"The world was not worthy of them."

.

Through faith

There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:35b-38)

We love the Bible stories of those who "conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies" (Hebrews 11:33-34). But how little we want to talk about the possibilities of our Christian life involving "torture", "flogging", "chains and imprisonment", or being "killed by the sword"?

'

But the path of faith is also a path that more often involves suffering. How often do we like to think about that? That doesn't exactly resonate with our "prosperity gospel" propensities. In fact a Biblical theology of Christian suffering brands the "prosperity gospel" for the damnable heresy it is.

R

May our minds in all things be conformed to the mind of Christ.

Worship as Aliens

"So we must gather on a regular basis for worship. To speak about God in a world that lives as if there is no God. We must speak to one another as beloved brothers and sisters in a world which encourages us to live as strangers. We must pray to God to give us what we cannot have by our own efforts in a world which teaches us that we are self-sufficient and all-powerful. In such a world, what we do here on Sunday morning becomes a matter of life and death..."

Citation from "Resident Aliens"; Hauerwas & Willimon; (Abingdon Press, 1989 ; pg. 154

The Gospel & the Christian’s Reward

God purposely puts an offence in the message of the cross to render it unattractive to self. As a result, those who would seek Him and find Him cannot do so under the power of self, nor from the primary motive of self. Real Christianity is foolish from the world’s point of view,; “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable..” Paul concludes that, from the world’s perspective we lose in this life. But doesn’t Hebrews 11:6 tell us that “he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him?” Yes, but many of the heroes of the faith in that chapter do not look like they were rewarded, unless we have an erroneous view of rewards! Upon a closer examination, it becomes obvious that the rewards experienced by these people were of another nature than those commonly sought after by the world or offered by the church.

When we tell the lost that “God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives,” we must be very clear as to what that plan might entail. If we mean wonderful from the world’s point of view, we not only give false expectations, but also encourage them to seek themselves in religion. Ultimately God’s plan for all these heroes of faith was wonderful;, but before they could arrive at their reward some had to travel the path of “trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonments: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” In essence, the way of faith that leads to rewards always directs its travelers down paths of self-denial and self-sacrifice, rather than self-indulgence.”

"The Alluring Brightness of His Glory: Cherishing the Preeminence of Christ above the Counterfeit Offers of a Consumer-driven Christianity" ;R.L. Coursey; (West Bow Press, 2017); page 71

The Wind Blows Where it Will...

It goes without saying that Western culture continues its slide into moral chaos and darkness. Here in the United States we debate and get all in a frenzy about who gets to use what public bathroom. It is obvious that at many different levels in American culture, Christianity has been minimized and marginalized. There simply is no "moral majority" as it was once defined back in the early 1980's. We see that specifically in the course of our national politics during this current Presidential election year.

The time will soon come and is already knocking at the door when American culture's growing animus and hostility towards Christian faith will flush away the remains and residue of any easy pop "Christianity", and we will find out that to be a Christian and to be faithful to the Gospel is going to cost us those privileges we once thought inviolable. Are you ready to continue giving financially to your church even when you can no longer declare that giving as a charitable deduction on your Federal income tax return? Or what will you do when your church and ministry buildings become subject to local property tax assessments? Those question are just the tip of the iceberg when outright scorn and ridicule and persecution of Christian faith becomes an entrenched part of public policy.

My concern is that amidst the ever growing signs of the approaching whirlwind of God's judgement on a godless secular materialistic narcissistic culture, the church, and the broader evangelical church in particular, will still be caught up in a "we can fix it" mentality where we desperately seek the right incantations to speak and the right rituals to perform that will somehow twist God's arm to the point where He will be forced to take up our "cause".

News flash: God only has one overarching cause, and that one cause is His own glory period. Everything else is subsidiary to His glory.

Our problem in the broader church at large is we have not been brought to the point of utter desperation where all our confidence in our fancy programs and latest evangelical fads and ideas have been stripped away and we are flat on our back with nowhere else to look but up. God will not allow us to claim any glory that rightfully is His alone. We can not make "revival". Revival is the work of the almighty free and sovereign God; the free and sovereign moving of the Holy Spirit working through the proclaimed word of God in the hearts and minds of lost and desperately needy sinners.

We desperately need an outpouring and movement of the Holy Spirit in our own lives, in the lives of our local congregations and our wider local communities, in the church at large, and in an increasingly viciously wicked culture. We can not bring that about by anything of our own saying or doing. It will only happen as a free and sovereign work and moving of God for His own glory. We are left to pleading and begging and desperately crying out that God in sovereign merciful grace for His own glory would grant that outpouring and movement of His Spirit. And in the meantime, revival or not, persecution and distress notwithstanding, we are to remain a faithful remnant; faithful to the Gospel once delivered to the saints.

Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at your presence—as when fire kindles brushwood and the fire causes water to boil—to make your name known to your adversaries, and that the nations might tremble at your presence!

~ Isaiah 64:1-2

Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

Come My People

(Excerpt from a recent lesson I presented to our adult Sunday school classes at my church.)

The Protection of the People of God from the full fury that is coming - Isaiah 26:20-21

Isaiah 26:20: “Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until the fury has passed by.” (ESV)

To the Israelite living in Isaiah's time these words would evoke Passover imagery: The angel of death passing over the houses marked by the blood of the Passover lamb. Those first born who were in the houses with the Passover lamb's blood on the doorposts would be spared. Those who were outside of the marked houses would die.

This imagery reflected in Revelation 18:4-5 – Judgment on “Babylon”:

“Come out of her, my people,lest you take part in her sins,lest you share in her plagues;for her sins are heaped high as heaven,and God has remembered her iniquities."

What is this “fury”?

Isaiah 26:21: “For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain.”

The main point of this is not about wondering or arguing if Christians will be preserved "from" the great tribulation or if they will be preserved "through" the great tribulation. It is not about if we hold a pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation view of the end times. It is about what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 8:1:

“There is therefore now NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

True Christian believers, those who are "in Christ Jesus", are NOT nor ever will be under the WRATH of God period! They may suffer tribulation and distress and even death itself. They may experience the loving discipline their heavenly Father exercises toward His wayward children. They may face persecution even unto death for the sake of the name of Christ. But be very sure of this, they will NEVER be recipients of the wrath of God; that wrath they deserved was put on Jesus’ head at the cross, and those who are in Him are forgiven and declared righteous for His sake.

(The complete outline and notes for this lesson are available here.)

Defining the True Theologian

“First, Owen lived before the concept of a theologian was scaled down to its current, intellectualized, and relatively narrow dimensions, Two centuries ago Enlightenment thinkers set up the curriculum for theological student’s in universities and seminaries as consisting of four distinct fields of inquiry: history and exegesis of the Bible, analysis of the church’s beliefs, church history, and ministerial practice. The new thing in this arrangement, the separation of the studies from each other, opened the door to specialization, which has been acidly but not unfairly described as getting to know more and more about less and less. Specialization produced exegetes who were not theologians, dogmaticians who were not exegetes, and practical theologians to whom past patterns of Christian life and pastoral care were a closed book. Unity was lost, fragmentation set in, and theology as a study came to mean no more than exploring facts and arguments in any or all of these departments from some personal standpoint or other, never mind what. This, of course, exactly fulfilled the freethinking intellectual ideal of the Enlightenment. Today, we children of the Enlightenment are so used to it that we can hardly believe mainstream Christians ever thought of theological study differently. But they did.

From the first Christian centuries down to, and past,Owen’s day, people conceived of theology as wisdom and in personal rather than academic terms: that is, as wisdom of those in whose head and heart, through the power of God’s Word and Spirit, true understanding of God’s revealed truth had taken root. The idea of a theologian was of a wise, godly pundit. Gregory Nazianzus and John Calvin were both called “the theologian” in their own lifetime, and in each case the title meant all of the above. On this view, real theologians embodied the unity of thought and modeled the reality of worship, obedience, and care that together amount to what the Bible means by knowing God. They would use exegesis to buttress their exposition of the faith: their exegesis would reflect and responsibly relate to, their believing sate of mind. They would read historical theology as narrating the wars of the Word in and with the world, and church history as recoding successes and failures in faithfulness to the gospel. The application of truth to life would be their constant concern. Intellectually and attitudinally, the theologian’s wisdom would thus be a single ball of wax, the product of all the disciplines of divinity and devotion operating together in one man’s life. In this sense John Owen aimed to be, and truly was, a theologian.”

Excerpted from: J.I. Packer, “A Puritan Perspective: Trinitarian Godliness according to John Owen”; God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on Christian Faith and Practice; Edited by Timothy George, Baker Academic, (2006)

As I read this, I could not help but think of a man who passed away a little over a year ago, who in his life and ministry was a true theologian of the caliber described above. Rest in peace Dr. James Grier.

Receiving Christ

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." (John 1:12)

The above verse which has been used in some popular Gospel presentations, is that verse used to press upon the the unbeliever's conscience the need to receive Christ. It is phrased several different ways; "Receive Christ as your personal savior." or "Receive Christ as your Lord and savior." among others,

This of course begs several questions. Who is the "Him" we are to receive? also, what does it mean to "receive" Him?

In the context of the verse above, the "Him" is the one who is the Word that was with the Father in verses 1-4, and became flesh and dwelt among (vs 14). It is the "Him" who has been eternally with the Father and eternally begotten of the Father in the relationship of Father and Son.

In this context, the one who is the savior is the one who is Lord. Only He who is Lord can save us. How Savior and Lord became separated in the minds of some, I do not know. II Corinthians 2:17 speaks of those who ""corrupt the Gospel"... The imagery is that of a bartender watering down the wine. What the buyer gets is not the undiluted 100% pure wine they thought they were paying for. We need to be wary in our use of John 1:12 not to water down the meaning of the text as it comes to us in the broader context of John 1.

And what did John have in mind when he used the word "receive" in John 1:12 as quoted above? John 20:30-31 gives us the answer.

"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

There is much more that could be said on this point, but I will leave that for another time.

~ The Billy Goat ~

Of Those Who Showed Us the Way

Pastor Ivan H. French of Winona Lake, Indiana passed away at 10:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2013 at Grace Village Health Care Facility, Winona Lake, Indiana at the age of 88.

He was the Pastor of Pleasant View Bible Church of Warsaw, Indiana from 1975-1992. After serving three churches, Professor Ivan French, taught for over 20 years at Grace College & Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He was known for his warm heart and humorous stories (what he called “illustrative anecdotes”) he taught Bible, theology, and church history with both an academic knowledge and practical application. His teaching infused a heart and energy for Christ and the church in the seminary program. During this time he continued to be active in pastoral ministry, campus leadership, global missions, and Bible conferences, encouraging and strengthening the men and women he had helped to train.

He was a member of IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America), and was on the Board of Directors of Spanish World Ministries. Ivan also served in the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II and was honorably discharged in May 1946.

Ivan was born on April 14, 1925 in Ontario, Oregon to Harry French and Anna Maude (Wright) French. On September 17, 1944 he was married to Arloeen Edith (Krause) French, who survives in Winona Lake, Indiana.

He also leaves behind his daughter: LaNita French (Warsaw, Indiana); three sons: John (wife Christine) French (Winona Lake, Indiana); David (wife Lori) French (Manila, Philippines); Douglas French (LaPorte, Indiana); and four grandchildren: Suzanne (husband Shawn) Osborne (Ft. Wayne, Indiana); John David French (Winona Lake, Indiana); Alexandra French (Manila, Philippines); Tobin French (Manila, Philippines). He was preceded in death by his parents, two brothers, and four sisters.

There will be visitation on Thursday, December 19, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at Redpath-Fruth Funeral Home, 225 Argonne Road, Warsaw, Indiana.

A graveside service will be conducted on Friday, December 20, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. at Oakwood Cemetery of Warsaw. Those wishing to attend… please meet at the funeral home by 9:50 a.m. to go in procession to the cemetery.

His funeral service will be at 12:00 noon on Friday, December 20, 2013 at Pleasant View Bible Church, 2782 W. 200 N., Warsaw, Indiana and officiated by Pastor John French and Pastor Mike Hontz.

(Redpath-Fruth Funeral Home)

My grounding in the basics of the orthodox Christian faith came through the teaching of Professor Ivan French in our first year theology class at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. Of all the seminary classes I took, that first year theology class was the most formative for me as we studied the nature, character and attributes of the Triune God. I still have the notes from those classes from Prof French.

It was also clear to us who benefited from his teaching that Ivan French's instruction came from a heart of genuine pastoral concern for us as students, and the people of God at large. Professor French left a positive mark on my life as well as the other countless number of students and congregational members who were under his ministry. He pointed out to us the way.

Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Rest in the peace of your Lord and Savior...

When we ask "Why?"...

Did you ever have something bad happen to you, or see something bad happen to someone you know, or read about some disaster or tragedy happening to someone someplace in the world and find yourself asking the age old question?

"Why?"

If you say you have never asked that question, I have to wonder if you ever really lived. Young children from an early age ask their parents or teachers or whoever, "Why?", and sometimes to the point of beyond annoying.

The question becomes especially acute and personal when bad things happen specifically to us and we are brought face to face with the question, "If God is good, why does He allow bad things to happen in peoples lives, and more personal and specifically in my life?"

It is not my purpose here to answer that broader question, but to examine how we may respond to it.

One response to the question is to stoically "stuff it". We can do this as Christians when we think we dare not ever ask "Why?", and to do so is arrogant wickedness and unbelief. Who is mere man to ask God why? This kind of response does have a legitimate concern, but I'm not so sure this response is wise or spiritually healthy.

The fallacy to the stoic approach is we try to deny the reality that there are times when things happen and the very core of our heart and soul screams out the question. Can we or dare deny what we really think? Is God so ignorant He doesn't know those inner most thoughts and feelings? Can we come before Him and pretend we don't have those thoughts and questions? Of course not!

Another way to respond to the question "Why?" is with angry bitterness that colors our view of God as being an arbitrary capricious tyrant who can never be fully trusted. Of course that kind of "god" would not be worthy of our worship and praise, so the end of that road is unbelief.

So how should we respond to the question of why? My focus is not so much what we say to others who are asking the question, but how do we deal with it in ourselves when in the very core of our being the questions screams in our mind, "Why?".

To start with, and in a sense to also end with,we need to be honest with ourselves and with God regarding our feelings and thoughts. As was noted before, God already knows what we are thinking and we need to openly acknowledge that before Him. Our example for doing so is found in the Scriptures. For our purpose I want to focus primarily on the Psalms, Job,and the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

Regarding the Psalms, we could go through the whole book of the Psalms and underline all the times we see phrases like "How long O LORD..." or "Why O LORD..." For example:

"How long, Lord, will you look on? Rescue me from their ravages,my precious life from these lions. (Psalm 35:17)

"Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" (Psalm 10:1)

The point is that in these passages and many others that could be cited from the Psalms, the Psalmist is open and honest before the LORD with his questions. If inspired Psalmists can be open and honest before God, then we ought to follow their example. It should be clear that asking the question in and of itself is not wrong or sinful.

The next example is Job. How many of us could have endured what Job went through; loss of property, loss of all his children, and loss of his health. It is in this context Job in Job 3 says, “Why did I not perish at birth,and die as I came from the womb?" What is of interest is that in God's dealing with Job in chapter 38 - 42, Job is not condemned for asking the question even though God does not ever answer his question. Job could ask God the question. What he could not do is presume God owes him an answer. In God's response, Job's asking the question is not taken as a reflection on the integrity of Job's godliness.

And then there are the words of Jesus from the cross:

"From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)" (Matthew 27:45-46)

Did Jesus at this point doubt God's goodness and purpose? We know He did not. Was this a cry of unbelief? We know it was not. Was this a real honest cry from the heart of the One who is fully God and fully man? Yes it was. Most important of all, was this cry the end of the story? It most certainly was not! The Resurrection and Ascension were yet to come.

So what should we do when we face those things in a fallen world that cause our very heart and soul to ask why? Be honest before God about your thoughts and feelings. He knows what those thoughts and feelings are and you can not hide them from Him. In light of that omniscient knowledge, we need to be brutally honest before the LORD regarding our thoughts and feelings. But we dare not stop there.

We also need to know and affirm that the present circumstance is not the final end to the story; resurrection and glory are yet to come and it is faith that clings to that promised hope. Every tear WILL be wiped away (Revelation 21:4). In the meantime, in your questioning be humble and remember even the Apostle Thomas had his doubts. Do not let evil circumstance drive you from the promises of God into unbelief. Do not let those circumstances cause you to doubt the character of your God and Savior.

Finally we need to humbly recognize that though we may ask the question, God may in His sovereign prerogative as He did with Job choose to not give us an answer. Job's question was swallowed up in the declaration of who God is as Creator whose creation declares His glory and attributes. It was in view of the person of that revealed God that Job put his hand to his mouth and was satisfied even though his question was not answered.¹

As Christians we are redeemed creatures not yet fully redeemed, and living in a fallen and yet to be redeemed world. This is the context of the existential angst we feel in this life that causes us to cry out, "How long O Lord?" Come quickly Lord Jesus.

Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hebrews 13:20-21)

Recommended reading:

How Long O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil(2nd Edit.); D.A. Carson; (Baker Academic, 2006)

¹I have thought perhaps God's dealing with Job should be seen in the light of our Savior's words in Matthew 7: “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:9-11)

Job asked for an answer and God's answer was to give Job Himself.

Luther on The Law and The Gospel

We want it understood that we do not reject the Law as our opponents claim. On the contrary, we uphold the Law. We say the Law is good if it is used for the purposes for which it was designed, to check civil transgression, and to magnify spiritual transgressions. The Law is also a light like the Gospel. But instead of revealing the grace of God, righteousness, and life, the Law brings sin, death, and the wrath of God to light. This is the business of the Law, and here the business of the Law ends, and should go no further.

The business of the Gospel, on the other hand, is to quicken, to comfort, to raise the fallen. The Gospel carries the news that God for Christ's sake is merciful to the most unworthy sinners, if they will only believe that Christ by His death has delivered them from sin and everlasting death unto grace, forgiveness, and everlasting life. By keeping in mind the difference between the Law and the Gospel we let each perform its special task. Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error.

Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Kindle Locations 1659-1669). Kindle Edition.

Viewing Politics in Light Of The Christian Gospel

A few questions about how I view politics in light of the Christian Gospel; a self-examination:

1. Are my political views getting in the way of the Gospel? Am I defining the Gospel by my political views? Am I looking for a political "salvation" that obscures Gospel salvation?

2. Do we live in “Israel” or “Babylon”? Are we living in “a city upon a hill” or in a nation that has had some rather glaring inconsistencies between its high ideals and some rather blatant moral scandals in its history? Do I really want to, or should I even dare use Gospel Kingdom language to describe my nation's heritage?

3. Am I judging another person’s Christianity by their political views? Do I love a Christian brother or sister enough to respectfully give them room to disagree with me on particular political issues, and give their spirituality the benefit of the doubt, especially when they demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit in their life?

4. Is the Constitution of my country in its “original intent” or in any other sense, the equivalent of Scripture? Can we as Christians engage our particular political world on the basis of "real-politic"; as it is, in contrast to what we think it should be, and do so in a way that reflects the gospel?

5. Does the way and manner I talk about and discuss my political views reflect Christian humility and basic respect for those who may have an opposing view? Does my conversation reflect the spirit of Christ and demonstrate Christ-likeness? Do I speak in a way that the manner of my speaking adorns the Gospel?

6. Do I dare be so partisan that I take up every view coming out of my political leanings without thoughtful analysis and critical reflection? Am I humble enough to admit that in specific cases or instances, my "party" is wrong and the other "party" is right? Is "being right" more important to me then truth and justice?

7. Can I engage in the political realm of life in a way consistent with loving God with all my heart and soul and might, and loving my neighbor as myself? Dare I do else?

Evangelicalism: Warts, Wrinkles, and All

“Some of my friends believe we should abandon the word evangelical. I do not. I simply yearn for us to live up to the meaning of our name.” ~ Philip Yancey

If only we would live up to the meaning of our name…

Sadly many with the label of "Evangelical" do not. So we have within the broader tent of Evangelicalism those with the "clowns and dancing bears wearing tutus" mentality towards worship.

But should that stop us individually or corporatly as a church from striving to actually live up to the best of the meaning of the label "Evangelical, minus the accouterments of cultural evangelicalism such as "clowns and dancing bears wearing tutus" that we can very well do without?

One of the bright spots in my own experience has been in rediscovering over the past 10 years a vibrant Evangelical Biblical theology, (Russell Moore, D.A. Carson, Walter Kaiser and others,) that flamed a fire in my soul that had been deadened by previous involvement in a narrow theologically self-focused reformed puritanism…

Let popular Evangelicalism go the way of all flesh. That does not at all mean I or anyone else will have to give up the core Evangelical theology we find in the Bible. It does mean we may find a better, more positive way of expressing it.

I am driven back to the personal historical fact that, warts, wrinkles and all, the Evangelical church was in the providence of God my spiritual mother, that church He used to bring me to faith in Himself…

‎"Answers are easy. It's asking the right questions which is hard."

(The Fourth Doctor, Dr. Who, "The Face of Evil", 1977)

Are you and I asking the right questions?

Billy Goat Log: December 5, 2011

• From the sanctification department: This morning I found myself irked and bothered about something not really worth mentioning. Truth was, as I thought about those things, I could feel my blood pressure going up; as in the sinful anger zone. I needed to call a time out and rein in the thoughts and passion and confess to the Lord the sin that it was. Then I got irked that I got irked... Of all the serious real life issues in a fallen and not yet fully redeemed world, I got all hot and bothered about that?
  
  

  Lord help me to see the trivial issues in life as the trivia it is. Help me to see the cares and things of this kosmos the way You see them.

• Seasons: In a few short weeks winter will officially be here. The neat thing about that is the days will start to get longer. In our more northerly latitudes in Michigan, the changes in the length of daylight between the seasons is noticeable. We think of winter as the season when everything has died and is dormant and slumbering beneath the cold winter wind and snow. But then think how the definition of winter is the period of time when the short days start getting longer. It is in that we find the hope of the winter season; it anticipates the spring that is coming.
  
• It is a beautiful thing to see the people of God show and express the love of God to those who are hurting and broken...
• My Master invited me to have a meal with Him and His people last night. The partaking of the meal with Him was a sign of His forgiveness for the wrongs I have done Him. The punishment I should have received for those wrongs was borne by the Master Himself. In His work on my behalf, I was reconciled to Him and where there was emnity there is now peace and acceptance. So it is I can eat at His table with joy and gladness of heart.
  

Theological Propaganda?

I am in the process of reading a book; a book that received much attention, far and wide, when it was published earlier this year. I found myself asking the question, "What am I really reading? What is it about how this book was written?" After a while the word "propaganda" came to mind.

Now there are words of a negative connotation that you don't want to toss loosely around when talking of those whom Jesus said are our neighbors, even with those neighbors whose theology and message we take strong exception to.  "Propaganda" is one of those words. It is one of those words we could quickly toss out as part of an ad hominem argument; and that even as ad hominem arguments are one of the techniques of propaganda.

Nonetheless if the shoe fits, then we are also obligated to speak truth about what our neighbor has said.

 

At this point we need to refer to the Propaganda Critic WWW site which has built on the work of the original Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). To quote from this site:

"The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, "these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects." (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)"

The above quote lists seven basic propaganda techniques. It is not my intent to expand on the seven techniques. For that discussion I greatly encourage you to go to the P-C link above. If you have been around Christianity for any time, you will also recognize that some of the techniques listed are also marks of cultish behavior found in some churches.

All that said, there were several things about the book I'm reading that raised a flag; a total lack of footnotes or bibliography, partial quotes from Scripture used without any reference to the wider context of the quote, broad sweeping assertions or unqualified statements and subtle ad hominem allusions.

And I've seen this before in other theological contexts from those who would take great exception to the author I'm reading. The rhetorical techniques fit the definition of propaganda; theological propaganda.

Let the reader beware...

~ The Billy Goat ~

Theology Matters: D. A. Carson on the Intent of the Atonement

The above is a link to an extended quotation from D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.

Carson looks at the atonement in light of the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline.

I found this discussion helpful, and am adding The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God to my "want to read" list.

Does the Word “Evangelical” Mean Anything Anymore?

Eternal Perspective Ministries Blog (Randy Alcorn, July 15,2011)

...I didn’t grow up in an evangelical church. I grew up in a nonchristian home and came to Christ as a teenager. I’ve seen very different kinds of evangelical churches, and I have a broad appreciation of many of these differences. But now, at an ever-accelerating pace, the word “evangelical” and even the term “Bible-believing” seem to be losing their historic meaning. (Yes, I’m aware that terminology isn’t all-important; but I’m also aware that terminology can mislead people and cloud understanding and dialogue when radically different meanings are attached to the same term.)
Is the extent of the need to hear the gospel and respond to it in Christ-centered repentance really so unclear in Scripture? Are matters of salvation, judgment and eternal destiny really gray areas or secondary issues subject to in-house evangelical disputes? Or is the Bible emphatically clear on the point that ANY person without Christ, whether they be Muslim or atheist or Baptist, will go to Hell, not Heaven?

There is what the term "Evangelical" means to me personally, and there is what the term "Evangelical" means to the wider culture. Culture looks at Evangelicalism and defines it in terms of the wider context of evangelical culture. I tend to define the term in a more narrow theological context. It is that theological evangelicalism that I see as my "Mother Kirk" to borrow a C.S. Lewis expression.

It is my fear that the term "Evangelical" as used in the wider context of the visible church and culture is indeed losing its meaning, and thus even the theological definition continues to erode and lose Biblical precision. Along with that erosion is a loss of vibrancy and energy that I associate with my more ideal and perhaps traditional view of what Evangelicalism should be.

That is a reason I have the Philip Yancy quote on the left side bar of this blog. The term Evangelicalism as used in our culture may in the end indeed become meaningless. That said, the Bible will continue to be and always will be an evangelical book; the story of the Creator calling a lost humanity back to Himself through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"Some of my friends believe we should abandon the word evangelical. I do not. I simply yearn for us to live up to the meaning of our name." ~ Philip Yancey

Bengalis as an Essentially Unreached People

"...although the founder of the modern missionary movement, William Carey, went first to the Bengali people in 1793, even today there are less than one half of one percent (0.5%) of Bengalis who call themselves Christian (both Catholics and evangelical). In the same time frame we have seen some Latin American and some African countries exceed 30% evangelical. China itself is over 5%. But the 250 million Bengalis are basically still languishing without the Good News. We must raise the level of our passion and start bridge-building to them."

~ Dave DeCook, Director of Bangla Ministries Worldwide

Yes I Believe in the Rapture, and I don't Apologize for Doing So!

This post was triggered by recent Blog discussions of Harold Camping's misguided predictions regarding the timing of what he calls the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.   If you read this after May 21, 2011, according to Harold you missed it.

We let the dispensationalist debate about the rapture cloud the meaning of the word “rapture” and its context in the 1Thessalonians 4:13-17 passage. At the end of that passage Paul tells us to “comfort one another with these words..” The snatching or taking up (rapture) is taught in the passage. The issue is not one of will there be or not be a rapture. The real question is when it will occur?

I am very well aware, and have been for many a year, that the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage has behind it a picture of the King approaching a city and the dignitaries of the city going out to meet that King, and escorting the King into the city. . I also read in verse 17,  “arpagasometha ‘en nephlais” and “eis aera”. (Pardon my crude transliteration.) The initial meeting does not take place on the “ge” (earth), but in the clouds; that is, "in the air".  We will then escort the King down to the “ge” (earth).

There seems to be an assumption by many dispensatinalists and non-dispensatiinalists alike that believers “being taken away someplace else other then earth” is a sin qua non of any rapture theology.  My contention is that it is not; that one can hold a rapture theology consistent with the picture of the royal approach of the King.

Jerome supposedly translated “arpagasometha” with the Latin word from which we get the English word “rapture”. You may argue that word, but please don’t argue with "arpagasometha ‘en nephlais” or the factual events Paul says will happen.

It bothers me GREATLY that non-dispensationalists diss the rapture concept as though it is ONLY a dispensatinalist concept. If the “snatching up” (rapture) is not a Biblical concept then why did Paul talk about it at all?  I have my doubts about the pre-trib rapture of the church. I have no doubts whatsoever about the rapture of those believers still alive on earth at Christ’s return. We are in danger of letting the debate about timing steal from us the comfort Paul intended for us to get from his words, and in doing so we miss Paul's pastoral intent in writing about the matter in the first place.

In that light I refuse to give up the concept of the rapture because I refuse to give up clearly Biblical concepts period. And pardon me if I get a little passionate about reclaiming a Biblical concept from the dispensational abuse of the concept.  Pastoral concern demands no less.

Peace…

A Holy Meal: The Lord's Supper in the Life of the Church

by Gordon T. Smith (Baker Academic, 2005)



I found this to be an excellent reading on the Biblical meaning of the Lord's Supper.  The writing is not shallow, but neither is it overly academic.  Often one's view of the Lord's Supper is skewed by the particular emphasis of our particular Christian tradition.  Dr. Smith opens with discussion of the meaning of eating, symbol, and sacrament. He then looks at the Lord's Supper as described by the following seven chapter headings:  

1. Remembrance: The Lord's Supper as a Memorial
2. Communion: The Lord's Supper as Fellowship with Christ and with One Another
3. Forgiveness: The Lord's Supper as a Table of Mercy
4. Covenant: The Lord's Supper as a Renewal of Baptismal Vows
5. Nourishment: The Lord's Supper as Bread from Heaven
6. Anticipation: The Lord's Supper as a Declaration of Hope
7. Eucharist: The Lord's Supper as a Joyous Thanksgiving Celebration

In my own church background and circles the historic emphasis has been on the Lord's Supper as a memorial.  As Smith rightly points out, the Lord's Supper is indeed a memorial, but it is not just a memorial.  This realization makes the Table even more meaningful and personal. 

Smith does not separate the Supper from the Word or the working of the Holy Spirit.  It is the Word that gives us the context and informs us of the meaning and purpose of the Supper.  It is  the Holy Spirit that makes the meaning and purpose of the Supper real to us in our corporate church life as well as in the individual lives of each believer participating.  The author also understands there is a certain mystery to the Lord's Supper that our intellect will not fully comprehend, but it is also that same intellect that informs our humble obedience in observing the Supper.

The reader may come across a statement or two in this book that could cause the eyebrows to raise in question or disagreement.  Dr. Smith's own view of the Lord's Supper has roots that go back through John Calvin, and as such reflects an overall view of the Table that I am personally sympathetic to.   Whatever few statements raised my eyebrows were far out weighed by the positive contribution Dr. Smith has made to the church's understanding of the Lord's Supper. 

If you are sensing that there is more to the Lord's Supper then your tradition's peculiar emphasis; that perhaps there is something about the meaning and purpose of the Lord's Supper that you are missing, this will be a helpful  book to read.

~ The Billy Goat ~