Yesterday, i welcomed a new child—not a natural child from my own flesh, but a spiritual child over which i have spiritual care, born to a couple in my congregation. Today, i celebrate my own birthday. Yet, in contemplating the beginning of a new life, so welcomed and loved by everyone in our congregation, and in embarking on the thirtieth year of my own life, i can’t help but think of those children whose parents didn’t love them and cherish their entrance into the world the way my parents did.

This is a very sad report of such circumstances in our world today. There was a time when Christians were at the forefront of rescuing such unwanted children born in their communities. In Roman society, such unwanted children were “exposed” (i.e., to the elements) by being left out in the gutters of the streets or dumped in the garbage heaps of the cities. This invariably would lead to the child’s death by exposure to the elements or by dehidration/starvation. Christians would go around, collect these children, and adopt them into their homes and churches, teaching them to trust in Christ and live different lives in response to God’s grace offered in the Lord Jesus. It is interesting that this kindness shown to small children was turned into false accusation of cannibalism by non-Christians. Many of the very people who would so heartlessly throw unwanted children out into the streets or landfills would then turn around and audaciously accuse Christians, who sought to rescue those children, of eating the children, because the Pagans conflated what few things that they knew about Christian worship and practice (i.e., the story of the Nativity of Christ [this child, whom Christians regard as their Savior, born into a feeding trough], the celebration of the Eucharist of Christ [Christ having given his body to eat and his blood to drink], and Christians taking these abandoned children into their homes).

I read an article recently about strange names that some saints in the early Church had received. Some of the stranger ones were rather vulgar names that apparently were monuments to their having been plucked up from sure death after being cast out as unwanted children. I remember one in particular was a diminutive version a very expressive word in Greek, politely translated into English as “Little Piece of Garbage,” but more expressively and bluntly translated “Little Shit.” No doubt, his testimony was that, as an infant, he was cast out with the trash but rescued by Christians and adopted into their homes. For whatever reason, they either gave themselves these disparaging names or received them from their adoptive parents, most probably with a view to being a perpetual reminder of where they came from, always knowing that whatever would come of their lives would be always owing to God’s grace and power so evidently at work.

Unfortunately, in the modern day, the horrendous act of abortion is hidden from the sensitive eyes of the public, keeping them from seeing exactly what they are perpetuating in their advocacy for a mother’s “choice” to murder her unborn child. And even worse, it prevents Christians from being able to do what they were so quick and anxious to do in earlier times: to help save these unwanted children who are born to unloving and uncaring parents—many of which, today, are born alive and viable in botched abortion attempts. It is astounding that “civilized” and “enlightened” societies such as ours doesn’t do more to ensure that where life is it would be preserved at all costs.

Even as i thank the Lord for my life, and the lives of all my children (both natural and spiritual), and so recognize the love and grace that we all have received from God through the agency of our families and the Church, i pray that God would remove the monstrosity of infanticide (both within the womb and without) from our world forever.

So i was doing my devotional reading in the WCF this morning (HA! just kidding—i do my devotional reading in Calvin ;-), and it occurred to me that the Westminster Confession of Faith isn’t so much a Presbyterian document as it is a Puritan Anglican document.

Remember: the Westminster Assembly met during and at the direction of the Long Parliament (seated from 1640-49), which was a Parliament that brought about the English Civil War. Yes, this Parliament agreed to the Solemn League and Covenant (to dissolve both monarchy and prelacy in England, Scotland, and Ireland to preserve the Reformed Religion), but they did so only under threat that the Irish Romanist forces would join with English ones loyal to the King. Also, remember that, while Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud was imprisoned and later put to death (under the direct action of Parliament) and there was no Archbishop of Canterbury from 1645, but there was still prelacy in place in the Church of England, with a Bishop of London serving until the army expelled Parliament in 1649, and with a Bishop of York in place until 1650. This is important, because the WCF was published in 1647 by the more balanced Parliament (not the more extreme Rump Parliament that had been forcibly purged of those members opposed to deposing the King).

The thing that got me thinking about this was not only the fact that the WCF was written as a Confession of Faith for the Church of England to replace (or improve) the 39 Articles, but also that, in reading the WCF, there is nothing that explicitly establishes Presbyterianism in any way whatsoever. Chapter 31 of the original WCF speaks of Synods and Councils, but of what specific officers compose them, and of the nature of “particular” synods (i.e., regional councils, as opposed to “general”) no direction is given. And, what is more important, nothing is said at all relating to a specific form of government of the Church of England, certainly not the disestablishment of the Episcopacy. Really, all you have when it comes to the WCF is a Puritan document, and there were lots and lots of Puritans who held to and happily lived under Episcopacy.

Here’s a Table Talk article from some years ago—back when Steve Schlissel and those who call him friend and brother weren’t persona non-grata among the typical Reformed and Presbyterian circles.

I have to say that Rev. Schlissel expresses one aspect of my own longing with regard to the desire to see a truly Covenantal community in the Church. We are so separated and individualized in our thinking and interaction—whether it is as Presbyterians, as Americans, or as Westerners, i don’t know.

I pastor a congregation of roughly 25-30 people; do you know how very hard it is to plan an event where people are willing or able to attend? Of course, with a congregation our size, it’s no use in trying to go through with an event it if we aren’t sure that more than half our congregation will actually attend. When we have even one family who doesn’t show for church on the Lord’s Day, our worship suffers, and i confess that, in spite of knowing in my heart that i am still ministering to Christians who need the Word, i personally feel very discouraged and empty, just becasue i know that, in some cases, people simply didn’t feel like making it to worship. There is also something very discouraging to me when i have poured my heart and the Word out before the sheep in my care, and i get a handshake, a “Good sermon, preacher,” and a “Yeah, i know what you meant about that” (in reference to an illustration i used), but people all go their own separate ways and don’t want to spend time with one another, or talk about anything except whether the Redskins or the Steelers are going to go all the way this year. I don’t say this because i hope someone in my congregation will read this and do so (i don’t think anyone in my congregation reads this blog), but i feel very discouraged that my own parishioners don’t show me and my family or each other any hospitality—oh, i can go over and visit, and i and my family will always be welcome (no question), but no one ever calls up and says, “We’d love to have you over for dinner this Friday,” or “Would you like to join us for a bite to eat after church Sunday?” Everyone just does their own thing with their own families.

But people just don’t think the way orthodox Jews do, as Schlissel says. I remember in college one of my professors (the class was “Kingdom and Kingship in the OT,” i think) showed Fiddler on the Roof to the class—not to try and get people to understand Jews, become Jews, or even to think that Russian Jews in the late 19th/early 20th century could show us what Israel was like in Saul and David’s time, but to show what it means to live a radically God-centered life. It was really very enlightening in that respect and in the respect that Schlissel speaks of as well. Of course, there are lots of individualistic ideals inserted into the movie and play that make us 21st century viewers who wouldn’t otherwise think about it sympathetic and judgmental of those times and their practices, but for me, the movie illustrates a cohesiveness that the Covenant community can provide to a community that has nothing else and faces uncertainty all around—and if a Christless Covenant can do that, how much more one in which Christ has drawn us all together and made us members of his mystical body.

Alright. Enough of that. (Yes, Tim, those are both fragments.)

The movie, no doubt, takes great liberties with the actual epic poem recounting the life of Beowulf (and i doubt that i has nearly the amount of explicitly Christian rhetoric and content that the original has), however, i’m sure that it’s going to be a very good movie.

I am intrigued by the CG animation that amplifies and fills in detail for the live action actors, who themselves were digitized. They have some great actors, and it will be neat to see them all CG’d up for this movie.

If you haven’t seen it already, you should check out the Beowulf movie website. It has some very interesting video and wallpaper downloads (like the one at left). There are several versions of trailers and TV ads for the movie you can watch in flash player streaming right on the website. They show Grendel as a garish, deformed person, and Grendel’s mother (played by Angelina Joleigh) as something quite different.

Even from the trailers, though, one theme that seems to come across is the temptation that is presented to Beowulf to  be the greatest king in the entire world. Grendel’s mother tempts him and tells him that she can make him that great king. Of course, this is when he came to Grendel’s lair to slay Grendel’s Mother. I can’t help but see the parallel to what we see in Matthew 3, when Christ, who came into Satan’s kingdom to slay him, was tempted by him to be given all kingdoms of the earth if Jesus would just bow down and worship him.

Of course, all movies are like that. You can see all kinds of biblical themes and parallels in them (almost no matter what movie you watch), precisely because of the truth of the Gospel and God’s truths revealed both in nature and in the Scriptures. Men inherently know the truth of these things—they even know things that they don’t know they know—and when they make movies, they come through, sometimes distorted, but always with the truth somewhere in there to which their consciences testify.

I’ll be looking forward to seeing the movie whenever it comes to town. Who wants to go with?

Tim Bayly over at the Bayly Blog has written a post about the feminist tactic of using the cruel reality of wife abuse to put forward their agenda of absolute egalitarianism in marriage relationships. As Tim notes, and as we all know so well, that tactic is not only one used by secular feminists, but it is also one used by Christian feminists as well.

Tim notes lots of statistics that take the teeth out of such an argument—like the fact that women are just as, if not more, likely to abuse their husbands and children as husbands are of abusing their wives and children, and of course that relationships with no men (i.e., female homosexuals) are among the most abusive around. This is all very interesting, and i’m very glad that he has brought it to our attention. I know that, in seminary, when i would get into discussions about these matters with the women studying for ministry in the PC(USA), UMC, CCDC, EC(USA), or any other denominations where growing numbers of ministers are women, that is precisely what they’d always bring up.

I say this, not to talk about feminism itself in-depth, but simply because, in thinking about it, i find in this, as ironic as it might sound, an interesting parallel between feminism and other forms of fundamentalism. Now, in one sense, the original sense, i am a fundamentalist as are most “conservative” Christians. I believe in and stand for the fundamentals of the Christian faith. However, when i use the term “fundamentalism” in this sense, i mean the sense of the word meaning closed-minded and against any kind of change at all. One characteristic of this kind of fundamentalism is also its tendency to attempt to solve problems by forbidding people from doing particular things that, when done properly, are neither dangerous or forbidden by God’s Word. For example, one thing that is so very prevalent in the area where i live is alcohol abuse. This is something that has touched just about everyone in this area. The popular notion in this area, though, is to link the problems with the alcohol itself instead of with the abuse of a good thing. So, when they see all of the things that alcohol abuse produces, their answer, in typical fundamentalist fashion, is to forbid alcohol altogether in order that the problems associated with the abuse of the thing will be solved (or so they think). On a related note, this is precisely the reason why churches in this area either don’t celebrate the sacrament of Holy Communion at all, or they don’t celebrate it, as it was instituted, with wine.

Now, feminism, as i see it, commits the very same mistake. They perceive the problem of wife abuse—a real problem, from anyone’s point of view, even if we admit that there are other issues of abuse as well—, but their answer for any presence of abuse is not simply having proper marriage and sex roles as God designed them, but to do away with marriage and authority roles altogether. It should be no surprise to us that, in the time that feminism has taken on ascendancy, the institution of marriage itself has become less important and more neglected in all societies that have adopted feminist ideas. People live together in unmarried relationships (and wonder why their mates don’t give them the kind of commitment that they know inherently that they should have—just watch an episode of Jerry Springer or Maurey Povich if you don’t believe me), and of course, we also see homosexual relationships coming into the public spectrum and demanding to be taken as equally viable as heterosexual marriage. Of course, just as in the case of alcohol abuse, the intended cure only exacerbates the problem. Just as ostensibly taking away all alcohol consumption leads only to more severe examples of abuse (only under cover of secrecy by way of underground and binge drinking), so too does taking away all authority and sex rolls in marriage and society contribute to greater incidence of spousal abuse—both abuse of wives by husbands and abuse of husbands by wives. In fact, the only clear answer to spousal abuse is to have proper authority roles and a mindset where men see themselves as protectors of their wives and families; otherwise, they will see them as absolute equals. And what do men do to other men when they become enraged, but to engage them physically? If women can do anything a man can do, as the propaganda goes, doesn’t that include fight other men?

The same response can be seen in all forms of fundamentalism—and it is important to remember that “fundamentalism” isn’t some “radical conservative” response, but can be just as well a mark of “radical liberalism.” Think of the response to the corporal punishment of children; same thing at work: because of the fear of abuse, no discipline at all. The same is true of the Romanist and ascetic view of sex: because sex can become sinful, therefore, all sex is something to see as sinful. Those who forbid people from going to or watching secular movies or listen to secular music. The Amish do the same thing with all forms of modern technology. Some Baptist groups do it with seminary education, reasoning that seminary education can instill liberal and anti-biblical views, so the solution is to call only pastors with no seminary training.

The list could go on and on (feel free to share others), but you see the pattern. This is one core aspect of the fundamentalist response to problems. Yet, as you can see, such forbidding not only doesn’t solve the original problem, but many times exacerbates it by assuming that it is solved when it was outlawed or forbidden (e.g., prohibition was the cause of greater evils in society than simply allowing the sale of alcohol to begin with). We need to recognize this response for what it is and oppose it in all its forms.

I came across this article about a young girl (currently ten years old) who had been worshiped as a living goddess by both Hindus and Buddhists, yet who was “deposed” from her position of deity because she didn’t receive “permission” to come to the United States for a promotional tour.

That really struck me because of what we see so often in more liberal forms of Christianity. You know, the people who say that they are Christians, but who also say things like, “I could never worship a God who sends people to suffer in Hell for all eternity!” or “MyGod would never choose some people and not choose others!” or “God loves you just like you are, because that’s how he made you!”

There is a real similarity between what those complete pagans have done to their pre-pubescent little goddess and what some of those so-called Christians do with Jehovah: they will worship only a “god” who conforms to what they believe that God should be, but that “god” that they do worship is never Jehovah of Armies, the Great I AM, whose voice makes the cedars burst to splinters and the deer writhe in labor, who not only counts the number of hairs on our heads, but avenges all evil-doers for their sin and impudence against his holy Law. In other words, they may never be so base as to put a chisel to a block of wood or hunk of stone to make a graven image, but they create an image of God by imposing their own concocted opinions, vain theories, and autonomous standards on their own conception of “god,” thus creating a brand new deity in their own image. And, of course, just like those Hindus and Buddhists with their troglodite religiosity, they will jettison even that god they have created by their own act of fiat if he (or she!) doesn’t satisfy them and do just as they please. That’s really, i think, the most ironic thing: they got rid of Jehovah because he wouldn’t cooperate with them, but even the false gods with whom they replace him won’t cooperate with them—and those gods are their own creations!

Whenever i hear some crazy Christian say something like “I could never believe in a God who sends people to Hell for all eternity!” or “My God would never choose to save some people and not others!”, i always think about one of my college professors at North Greenville University. The Reverend Doctor Walter Johnson always would say to students who made such assinine statements, “Then get your God out of the Bible instead of a cracker-jack box!”

Now that is the epitome of answering a fool according to his folly.

This needs no explanation.

I’ll just say this: at least our creed isn’t on our church sign.

I was writing some comments about the doctrine of merit on another blog, and i had a thought: what if the reason Protestants (Reformed ones especially) are so festidious about their differences with Romanism is that they are so very much like them in so many ways?

One statement that i often make when i am teaching about the history of Protestantism and especially about what it means to be Reformed is that “Reformed” is an adjective, and it has to describe something. We can’t just be “Reformed”; we have to be a Reformed something. Adjectives modify nouns, and while the noun may be almost always assumed with the use of a word like “Reformed,” it is still there. But what *IS* that noun? Some people might say Christians; what we are is “Reformed Christians,” but then that makes Romanists “Non-Reformed Christians”–and that’s true, as far as it goes, since we are cut from the same bolt, after all. But the same thing is true on the other side as well: Romanists are, as they are most often referred to, Roman Catholics, but they don’t own the word “Catholic” (cf. Second Helvetic Confession’s discussion of the Holy Catholic Church), and so we are Reformed Catholics.

But in discussing this issue of merit and seeing how traditional Reformed Protestants formulate their understanding of Christ’s work, it is plainly obvious that, while Romanism and Reformed Protestantism have strong differences over how they would explain people are saved from God’s wrath and curse, we also have lots of overlap, including the idea of merit that is through-and-through soaked into the fabric of Reformedom. They might not like the terminology of “congruent” and “condign” merit, but the formulation of Christ earning merit in order to give to his people is itself condign merit (the condign merit of Christ given to his people). “A Rose by any other name,” and all that. They might not affirm the Roman doctrine of receiving either condign or congruent merit from the saints (no self-respecting Protestant would!); they might not call it “condign merit” (anyone know any Reformed folks that throw that term around in anything but a perjorative way?), but it is condign merit nonetheless.

Now, i have met a few fringe Protestants (thinking about it, it really might be hard to characterize them as being Protestants in the proper sense) who deny the doctrine of rewards at all, but when the majority of Reformed Protestants speak of God rewarding us for doing works that, in themselves, do not “merit” the reward given them, they are, ipso facto, speaking of congruent merit, even if they would never think about using that term. You can’t get around it.

Western Christians, whether Roman or Reformed Catholics, cannot get away from the mindset that distinguished Western thought from Eastern. We are part and parcel of the same broader culture; the theological concerns (i.e., legal issues, issues of freedom, and issues concerning respect and dignity of individuals, &c.) that gave rise to Medieval Romanist explanations are the same concerns that Reformed Protestants have, even if they give a tweaked answer to those questions. Let’s face it: while Reformed Prostestants love to hate Romanism as a system of doctrine (let’s hope it’s not Romanists as people), they hold to a system that is an awful lot like it in a great many ways.  But in the final analysis, all that means is that they have to go to great lengths to emphasize those differences that exist, which are, by comparison to differences even to Eastern Christians, relatively minor.