’s understanding of NT Church government. But I don’t think that means he was ignorant or deceptive about what the Bible says. Truthfully, I almost think I would have more respect for him if he had advocated women Elders based on his mistaken view of the NT data, than to simply dismiss it as ad hoc. But the word “almost” is very important in that last sentence. I think it might be instructive for any debate about offices and gender to realize how differently the data has been interpreted in the past.

This post almost had another title

But Jennifer made chocolate-covered bananas for the kids and called me upstairs to eat a half that she had reserved for me.

Instead of polemics I got chocolate. It was a profitable trade off. (You all know what I’m thinking about, right?).

So I’m avoiding the embrace of a (possible) tar baby. Great. Are there rules I could adopt in case I don’t have chocolate to pull me into a better mind? Like:

Thou shalt not ever link and respond to someone who declares that everyone who disagrees with him is either ignorant or practicing deception.

The problem is that you feel that not responding counts as an admission of guilt. But surely, given the size and amazing level of stupidity in the Internet, no one can be held accountable for not trying to correct every smear?

Still, I don’t think a command will be enough. You have to remind yourself of wisdom.

Though shalt remember that those who would listen to someone who besmirches the character of those who disagree with him must already be so much in his thrall that they are not going to be corrected by you, no matter what. And the rest already know the man is lacking intelligence

Not sure this if this is helpful or not.

Christ is the mediator of the reprobate

One of the problems with this chart is that the black line of unbelief only passes through Creation, Fall, and unbelief, and doesn’t touch on Christ the mediator. I guess this is because “mediator” is being used as a specialized theological term that only entails ultimate salvation. Fine, but I doubt your going to find the word used in such a specialized way in the Bible. Being a mediator would mean being a king and judge for God, an office that Christ fulfills by judging unbelievers in history and finally at the Last Judgment.

Furthermore, mediator is a two-way word, both from man to God and from God to man. So when all judgement is given by the Father to the Son, executing judgment on the reprobate would be an aspect of that office. The Father’s wrath is mediated through the Son.

Also, if you look at the black line as it goes to the left, that ineffectual call would be from Christ the mediator. Yet there is no contact in the diagram.More generally, there is no room at all for common grace in this diagram. I doubt Perkins was a hyper-calvinist, but one would expect it to soon arise if this became a widely popular teaching tool.

Finally, the C lines, with the printed explanation for them, look subordinationist to me.  But I may be way out of my depth in this.

Thoughts?

You want to be PRECISE about Christianity? Fine, just be precise about CHRISTIANITY

I mentioned in my BH post,

It has been said in our Puritan history that we serve a “precise God.” Fine. Then lets all be good “precisionists” precisely where God himself has provided us with precise detail. Dismissing the entire book of Leviticus with a shibboleth that “Christ fulfilled the sacrifices,” so we can go on to spend almost all our time discussing the mechanics of justification and sanctification does not strike me as descriptive of a culture that takes God’s word seriously.

Here you can see a published source relating a anecdote from Puritan history that now has almost mythical status.

The Puritans were overly strict. Often true. Samuel Ward’s college dairy consists of a cataloging of his failings, and his self-accusations include such offenses as these: going “to bed without prayer”, falling asleep without his last thought being of God, “unwillingness to pray”, not preparing adequately for Sunday on the preceding Saturday night, immoderate eating, “also my immoderate laughter in the hall at nine o’clock,” impatience, and talking on Sunday of “other matters than are meet to be talked of on the Sabbath.”

When the English preacher Richard Rogers was lecturing at Wethersfield, Essex, someone told him, “Mr. Rogers, I like you and your company very well, but you are so precise.” To which Rogers replied, “O Sir, I serve a precise God.” One of the names by which the Puritans were first called was “Precisionists.” Of course, everyone is strict about the things he or she values most highly. Athletes are strict about training, musicians about practicing, business people about money. The Puritans were strict about their moral and spiritual activities.

I’m not for a moment going to deny that there are points in favor of this sort of concern. But there is justified hesitation in embracing the way it has been carried out.

For one thing, as a pastor, I’m supposed to to be pastoring everybody who names the name of Christ. The Bible is full of warnings against arrogance and contempt for those who appear weaker–especially in the name of spiritual attainment or even in the name of grace received. So athletic analogies are, to some extent, terrifying. You encourage athletic excellence by excluding anyone not tough enough. That seems a 180 degrees in the wrong direction considering religious reformation. I realize Dr. Ryken intends no such thing (and wouldn’t require that sort of precision). But I think his light defense could easily be seen as revealing something very much at odds to God’s will in the Puritan movement.

(It also seems diametrically opposed to the whole impulse of the Reformation. Here’s Luther liberating us from pilgimages, feeling guilty when we have sex with our spouses, and paying for indulgences, and now we have to feel guilty for falling asleep without thinking about God first or unsuppressed laughter after 8:30pm? Was this a continuation of the Reformation or a counter-reformation?–I note in passing that the Jesuits were filling England with books of rules for daily living and that Puritanism, to some extent, was driven by a mission to provide Protestant alternative books of this sort.)

But, aside from all that, if we serve “a precise god,” I think we ought to be precise about the things he is precise about. How do you get from here to here?

(And how can you expect people catechized by that diagram to even know what Paul is talking about in Romans 14? Who is the brother for whom Christ died and whom we are not supposed to destroy?)

The white rabbit to lead out of rationalism

Start with Doug Jones. Here is a really helpful list of links to his writing.

Then, for those who aren’t going to find and read Theology After Wittgenstein by Fergus Kerr, consider this great help from another blogger:

These aren’t complete. I’ve just finished the book so I might start up where he leaves off. We’ll see.

Upgrade complete

OK, that probably went better than I had any write right to expect (don’t even ask about my homonym confusion).

But I’m not excited about widgets anymore. At least not until I have time to edit everything and anything unique I did to this template and put it in a text box. Yuck.