- There are pine trees along the fence line between us and the next door neighbors. We swept the driveway today. Wow, what a pile.
- How early will Saturday morning come tomorrow? I've got a strange morning class time. Coffee to go?
- Are you supposed to water the yard when it rains? I'm not sure. Gene R?
- Fall. That wonderful time of year where you clean the gutters and retrieve all the whiffle balls from summer.
- It's really fun getting the younger kids to follow the changing of the color of the leaves. Our street is lined with maples that are turning red.
- I bought something tonight at the dollar store I really should have bought at the hardware store. I opened the package and tried it out. It was so flimsy it folded and the main part popped out. I painstakingly put the part back in, and tried it again. The second time the strap pulled out of the clasp. So, I went to the hardware store and bought what I needed there. I only paid a dollar for the first one, so it wasn't worth my time to return it. I learned a lesson and it only cost me a dollar.
- I've already used this song, and back then had no idea it would apply so wonderfully this week. So, for the first time ever, I'm re-using a song on FNP.
Because theology is everybody's task
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A week of series and seriousness:
Monday, October 25, 2010
More On The Church Institution
In a recent post, I briefly discussed the ongoing argument over the institutionalized church. I received a few comments, and some good points were made by those who commented. First, I'll give general answers to some of the comments.
Yes, I believe the church is an "institution," insofar as it fits the dictionary definition of the word. Also, I do see a problem with groups that rebel against the idea of institution so much that they make having church in a house a requirement, or similar things. Sure, there are home churches that stray to extremes, but there are also many of them that are solid and effective. Many people equate meeting in a building with institution. I don't believe this is necessarily true. There are some problems with huge buildings and the gigantic mortgages that go with them, but what if your church building was paid off as it was built 200 years ago? Not a problem, if you ask me.
Some people equate liturgy with institutionalization. I don't, necessarily. Or some type of church government structure. Okay, there are huge problems here with the American church, but government isn't necessarily the issue, either. The bible leave many things un-specified. (I would recommend reading Alan Knox's series on church polity, including all the links he gives here.)
But the best question from the comments, and the one I want to focus on here in this post, is the comment from solarblogger:
I would answer the question this way. If the structure - or level of institutionalization - of a church prohibits, prevents, hinders or otherwise diminishes the ability to minister, the ability to be ministered to, the ability to obey God for each and every member, then there are problems. Everybody must be able to love God and love their neighbor when the church meets in all the ways the bible sets up for us. If the inability of the body to function the way it should is extreme because of institutionalization, then the problems are severe.
It's interesting that the first church that receives input from Christ in Revelation is the church at Ephesus. Christ threatens them with lampstand removal because they lost their first love. What was their first love? Many people I've heard over the years answer that by saying that, of course, Christ was their first love. But was he? Verse 3 says they endured and persevered for His name's sake. They also couldn't stand evil men, false apostles, and the Nicolaitans. Could it be that the love they lacked, the love that diminished, was a love for one another? If it is, I can only speculate that it is so.
Let me say that lampstand removal is Christ's to do. But if a church has institutionalized itself out of the ability to function like Christ desires, how is it that Christ is still there? In my next post on institutionalization, I'll bring up some examples where God's commands are hindered by the church structure itself.
Yes, I believe the church is an "institution," insofar as it fits the dictionary definition of the word. Also, I do see a problem with groups that rebel against the idea of institution so much that they make having church in a house a requirement, or similar things. Sure, there are home churches that stray to extremes, but there are also many of them that are solid and effective. Many people equate meeting in a building with institution. I don't believe this is necessarily true. There are some problems with huge buildings and the gigantic mortgages that go with them, but what if your church building was paid off as it was built 200 years ago? Not a problem, if you ask me.
Some people equate liturgy with institutionalization. I don't, necessarily. Or some type of church government structure. Okay, there are huge problems here with the American church, but government isn't necessarily the issue, either. The bible leave many things un-specified. (I would recommend reading Alan Knox's series on church polity, including all the links he gives here.)
But the best question from the comments, and the one I want to focus on here in this post, is the comment from solarblogger:
So is there a level of institutionalization where the lampstand is automatically removed?
I would answer the question this way. If the structure - or level of institutionalization - of a church prohibits, prevents, hinders or otherwise diminishes the ability to minister, the ability to be ministered to, the ability to obey God for each and every member, then there are problems. Everybody must be able to love God and love their neighbor when the church meets in all the ways the bible sets up for us. If the inability of the body to function the way it should is extreme because of institutionalization, then the problems are severe.
It's interesting that the first church that receives input from Christ in Revelation is the church at Ephesus. Christ threatens them with lampstand removal because they lost their first love. What was their first love? Many people I've heard over the years answer that by saying that, of course, Christ was their first love. But was he? Verse 3 says they endured and persevered for His name's sake. They also couldn't stand evil men, false apostles, and the Nicolaitans. Could it be that the love they lacked, the love that diminished, was a love for one another? If it is, I can only speculate that it is so.
Let me say that lampstand removal is Christ's to do. But if a church has institutionalized itself out of the ability to function like Christ desires, how is it that Christ is still there? In my next post on institutionalization, I'll bring up some examples where God's commands are hindered by the church structure itself.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!
The Philadelphia Phillies' dream of being the first team to win three consecutive NL pennants since the 1942-44 Cardinals has been slaughtered by the extreme underdog San Francisco Giants!!!! Juan Uribe hits an 8th inning opposite field home run to put the Giants ahead 3-2. Brian Wilson makes the perfect pitch - a low, backdoor slider - the pitch that awesome slugger Ryan Howard simply cannot hit. Howard was fooled badly, and THE GIANTS WON THE PENNANT! Another extreme form of torture!
The parties are spilling out into the streets! We're going to the World Series! Wahoooo!
The parties are spilling out into the streets! We're going to the World Series! Wahoooo!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A week of change and waiting:
- It's really raining outside right now. Not the first rain of the season, but the first heavy raining.
- I wore pants today. Very weird. It was cold enough today, but with nice weather fading into fall, the string of shorts-wearing days came to an end. Jeans feel strange.
- Congratulations to the Texas Rangers on winning their first pennant ever. Now, c'mon Giants, they're waiting for us.
- I've been watching some playoffs on national TV while trying to listen on the radio. Some of these telecasts have like a 20 second delay between what the radio is saying and when it happens on TV. I remember the NBA finals while walking down the main drag at the beach in San Diego this summer. I could hear cheers erupt at different times from different bars and restaurants. Technology?
- Our nine year old got a book from the library with some stories of comic strip characters in it. Batman is featured in one section. I hummed the TV theme from the show, and realized that my kids have never really seen Batman, Bugs Bunny, the Flintstones or the Three Stooges. Are we bad parents?
- In a July, 2009 Friday Night Potpourri, I mentioned that I was currently reading A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. I finally finished it a week and a half ago. Even though it took me well over a year to read it, I remembered exactly where I was each time I picked up the book. Thanks to my mother-in-law for giving it to me.
- An oldie and a goodie, no lyrics needed.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Which Church Institution?
Over the years I have often run into arguments over the "institutionalized church," or the "institutional church." There are those who argue that the church shouldn't be institutionalized at all, and should follow a pattern shown in the New Testament - a more simple approach without all the buildings and programs and hierarchical authority and what have you of contemporary church. Then there are those within the "institutional" church who like to point out that the people who argue against it don't have an argument, because, after all, the church itself is an institution, established by Christ.
Well, of course the church is an institution, and it is established by Christ. But from what I read (from the most articulate of the anti-institutionalists), they aren't actually arguing against the idea that the church is an institution. They are arguing that there are churches (even the majority) that have been institutionalized by man to such a degree that they don't resemble the simple institution established by Christ.
Well, of course the church is an institution, and it is established by Christ. But from what I read (from the most articulate of the anti-institutionalists), they aren't actually arguing against the idea that the church is an institution. They are arguing that there are churches (even the majority) that have been institutionalized by man to such a degree that they don't resemble the simple institution established by Christ.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A week's end is very welcome this week:
- Very warm weather into mid October. Nineties and near 100. I wonder when it will drop down to the 50's
- We have a small orange tree out front. Probably two feet high. It has one flower blossom on it. I thought flowers were supposed to blossom in the spring.
- The power went off last night in the middle of the night. One of the kids stirred, waking us up. It was eerily silent, as a fan in one of the rooms and the bubbling of the fish tank were not heard. And, it was very dark. The glow of the LED's in the clock radios were out, as were the night lights. No lights on for as far as I could see out a window, including street lights. Knowing that I would trip over something in the complete dark, I picked up my cell phone and opened it. It was enough light to walk around the house.
- That's apparently not the only use of a cell phone, as I've heard people use it instead of Bic lighters at concerts.
- I had a final exam last night in one of my classes at school. I got an "A" on the final, and an "A" in the class. Wahoo!
- After some problems at the wrong time, I now know how to fix a carriage jam in an HP printer. Judging from the number of posts about it online, it seems to be a problem for many other people, too. Overall, our HP printer has been pretty good.
- Oh, wait. Another radio staple from the 70's.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Perception in Reading Blogs
Have you ever met somebody who came across a certain way, then after getting to know that person better you realize that they really aren't that way? That's happened to me many times. It's true in the blogging world, too. Or maybe especially.
That's why I try to not place so much emphasis on first impression. This brings me to some tips on reading blogs. Whether we know it or not, the impression of somebody we receive from reading them has probably as much to do with how we read as it does with how that person writes. Casual conversation has the advantage of tone of voice, facial expressions and body language. Writing long, thought out pieces - such as books, articles or papers - has the advantage of putting a lot of thinking into something, as well as personal review and editing from others. Blogging is at a disadvantage because these things aren't always in the mix. It is often thinking out loud, like casual conversation, but in written form without the thought process or review. There are some shortcuts we use to convey emotion, etc., to try to fill in the gaps, but reading a blog cold and jumping to conclusions is really a hasty activity on the part of the reader.
That's why it's a good idea to read somebody's blog for a while before commenting. Or, read the history of their blog. There's a better chance of "getting" somebody's sense of humor, writing style, etc. Interact with the blogger for a while before developing an image of that person. Many people don't get these things, and it is the reason for so many internet flame wars and harsh criticisms. Reading in order to understand is a very important thing. "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him." Proverbs 18:13 Read well, my friend.
That's why I try to not place so much emphasis on first impression. This brings me to some tips on reading blogs. Whether we know it or not, the impression of somebody we receive from reading them has probably as much to do with how we read as it does with how that person writes. Casual conversation has the advantage of tone of voice, facial expressions and body language. Writing long, thought out pieces - such as books, articles or papers - has the advantage of putting a lot of thinking into something, as well as personal review and editing from others. Blogging is at a disadvantage because these things aren't always in the mix. It is often thinking out loud, like casual conversation, but in written form without the thought process or review. There are some shortcuts we use to convey emotion, etc., to try to fill in the gaps, but reading a blog cold and jumping to conclusions is really a hasty activity on the part of the reader.
That's why it's a good idea to read somebody's blog for a while before commenting. Or, read the history of their blog. There's a better chance of "getting" somebody's sense of humor, writing style, etc. Interact with the blogger for a while before developing an image of that person. Many people don't get these things, and it is the reason for so many internet flame wars and harsh criticisms. Reading in order to understand is a very important thing. "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him." Proverbs 18:13 Read well, my friend.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Part 5)
Read Part 4:
In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?
Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.
Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches. The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.
But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission. So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.
I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors. Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.
Read Part 6.
Read entire series in a single post.
In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?
Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.
Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches. The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.
But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission. So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.
I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors. Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.
Read Part 6.
Read entire series in a single post.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A short six days this week:
- Autumn is starting out well. Cool mornings, having to squeegee the car windows, with warm days. The leaves are turning red on the maple and liquid amber trees.
- Our oldest turned nine this week, and he received a model fighter jet from a relative for his birthday. The parts are smaller and more detailed than anything I ever did as a kid. This is his first model, and he's picked it up so fast it's amazing. Hundreds of tiny decals and parts the size of a pinhead.
- Neighbors are already decorating for Halloween. One house has about a half dozen spiders on the roof that are about three feet across. Looks creepy.
- Took the kids' car seats out of my car for grandma to use. Perfect time to vacuum what's underneath. Wow.
- Seventy four shopping days left until Christmas. That means that there's seventy three days left until the shopping really begins.
- It was everywhere ten years ago. So, here it is again.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Programmed Church - An Institution Unto Itself
John Armstrong posts a short, two minute YouTube clip talking about today's church model, entitled Has the Church Traded Methods for Worship? I tend to agree with him, and I also think there is a tendency to oppose these same methodologies and programs Armstrong alludes to, while at the same time not knowing that we fall into the same traps ourselves. I hope to be writing about this more in the near future.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
THE GIANTS WIN!
Congratulations to my San Francisco Giants on winning the National League West on the last day of the season! It's about time, you guys. Now go to work on getting that parade down Market Street.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Saturday Night Potpourri
A day late:
- Speculation as to why my Friday Night Potpourri is a day late...
- It's not really because the Giants lost last night. I hurt my knee this last week and it has been really painful at night.
- The apricot tree was trimmed today. Yahoo!
- I tried to reposition some of the scalloped brick driveway trim as some of the kids have been playing with them. I discovered that tree roots have pushed them up. This is the reason the kids can play with them.
- Sitting here day by day waiting for my Giants to clinch a playoff spot. Will they do it, or will it result in a total collapse? Time and the devil will tell...
- Grandma is a really good grandma. She's 80 and she gets down on her hands and knees to play cars with our three year old. We love grandma.
- It's been at least a hundred degrees here all week, and this morning there were rain drops on my car. I wonder where that came from. Rainy season doesn't officially start for another two weeks.
- Wow. I almost totally forgot about this song from the 70's. Another clock radio staple.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
There's Something Missing
I'm not often moved by a piece at the following blog, but Frank Turk at Pyromaniacs posted a letter he wrote to the Southern Baptist Convention detailing his family's search for a church after having to move for economic reasons. After searching for several years, and attending dozens of SBC churches, they settled into one outside of the SBC. His letter calls attention to a few things missing in the churches he tried out: leadership, ministry, seriousness, community, theology and Jesus Christ.
Focusing for a moment on the section of his letter that deals with lack of community, Frank writes:
How tragic. But of course, Frank's not close to being alone in lamenting these sad situations. The corporate mentality of bureaucracy and programs have neglected and alienated many Christians. Many are leaving churches and not returning. Many are trying different forms of church and community. Maybe the old wineskins are bursting and God is making new wineskins to hold the new wine. Whatever the case, searching through old wineskins to find something new is a daunting task. God help us.
Focusing for a moment on the section of his letter that deals with lack of community, Frank writes:
Which also brings up another important issue: because our view of leadership is a business-based model, and our view of ministry is both pragmatic and simplistic, and we have traded seriousness and sincere forthrightness for anything else that will hold people’s attention, we have no communities. Isn’t it ironic that we have medium- and large-sized social institutions which we can run with competent ability, but all that competence and professionalism really has put us in a place where the people involved don’t even really know each other?
How tragic. But of course, Frank's not close to being alone in lamenting these sad situations. The corporate mentality of bureaucracy and programs have neglected and alienated many Christians. Many are leaving churches and not returning. Many are trying different forms of church and community. Maybe the old wineskins are bursting and God is making new wineskins to hold the new wine. Whatever the case, searching through old wineskins to find something new is a daunting task. God help us.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Methinks it be half a fortnight:
- That spider in the glass globe I mentioned last month? It's still there but it hasn't moved in quite a while.
- Say "yes" to the dress, but "no" to your annoying family.
- This will be the first fall for raking up leaves in our new house. I'm not sure what happens with plum and apricot trees, but I'm sure the rock bed in the front won't shed leaves.
- My favorite old movie line (it appears in many old movies): "Say, what's the big idea?"
- All the kids went to the store without incident. Pretty good, and they all wanted to pull items off the shelf and put them into the cart. Then they wanted to take the stuff out of the cart and place it on the belt. Works great, except for the heavy stuff. We just hope this continues through the teenage years...
- I found an old dusty umbrella in the garage. It hasn't been used since last winter when it rained. Dusting off umbrellas is common in California.
- Is it possible to have a man-crush on a girl? Mui bueno.
Matthew 18 and Confronting Abusive Church Leaders
Kevin Johnson at Communio Sanctorum writes an interesting piece, titled Principles Not Procedures, about dealing with spiritual abuse coming from church leaders. One of his points is that the Matthew 18 passage we are all so familiar with isn't necessarily the one we need to follow in addressing church leaders.
Johnson also points out that many abusive methods of leadership are simply learned from others, so appeal to higher authorities within church structures may make no difference. If you have ever been subject to abuse from church leadership, know somebody who has, or are simply interested in the topic, I urge you to read Johnson's post.
No one doubts that Matthew 18 is a relevant passage in dealing with resolving offenses between brothers, but the procedure outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 is set in a very specific context that is often overlooked. In churches where spiritual abuse is occurring particularly at the hands of ministers and pastors who rule by fear, intimidation, and the inordinate and inappropriate use of Scripture–passages like this can become a very powerful weapon to accomplish and maintain abuse instead of legitimate repentance and reconciliation...
...The tragedy is that if you don’t follow a procedure like this in many abusive church environments, you will be called on the carpet for disobeying our Lord’s words, acting against his ministers wrongly, and encouraging division in the covenant community.
Johnson also points out that many abusive methods of leadership are simply learned from others, so appeal to higher authorities within church structures may make no difference. If you have ever been subject to abuse from church leadership, know somebody who has, or are simply interested in the topic, I urge you to read Johnson's post.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Unable To Hear
Recently I received a call from somebody I wasn't expecting. Just 20 minutes earlier I was told that somebody from their office would be calling me regarding a number of issues surrounding person X. I was expecting a call from person A regarding person X. Well, I received a call from person B regarding person Y, but about all the same issues yet in a different situation. I wasn't expecting person B or a conversation about Y, and since the syllable structure of B's name was very similar to person A, my mind substituted A for B. It took a few minutes of talking to realize my mistake.
A couple of classic examples of this from my past came to mind. Years ago I took a trip to Haiti to visit one of our church missionaries who was working in a medical clinic there. A few weeks before leaving I bumped into a co-worker in my company's office kitchen and she said, "Steve, I notice your name on the vacation calendar. Are you going anywhere?" I replied that I was going to Haiti. Her face lit up and in an excited tone she said, "Oh, you'll just love Tahiti. My husband and I went there on our honeymoon, and it was wonderful!" I corrected her misunderstanding and said it was Haiti, not Tahiti. Her face contorted into a twisted mass of quickly approaching upset stomach. She was unable to hear my original word because people simply don't go to Haiti on vacation. She substituted the best sounding alternative, Tahiti.
Another time, I was approached by a major TV ratings company to be a participant in their ratings systems. I was interviewed and asked for a bunch of information. One question was how many hours of television I watched per week. Squinting one eye and whispering to myself as I counted on my fingers for the next few moments, I replied "five." The interviewer, clipboard in hand, said, "Great. Five times seven is thirty five" as she charted my habit. "Now, next question. What do you..." I interrupted her and said that I was asked the number of hours I watched during a week and I said five. "Yes," she said, "five hours a day times seven days a week equals 35 hours per week." I corrected her again, saying that five was the number of hours per week that I watched, which is what she asked, not per day. She was so dumbfounded that she sat motionless for several minutes, then shuffled through her briefcase for a few more, until finally she asked if she could use the phone. After the call was over, she said she was sorry, that there was a minimum number of viewing hours necessary to be part of their ratings system. She was unable to hear my response to her question, because in her experience, an American simply doesn't watch only five hours per week. Even though I answered her question exactly as she asked it, and even though I corrected her the first time, she still wasn't able to get my answer.
All of this is to point out that we can have the same inability to hear when it comes to what God has given us in the bible. We can have this inability when discussing things with others. I think sometimes people disagree not because they understand the other person's argument and refute it. They simply cannot hear what the one person is saying. It can be so contrary to their experience, to what they've been taught (over and over) that it simply doesn't register. Even though that in the three examples I gave above there was an ultimate ability to understand through correction, I'm thinking that there can be things so ingrained in people that the inability to hear something for what is said will always be there. Short of a work of God, of course. Sometimes it is useless to explain your side of the story to somebody, because they'll never understand. They can't. So, in these situations, learning to let them alone and leave it up to God might be the best thing that can be done.
A couple of classic examples of this from my past came to mind. Years ago I took a trip to Haiti to visit one of our church missionaries who was working in a medical clinic there. A few weeks before leaving I bumped into a co-worker in my company's office kitchen and she said, "Steve, I notice your name on the vacation calendar. Are you going anywhere?" I replied that I was going to Haiti. Her face lit up and in an excited tone she said, "Oh, you'll just love Tahiti. My husband and I went there on our honeymoon, and it was wonderful!" I corrected her misunderstanding and said it was Haiti, not Tahiti. Her face contorted into a twisted mass of quickly approaching upset stomach. She was unable to hear my original word because people simply don't go to Haiti on vacation. She substituted the best sounding alternative, Tahiti.
Another time, I was approached by a major TV ratings company to be a participant in their ratings systems. I was interviewed and asked for a bunch of information. One question was how many hours of television I watched per week. Squinting one eye and whispering to myself as I counted on my fingers for the next few moments, I replied "five." The interviewer, clipboard in hand, said, "Great. Five times seven is thirty five" as she charted my habit. "Now, next question. What do you..." I interrupted her and said that I was asked the number of hours I watched during a week and I said five. "Yes," she said, "five hours a day times seven days a week equals 35 hours per week." I corrected her again, saying that five was the number of hours per week that I watched, which is what she asked, not per day. She was so dumbfounded that she sat motionless for several minutes, then shuffled through her briefcase for a few more, until finally she asked if she could use the phone. After the call was over, she said she was sorry, that there was a minimum number of viewing hours necessary to be part of their ratings system. She was unable to hear my response to her question, because in her experience, an American simply doesn't watch only five hours per week. Even though I answered her question exactly as she asked it, and even though I corrected her the first time, she still wasn't able to get my answer.
All of this is to point out that we can have the same inability to hear when it comes to what God has given us in the bible. We can have this inability when discussing things with others. I think sometimes people disagree not because they understand the other person's argument and refute it. They simply cannot hear what the one person is saying. It can be so contrary to their experience, to what they've been taught (over and over) that it simply doesn't register. Even though that in the three examples I gave above there was an ultimate ability to understand through correction, I'm thinking that there can be things so ingrained in people that the inability to hear something for what is said will always be there. Short of a work of God, of course. Sometimes it is useless to explain your side of the story to somebody, because they'll never understand. They can't. So, in these situations, learning to let them alone and leave it up to God might be the best thing that can be done.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
I'm A Cross Stream Swimmer
One of the themes that keeps occurring in my life is that I'm not one who goes with the flow. I'm a cross stream swimmer. I don't want to dive in and eventually reach the ocean and be swept out to sea. Rather, I want to reach the other side. I somehow have to cut through it all to come out alive.
This picture applies to theology and various circles within Christianity. I've had my share. I seem to find something new, immerse myself, but then figure out all the problems with it, glean the best, toss the rest, and move on. I may be at the "move on" point yet again. But one way this time is different is that I've already moved on from the individual influences, yet still kept the company of those in the system for a while. Until recently.
For what it's worth, for a number of years I was a cross stream swimmer in the John MacArthur/ RC Sproul/ John Piper/ DA Carson/ Michael Horton/ Wayne Mack/ Jay Adams/ Tedd Tripp/ Paul Tripp/ Martha Peace/ Johnathan Harris/ CJ Mahaney/ Mark Dever/ Alexander Strauch/ Tim Keller ecosystem. I reached the other side, and cleaned the algae out from between my toes and the crustaceans from my bum.
I'm not sure what's next on the horizon (and I never am), but I hope it's not the same old stream. I'd seriously like to hawk some "John Piper said it...I believe it...That settles it" bumper stickers. They would sell well, I'm sure, but I'm afraid that many of the buyers would buy these bumper stickers out of a sense of seriousness rather than out of a sense of humor.
This picture applies to theology and various circles within Christianity. I've had my share. I seem to find something new, immerse myself, but then figure out all the problems with it, glean the best, toss the rest, and move on. I may be at the "move on" point yet again. But one way this time is different is that I've already moved on from the individual influences, yet still kept the company of those in the system for a while. Until recently.
For what it's worth, for a number of years I was a cross stream swimmer in the John MacArthur/ RC Sproul/ John Piper/ DA Carson/ Michael Horton/ Wayne Mack/ Jay Adams/ Tedd Tripp/ Paul Tripp/ Martha Peace/ Johnathan Harris/ CJ Mahaney/ Mark Dever/ Alexander Strauch/ Tim Keller ecosystem. I reached the other side, and cleaned the algae out from between my toes and the crustaceans from my bum.
I'm not sure what's next on the horizon (and I never am), but I hope it's not the same old stream. I'd seriously like to hawk some "John Piper said it...I believe it...That settles it" bumper stickers. They would sell well, I'm sure, but I'm afraid that many of the buyers would buy these bumper stickers out of a sense of seriousness rather than out of a sense of humor.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Not much to talk about this week:
- Only a few days left of summer. It'll be darker longer than lighter just next week.
- For some reason our youngest has taken to playing in the garage amidst boxes and extra furniture.
- Time to downsize on the garbage can service to save a few bucks.
- Some really dumb show is on the TV right now. I don't have a clue what it's called. Neither do you.
- Blank #1
- Blank #2
- One of my personal fab four.
Advice on Updating Blogger Template?
I have long desired to update my template on Blogger. I have one of the ones that was available 5 1/2 years ago. I have a newer blog (1974 Topps baseball cards) and like the format and ease of use. But...
I've heard over the years from others that updating to a newer Blogger template can cause some big problems with layout and links and other things. Does anybody know if this is still the case? If anybody has experience with this and can offer advice, please let me know in the comments.
Thanks!
I've heard over the years from others that updating to a newer Blogger template can cause some big problems with layout and links and other things. Does anybody know if this is still the case? If anybody has experience with this and can offer advice, please let me know in the comments.
Thanks!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Reformed Baptist Tyranny
[Originally posted in Dec. 2005]
I came across an interesting article by John Reisinger that explains why Reformed Baptist churches are more at risk of ecclesial tyranny and abuse of elder authority than other Protestant forms of church government. His article can be read here (I found this link courtesy of the "Billy Goat Blog", here). It is the third article in a series of five about the "ekklesia" or "church" of Christ; parts one, two, four and five can be read here and here and here and here.
His premise is that many Reformed Baptists eliminate the concept of checks and balances inherent in both Presbyterian (the presbytery is a check to the session) and congregational (the body is a check to the elders) forms of government, leaving their specific "elder rule" government as autonomous, answering neither to their own body nor to other church bodies. The church leadership, even in the hands of godly men, is positioned as a law unto itself. Tyranny is often the result. Although I disagree with Reisinger on a number of points about the nature and practice of Christ's church, I think he sheds some much needed light on the issue of church government. I've previously held to, and subsequently abandoned, the idea that everything in a Christian's life must be "subject to the authority of the local church."
I believe that all forms of human government, whether self, family, church, state, or any other government, are subject to checks and balances from others. Nobody is their own (or anybody else's) Lord in any area of life. I plan to address this many times in the future.
I came across an interesting article by John Reisinger that explains why Reformed Baptist churches are more at risk of ecclesial tyranny and abuse of elder authority than other Protestant forms of church government. His article can be read here (I found this link courtesy of the "Billy Goat Blog", here). It is the third article in a series of five about the "ekklesia" or "church" of Christ; parts one, two, four and five can be read here and here and here and here.
His premise is that many Reformed Baptists eliminate the concept of checks and balances inherent in both Presbyterian (the presbytery is a check to the session) and congregational (the body is a check to the elders) forms of government, leaving their specific "elder rule" government as autonomous, answering neither to their own body nor to other church bodies. The church leadership, even in the hands of godly men, is positioned as a law unto itself. Tyranny is often the result. Although I disagree with Reisinger on a number of points about the nature and practice of Christ's church, I think he sheds some much needed light on the issue of church government. I've previously held to, and subsequently abandoned, the idea that everything in a Christian's life must be "subject to the authority of the local church."
I believe that all forms of human government, whether self, family, church, state, or any other government, are subject to checks and balances from others. Nobody is their own (or anybody else's) Lord in any area of life. I plan to address this many times in the future.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Selfishness of Singleness
[Posted originally about a year and a half ago]
People who put off marriage and having children mostly do so out of selfishness. They want to satisfy their own desires for a while instead of getting to the work that the Lord would have us do. And nothing, I mean nothing, will cure this selfishness like a spouse and some kids. Diapers, emergency room visits, bedwetting sheet changes in the middle of the night will show you just how selfish you were. Witnesses testified of this fact before I was married, and personal experience ratifies it.
Uhhhh...yeahokaywhatever.
This is a sentiment possessed to some degree by more than a handful of Christians I have known. Recently I had lunch with an old friend - single friend - of mine who has reached a point in his life where he's kind of tired of hearing these things. He's decided that between he and God that he's content being single, and in fact isn't sure he wants to get married. He has nephews and nieces to love, and has no problem loving them, but marriage and kids of his own just isn't on the wishlist.
He also noted something I had not considered before. Yes, I knew some people probably fell into this temptation, but in isolated cases that I never thought could be widespread. But people can be just as selfish in wanting and having children as they can in being single. Consider the pressure in conservative Christian circles. Being known as a bible family with lots of kids can be a temptation. The little pink house with a white picket fence and 2.3 kids too.
I know families with lots of kids who have made things work out quite well, and families that have gone through hell with just one. Mrs. Scott and I were talking about this today - in light of our own family trials - and have both come to realize that there are people who are made to handle certain family situations and some that are not. Let's let each one work out their own life before God. May God give them wisdom in doing so and us wisdom enough to know that God is giving them wisdom that doesn't need our superior attitude. Am I being a bit preachy here? Yeah, why not?
People who put off marriage and having children mostly do so out of selfishness. They want to satisfy their own desires for a while instead of getting to the work that the Lord would have us do. And nothing, I mean nothing, will cure this selfishness like a spouse and some kids. Diapers, emergency room visits, bedwetting sheet changes in the middle of the night will show you just how selfish you were. Witnesses testified of this fact before I was married, and personal experience ratifies it.
Uhhhh...yeahokaywhatever.
This is a sentiment possessed to some degree by more than a handful of Christians I have known. Recently I had lunch with an old friend - single friend - of mine who has reached a point in his life where he's kind of tired of hearing these things. He's decided that between he and God that he's content being single, and in fact isn't sure he wants to get married. He has nephews and nieces to love, and has no problem loving them, but marriage and kids of his own just isn't on the wishlist.
He also noted something I had not considered before. Yes, I knew some people probably fell into this temptation, but in isolated cases that I never thought could be widespread. But people can be just as selfish in wanting and having children as they can in being single. Consider the pressure in conservative Christian circles. Being known as a bible family with lots of kids can be a temptation. The little pink house with a white picket fence and 2.3 kids too.
I know families with lots of kids who have made things work out quite well, and families that have gone through hell with just one. Mrs. Scott and I were talking about this today - in light of our own family trials - and have both come to realize that there are people who are made to handle certain family situations and some that are not. Let's let each one work out their own life before God. May God give them wisdom in doing so and us wisdom enough to know that God is giving them wisdom that doesn't need our superior attitude. Am I being a bit preachy here? Yeah, why not?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Backing up my blog posting time to just before midnight to make it appear I hit "publish" on Friday:
- Our five year old recently gave himself to cleaning up the pine needles that have fallen off the neighbor's tree into the driveway. The garbage can smells good for once.
- Wow, are the Texas Rangers in first place in the AL west? Wow.
- I almost took out a motorcycle cop this week. I had just veered into a left turn lane, and was gauging the distance between me and the minivan in front of me as we came to a stop. I had enough room, but the bike zipped into the small space in between us and I really had to brake hard to avoid stuffing him into the rear compartment of the minivan. As we turned left, the Christmas tree went on, and he pulled the minivan over into a gas station. No wonder he was so anxious to crowd me.
- The spider I wrote about a few weeks ago that got inside the 70's globe light in the bathroom hasn't moved in about two weeks. I wonder what happened to it?
- It's September, so I'm guessing Christmas stuff should appear in stores any day now.
- Here I am blogging and I remember that my first computer was a Commodore Vic 20.
- So many versions of this came out. It just drips, oozes and screams 80's.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Escape From Legalism
I've written much over the years here about legalism and my experiences with it. Some of those things are not currently available, but maybe up for a re-working.
In any case, I have also had a good experience in seeing many people in addition to myself escape systems of legalism. People that were involved in the same churches or groups of churches I was that no longer are. People who realized that false doctrine and teaching were destroying their lives. People who discovered, perhaps for the first time ever, the freshness of God's grace and freedom in Christ. People who were held in bondage to scrutinizing every minute detail of other people's lives, searching for the tiniest thread of evidence (like the brand of shirt one wore) that could give them reason to question somebody's salvation. People who were sheepishly terrified of their own shadow, that it might give an appearance of evil by the way it was cast onto the sidewalk. People who were afraid to laugh because God might think it insobriety. Or maybe people that just couldn't "measure up" to the rigid systems of man-made rules.
I'm thankful for the great escape, and hope many more find their way out.
In any case, I have also had a good experience in seeing many people in addition to myself escape systems of legalism. People that were involved in the same churches or groups of churches I was that no longer are. People who realized that false doctrine and teaching were destroying their lives. People who discovered, perhaps for the first time ever, the freshness of God's grace and freedom in Christ. People who were held in bondage to scrutinizing every minute detail of other people's lives, searching for the tiniest thread of evidence (like the brand of shirt one wore) that could give them reason to question somebody's salvation. People who were sheepishly terrified of their own shadow, that it might give an appearance of evil by the way it was cast onto the sidewalk. People who were afraid to laugh because God might think it insobriety. Or maybe people that just couldn't "measure up" to the rigid systems of man-made rules.
I'm thankful for the great escape, and hope many more find their way out.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Yet Another Anniversary of the World Not Ending
Today, September 6, is the 16th anniversary of the world not ending. Harold Camping declared that September 6, 1994 would be the end of the final tribulation, and that on that date, the sun would become dark, the moon would turn to blood and the stars would fall from the sky. The universe would undergo undulation for a period of a few weeks until Christ returned to end the world and to throw a majority of people who had ever lived into hell.
As far as I know, it didn't happen. Maybe it did and I just missed the 10 o'clock news.
But, oh wait. Harold Camping is at it again. (And again and again and again) Sometime in the last couple of years he really nailed it with infallible proof that May 21, 2011 is Judgment Day. But he condemns himself in saying that the church age has ended and the church has been under the power of Satan since the final tribulation. Camping was an elder in a church during that time, so he unwittingly (I presume) claims himself to be under Satan's control. Oh, well. Just another day at the office for Harold Camping.
As far as I know, it didn't happen. Maybe it did and I just missed the 10 o'clock news.
But, oh wait. Harold Camping is at it again. (And again and again and again) Sometime in the last couple of years he really nailed it with infallible proof that May 21, 2011 is Judgment Day. But he condemns himself in saying that the church age has ended and the church has been under the power of Satan since the final tribulation. Camping was an elder in a church during that time, so he unwittingly (I presume) claims himself to be under Satan's control. Oh, well. Just another day at the office for Harold Camping.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Part 4)
Read Part 3.
Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.
These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)
Read Part 5.
Read entire series in a single post.
Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.
These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)
P: Baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision, so infants should be baptized.On and on this goes. Jesus had a lot to say about traditions. He really didn't condemn those who held to traditions, but had a problem with those who held tradition equal or above the word of God. I'm afraid many throughout church history have done just this with their arguments about baptism. I know I did. Forgive me, Lord.
B: There's no evidence in the NT of children being baptized.
P: But the households of new converts were, so there must have been children in those households.
B: You're making assumptions. It could just have easily been believers old enough to know.
P: Well history is on our side, because there's archaeological evidence that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century AD.
B: But no earlier, of course. It was a Roman Catholic doctrine introduced to soothe the fears of parents who wondered if their unbaptized children would go to heaven if they died. The Reformation was a good thing, but they didn't go far enough in dealing with Rome's doctrines.
P: Well, let's just see what the Westminster Confession has to say.
B: Huh? This is a Scriptural issue, so we should limit our conversation to the bible alone and not bring history into it.
P: "XXVIII, IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."
B: You're off course again.
P: "XXVIII, III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."
B: Well, you and they both obviously missed the meaning of the Greek word, baptizo, which means literally "to immerse." The writers of the King James bible, through built-in fear of the dominant Catholic church, neglected to translate the word as "immerse," but instead transliterated the word as "baptize." The result is that the English speaking world is in confusion about even the biblical mode of baptism.
P: Say, you're bringing enough of your own history into this as well. You miss all the biblical references to sprinkling in the OT, and how Col. 2:11 ties baptism and circum...
Read Part 5.
Read entire series in a single post.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A very un-potpourri type of week:
- With study, homework and a test, my mind wasn't in a Potpourri mode.
- I filled out a number of forms this week using #2 pencils to fill in bubbles. Having to erase those is kind of a bummer, and you don't know if the scanner will pick up on the correction or not.
- My kids have the same school mascot as I do: the mustang.
- On several blogs today I noticed a popup from my local utility showing an image of a shower head. All the text was in Japanese. Huh? [Update: it's actually Chinese. Oops]
- All the clocks in our house are several minutes off from each other, with a span of about eight. Time to correct the time.
- How many cans do you have in your garbage service? We have three: brown for garbage, blue for recycle, and green for green. And garbage day in Tuesday.
- Sloooow blues in the key of C. A marquee performance if I say so myself. For best results be sure to use the 480p setting.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Boundaries That Promote Freedom
"But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does." James 1:25
A number of years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. They were confined and closed in. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together in the center of the playground for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, with its animals and strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was engineered and constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far fewer than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
A number of years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. They were confined and closed in. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together in the center of the playground for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, with its animals and strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was engineered and constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far fewer than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Actually Saturday morning:
- San Francisco Bay Area's natural air conditioning: fog. We had a minor heat wave this week. Temps went from 101 to 108 to 86 to 72, and this morning there's no sun due to overcast.
- Earlier this week we found a stuffed monkey on our roof. Uhm, yeah.
- Back to school for the kids this last week. We checked school schedules again because we moved this last year, and the cousins from another city have different Easter weeks off. So much for vacation coordination.
- When a squeegee is used to try to break a 4x4 post, the squeegee usually breaks. Someday kids will learn.
- A rock garden suddenly appeared in front of the garage door two days ago. I wonder how that got there?
- This last Monday was the day I first felt autumn in the air. I don't know what it is, but there's a feeling of fall. The shadows get longer, the sun is a different color. It's some kind of sensation and I've never been able to fully understand it.
- Like wow, man, an AM clock radio flashback.
Threatenings
Political tyrants command obedience by threatening to use the sword. Religious legalists use the Lake of Fire.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Psychology of the End
A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
Here's a series I did a while back about the psychology of thinking you know when the world will end. God doesn't tell us because it will radically affect our behavior...for the worst.
Psychology of the End (Part 1) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
In sports, each team has a game plan. In football it might be to establish the run, then develop the pass, all the while controlling the line of scrimmage, field position and the clock. Following the game plan will result in victory. In baseball it might be to have the starting pitcher go six or seven innings, then turning it over to the bullpen to finish the game. In higher education, the student can have a game plan. Before the semester, he buys all his books. Then he studies hard, does all his homework and uses all of this to become familiar enough with the material to not only pass the midterm and final exams, but to get an "A." Living in a home with a yard might consist of mowing the lawn, painting and general maintenance. A game plan for these things consists of routine, repetition and consistency. But the game plan is best when it is a comprehensive one. One where all the situations are considered and can be addressed when faced. One that will not let small things grow into big problems.
But when the end of a thing is near, game plans and strategies change, sometimes radically. A team that is losing in the last minute of a football game will ditch all of its routine strategies and engage in acts of desperation, doing things it would never do at any other time of the game. With a runner on third early in a baseball game, the defensive team may concede the run to get an out. When it's the winning run in the 9th inning, both the infield and outfield are pulled in in a desperate attempt to get the out at home plate. A basketball team will purposely foul the other team in hopes that it misses the free throws in order to get the ball back. A hockey team will abandon its goalie for an extra offensive player to try to tie the game. A student will suddenly cram for finals. If a house is to be torn down to make way for a bigger project, the lawn won't get mowed. A graphics project with a deadline will result in long hours, plenty of coffee and scraps all over the floor at the last minute. Conversely, a team that is winning at the end of a game will be lazy and slow on purpose, substituting inferior players, etc.
The same things occur in real life with regards to eschatology. If somebody believes the end is really and suddenly near, life will be lived in a completely different manner, even if in desperation or laziness. In my next post, I will deal with this reality.
Psychology of the End (Part 2) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
In my first post, I looked at how people change their behavior - sometimes even radically - when the end of a thing is approaching. Each of the examples I gave was for things where the timing of the end was generally known at the beginning. There are also things for which the end can come suddenly or unexpectedly. In life, we generally are born, go through childhood, become grownups with our own life, engage in a career, plan for retirement, retire, then eventually die. But a diagnosis of a terminal disease part way through life will change somebody's behavior radically. Some people quit their jobs to be with their families. In baseball, rain can threaten to bring the early end of a game. The team that is leading will hurry to get an official game in by completing the 5th inning, while the losing team will delay. Then, once the 5th inning is complete, the teams reverse their roles. Behavior changes with an unexpected facing of the end.
With regards to the end of the world and the return of Christ, Jesus tells us not only that we won't know the day or hour, but that we will not even know the times or seasons. I believe that God is wise enough to know human behavior, and if man knows the time of the end, he will most certainly change his behavior - radically. This is why God doesn't let us know. God has a plan of normal, routine behavior for us, and He wants us to stick to the plan that He laid out. If we know the end (really, if we think we know the end), we will change our behavior accordingly so that in anticipation of the end, we will change our focus from obeying God to obeying what we think about the end. We will have ceased to obey God. We will have changed from walking by faith to walking by sight. Next, I'll look at how this has fleshed its way out in history, including my personal history, and how different eschatological viewpoints affect our behavior.
Psychology of the End (Part 3) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
Many "ends" have come in the history of man. Many groups have predicted the end of the world. Other ends have been postulated, such as Y2K. People's behavior has radically changed as a result. Although Y2K wasn't the "end of the world" per se, many people stockpiled arms in bunkers in Montana or Idaho in waiting for the collapse of the government following the global failure of computer chips. My church gained a few families from a church up the road because their pastor moved his family to a bunker in Montana in mid 1999 and closed down the church. In December, I bought several months of canned goods to protect myself "just in case." In the year 999, people feared the end of the world because it was a thousand years since Christ came to earth.
In 1994, my first church, led by Harold Camping, had quite a shaking up as a result of Camping's end of the world prediction. He first made his prediction public in 1992. Many people did strange things while facing the end. Some people quit jobs, some people cancelled bible studies, some people out of jobs delayed getting new ones, some people gave huge sums of money to Camping's ministry - even entire life savings - to "get the gospel out" at the last minute. Although I wasn't at that church until the week after the prediction date, I heard plenty of stories about odd things. Just two days earlier, their church picnic had people giving tearful goodbyes to one another. Church leaders were up late at night answering phone calls from terrified parishoners. Some people dropped out of life after the end didn't occur.
In the bible, Paul warns Timothy that men named Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection already took place and that it was upsetting the faith of some believers. The end has a powerful affect on people, so it should come as no surprise that one's view of eschatology can greatly affect how people live in the here and now.
Here's a series I did a while back about the psychology of thinking you know when the world will end. God doesn't tell us because it will radically affect our behavior...for the worst.
Psychology of the End (Part 1) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
In sports, each team has a game plan. In football it might be to establish the run, then develop the pass, all the while controlling the line of scrimmage, field position and the clock. Following the game plan will result in victory. In baseball it might be to have the starting pitcher go six or seven innings, then turning it over to the bullpen to finish the game. In higher education, the student can have a game plan. Before the semester, he buys all his books. Then he studies hard, does all his homework and uses all of this to become familiar enough with the material to not only pass the midterm and final exams, but to get an "A." Living in a home with a yard might consist of mowing the lawn, painting and general maintenance. A game plan for these things consists of routine, repetition and consistency. But the game plan is best when it is a comprehensive one. One where all the situations are considered and can be addressed when faced. One that will not let small things grow into big problems.
But when the end of a thing is near, game plans and strategies change, sometimes radically. A team that is losing in the last minute of a football game will ditch all of its routine strategies and engage in acts of desperation, doing things it would never do at any other time of the game. With a runner on third early in a baseball game, the defensive team may concede the run to get an out. When it's the winning run in the 9th inning, both the infield and outfield are pulled in in a desperate attempt to get the out at home plate. A basketball team will purposely foul the other team in hopes that it misses the free throws in order to get the ball back. A hockey team will abandon its goalie for an extra offensive player to try to tie the game. A student will suddenly cram for finals. If a house is to be torn down to make way for a bigger project, the lawn won't get mowed. A graphics project with a deadline will result in long hours, plenty of coffee and scraps all over the floor at the last minute. Conversely, a team that is winning at the end of a game will be lazy and slow on purpose, substituting inferior players, etc.
The same things occur in real life with regards to eschatology. If somebody believes the end is really and suddenly near, life will be lived in a completely different manner, even if in desperation or laziness. In my next post, I will deal with this reality.
Psychology of the End (Part 2) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
In my first post, I looked at how people change their behavior - sometimes even radically - when the end of a thing is approaching. Each of the examples I gave was for things where the timing of the end was generally known at the beginning. There are also things for which the end can come suddenly or unexpectedly. In life, we generally are born, go through childhood, become grownups with our own life, engage in a career, plan for retirement, retire, then eventually die. But a diagnosis of a terminal disease part way through life will change somebody's behavior radically. Some people quit their jobs to be with their families. In baseball, rain can threaten to bring the early end of a game. The team that is leading will hurry to get an official game in by completing the 5th inning, while the losing team will delay. Then, once the 5th inning is complete, the teams reverse their roles. Behavior changes with an unexpected facing of the end.
With regards to the end of the world and the return of Christ, Jesus tells us not only that we won't know the day or hour, but that we will not even know the times or seasons. I believe that God is wise enough to know human behavior, and if man knows the time of the end, he will most certainly change his behavior - radically. This is why God doesn't let us know. God has a plan of normal, routine behavior for us, and He wants us to stick to the plan that He laid out. If we know the end (really, if we think we know the end), we will change our behavior accordingly so that in anticipation of the end, we will change our focus from obeying God to obeying what we think about the end. We will have ceased to obey God. We will have changed from walking by faith to walking by sight. Next, I'll look at how this has fleshed its way out in history, including my personal history, and how different eschatological viewpoints affect our behavior.
Psychology of the End (Part 3) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology
Many "ends" have come in the history of man. Many groups have predicted the end of the world. Other ends have been postulated, such as Y2K. People's behavior has radically changed as a result. Although Y2K wasn't the "end of the world" per se, many people stockpiled arms in bunkers in Montana or Idaho in waiting for the collapse of the government following the global failure of computer chips. My church gained a few families from a church up the road because their pastor moved his family to a bunker in Montana in mid 1999 and closed down the church. In December, I bought several months of canned goods to protect myself "just in case." In the year 999, people feared the end of the world because it was a thousand years since Christ came to earth.
In 1994, my first church, led by Harold Camping, had quite a shaking up as a result of Camping's end of the world prediction. He first made his prediction public in 1992. Many people did strange things while facing the end. Some people quit jobs, some people cancelled bible studies, some people out of jobs delayed getting new ones, some people gave huge sums of money to Camping's ministry - even entire life savings - to "get the gospel out" at the last minute. Although I wasn't at that church until the week after the prediction date, I heard plenty of stories about odd things. Just two days earlier, their church picnic had people giving tearful goodbyes to one another. Church leaders were up late at night answering phone calls from terrified parishoners. Some people dropped out of life after the end didn't occur.
In the bible, Paul warns Timothy that men named Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection already took place and that it was upsetting the faith of some believers. The end has a powerful affect on people, so it should come as no surprise that one's view of eschatology can greatly affect how people live in the here and now.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
If it's Friday, it must be potpourri:
- Last Friday was Friday the 13th, and I didn't realize it until seeing a Facebook post at 11:57pm.
- Spider in my globe, just waitin' to catch a fly. The place we live in was built in the mid 70's, so that means the light fixture in the bath is a 10" diameter white sphere. When the light's on, you can see a few small dead bugs in there. Well this last week, a spider got in there and couldn't crawl up the slick sides. So it eventually curled up and "died." But several days later it was active again, then went motionless for a few more days. Now, it's building a web inside and seems it is actually catching some small bugs for dinner. I'm due to paint in a few weeks, so we'll see how that goes.
- I've been using a $10 bag of espresso for about six months now, brewed on my home espresso maker (Thanks, Mike, for the wedding present!), and it's about half gone. The way I figure it, that's about $725 at Starbucks.
- A manual sprinkler system doesn't get more manual than a garden hose in your right hand.
- Ping pong balls weren't meant to be used in a foosball game set, but that's all the kids have. Those and superballs.
- A few weeks ago I mentioned how I liked to destroy stuff. Well, the funnest job I ever had was working at a wrecking yard in high school. I got to operate the car smasher. A car engine bolted to a steel frame attached to a 20 foot gallows with a pulley, pulling a 17 ton iron lid open with 1 1/2" steel cable. The fork lift would put a mid-60's Cadillac or Lincoln tank in there. I'd drop that lid and, POW!, that car would be about 12" thick. Whoa!
- Back when music was a bit more innocent: The greatest song ever, in the greatest video ever, by the greatest band ever, in the greatest decade ever, linked to on the greatest blog ever! Wow, what a set of greater than ever coincidences! Or, something.
Your Church Is Too Small - and - Mere Churchianity
I've written about how I wanted to review John Armstrong's Your Church Is Too Small and the posthumous publishing of Michael (the Internet Monk) Spencer's Mere Churchianity when I completed them. Well, I completed them a few weeks ago, and I think that I will do more of a commentary of them than a review, if that makes sense. I'm sure reviews are available elsewhere, and I definitely wanted to add my own comments. I'm not sure I'll start these commentaries within the next few weeks, but they should be coming at some point. Stay tuned.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Part 3)
Read Part 2.
Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."
The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.
Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.
In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.
Read Part 4.
Read entire series in a single post.
Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."
The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.
Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.
In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.
Read Part 4.
Read entire series in a single post.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Weak kneed, or week knead?
- What are Raffia Cream, Gobi Desert and Western Acoustic? They're paint colors, of course. The kids get a tiny bathroom makeover this week.
- The best croutons I've ever had were made by Mrs. Scott this week at work.
- We drove into San Francisco across the Bay Bridge this week. Many changes have occurred as a new bridge is being built. I realized I hadn't done it in several years, as all my trips into the City have been on the train. Six bucks for toll? I used to pay 75c when I first started driving.
- Our eight year old went to camp this week, and had some field trips. Yesterday he brought home a Venus fly trap. I can't wait to see if it gets rid of some pests.
- Absolutely free? If I have to remember to call you at the end of the free trial period to cancel and avoid being automatically charged full price, it's not absolutely free.
- A little known fact about me: I was born with a tooth, and the young family dentist came down to the hospital and pulled my first tooth when I was one day old. It was really loose and came out with his fingers. I had the same dentist for the next forty years until he retired.
- In the game of baseball, some teams' closers have a special song played when they enter the game in the 9th inning. Trevor Hoffman had "Hells Bells," Robb Nen had "Enter Sandman," and if I had to choose one for me, it might be the first minute or so from this. Turn it up.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Will Jesus Dominate World History?
Let's take a look at world history. The youngest of the young earth creation scenarios, if we take Bishop Ussher's calculations into account, places the creation of man at 4004 BC. Christ came four thousand years later. We live two thousand years after that. Christ as messiah, with death, burial and resurrection is quite often placed as the focus of history. Why was the time prior to his coming twice as long as the time after his coming, assuming he returns very soon? If we take older earth creation time lines, Christ's place in history becomes an even smaller percentage of time.
It just seems a bit strange to me that if the application of Christ's atonement for sinners and the establishment of his kingdom are so important theologically, these things would apply to the minority of history (after the fact, of course). Why wouldn't God make it the dominant theme of a vast majority of history?
Contemplating this, I wouldn't be surprised if Christ didn't return for thousands of years yet. Or even tens of thousands of years. Hundreds? Every generation since the early church - and even the people at the time of Christ - has believed they lived in the last generation. But if it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, why not the next 10,000 either? Next week would be okay, too.
It just seems a bit strange to me that if the application of Christ's atonement for sinners and the establishment of his kingdom are so important theologically, these things would apply to the minority of history (after the fact, of course). Why wouldn't God make it the dominant theme of a vast majority of history?
Contemplating this, I wouldn't be surprised if Christ didn't return for thousands of years yet. Or even tens of thousands of years. Hundreds? Every generation since the early church - and even the people at the time of Christ - has believed they lived in the last generation. But if it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, why not the next 10,000 either? Next week would be okay, too.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Either Doctrine OR Community?
In a recent post, I mentioned two problems we often face. We're given a choice between two things, and we're given the idea that one of the choices must be right. Also, in other cases, since we have two choices, we're given the idea that one must be wrong.
An example of the latter, and the point of this post, could be the false dichotomy that has been created in ecclesiology that tells us that church either has doctrine or community. It's as if both can't be realities. There has been much tension over the last few decades over the idea of community within a church body. Many who have left the traditional/institutional church complain about a lack of community. People go to church every Sunday, sit there, listen to a sermon preached by one person, and go home. There is relatively little interaction between people concerning the New Testament one-anothers. As a counter complaint, many within the institutional church claim these newer community groups meet to emote and have social interaction, but forsake doctrine and solid leadership. Much may be true of each complaint, but why can't both be part of church?
Why can't there be solid doctrine and good teaching while at the same time strong community bonds between the members of the body? I'm sure there can be.
An example of the latter, and the point of this post, could be the false dichotomy that has been created in ecclesiology that tells us that church either has doctrine or community. It's as if both can't be realities. There has been much tension over the last few decades over the idea of community within a church body. Many who have left the traditional/institutional church complain about a lack of community. People go to church every Sunday, sit there, listen to a sermon preached by one person, and go home. There is relatively little interaction between people concerning the New Testament one-anothers. As a counter complaint, many within the institutional church claim these newer community groups meet to emote and have social interaction, but forsake doctrine and solid leadership. Much may be true of each complaint, but why can't both be part of church?
Why can't there be solid doctrine and good teaching while at the same time strong community bonds between the members of the body? I'm sure there can be.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
I wondered what happened this week:
- I like to destroy things. It's fun, but only when things need to be destroyed, like Solomon says "a time to tear down" in Ecclesiastes. Well, we had some stuff to donate to charities, and a separate dump trip. Except the charities don't take much anymore, our truck full included. We couldn't then fit both into the truck to take to the dump. So I took my frustration out on the rejected furniture, "making it smaller" so as to fit into the truck. Bwahahahah!
- One of my idiot lights on my car dash came on this week. Much of the time, idiot lights mean that it's the idiot light that is malfunctioning. The last couple of weeks my parking brake indicator light has come on while driving, and I know that wasn't true.
- Today Mrs. Scott found all of our younger kids' "back to school" clothes in the garage while cleaning. They were packed away after our oldest outgrew them several years ago. They were there for just such an occasion. We forgot about them until now.
- When your doorbell rings twenty times in a row, it's likely the four year old next door.
- Some people prefer mustard on their corn dogs. Some, like our five year old, prefer ketchup. I like both at the same time. So there! :-P
- Just before the neighbors moved, our kids were invited to pick some tomatoes from the back yard. They picked some, but from the wrong plant. They were hot peppers instead. Yea for daddy!
- The first week of August is right in the middle of it. My absolute favorite by her.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
On Making Either/Or from Both or Neither
I've written a bit before on the deceitfulness of sin. One of the ways I've noted how sin works is that it often sets itself up against itself and begs us to choose between them. We are given two wrong choices and told to make a choice. Not like being given a choice between the lesser of two evils as we often have to do in an election. We know both are evil and our vote becomes damage control at best. But it's when we're persuaded that because there are two choices, one of them needs to be right. It's as if what's right is never mentioned, let alone as a choice.
A related dilemma that I haven't mentioned before is when two right things are put at odds with each other and we're told to make a choice. It's when we're persuaded that because there are two choices, one of them needs to be wrong. It's when we're told we can't have both. In an upcoming post, I'll give a good example.
A related dilemma that I haven't mentioned before is when two right things are put at odds with each other and we're told to make a choice. It's when we're persuaded that because there are two choices, one of them needs to be wrong. It's when we're told we can't have both. In an upcoming post, I'll give a good example.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Adding Commandments
With a slight twist of meaning I'm not really adding commandments, but to the contrary I'm adding Commandments of Men, the blog by Lewis Wells, to my blogroll. In a completely unrelated event, I'm also adding 1974 Topps Set, my baseball card blog about my childhood collecting of the1974 Topps card set.
Monday, August 02, 2010
The Worst of Tyrannies?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under live robber barons than under omnipotent moral busibodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
I've come across this quote by CS Lewis before several times. This time, Lewis Wells uses it on his new site Commandments of Men. I think this question should be applied well to every area of life, whether family, religion or politics.
I've come across this quote by CS Lewis before several times. This time, Lewis Wells uses it on his new site Commandments of Men. I think this question should be applied well to every area of life, whether family, religion or politics.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A wild week in weak:
- I had a term paper due and final this week in my American history class. Whew, it's over.
- Plundering the movers: In the bible, the Hebrews plundered the Egyptians when they exited the land. Well, we've scored a bit ourselves from others we've known who have moved. Some friends moved out of state, and we picked up a few things. A family member downsized so a few more things gained. And a neighbor just moved overseas, some more. Included are furniture, a few good prints, and even a pet frog for the kids.
- Our garden hose recently blew up. It was from the previous people, and one of the bubbles in the outer skin finally gave out. So we got new hoses. Then the hose caddy we bought had mal manufactured threads on the reel, so the new hose can't be attached. Time to go back to Home Deopt.
- In several places around the yard there are underground drain pipes with leave traps at the surface, so that water can be drained off. Well, our three year old has decided to collect all the leave traps and fill the pipes with dirt and balls.
- That makes me wonder just how many whiffle balls are up in the rain gutter in the back yard?
- Our eight year old refused to believe that his brothers saw a turtle close to the nearby duck pond. But they did. Then just last week he saw two of them himself. Now he's a believer.
- I realized tonight that I've been doing the FNP song for a year now. Well, to celebrate, here's a clever little song just for FNP.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Part 2)
Read Part 1
In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.
Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.
I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.
Read Part 3.
Read entire series in a single post.
In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.
Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.
I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.
Read Part 3.
Read entire series in a single post.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Commandments of Men
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: "These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9 NKJV
I stumbled across a blog by a man named Lewis Wells titled, Commandments of Men. After a bizarre situation where a fundamentalist family removed their daughter from marrying this man just prior to their wedding date, Wells takes a painful look at hyper-fundamentalist groups and the strange teachings they hold and act upon. Especially examined are the Patriarchy, Quiverful and Courtship movements. Wells demonstrates the emotional and spiritual abuse common in these groups and links to other sources dealing with similar things.
In my own Christian life, I have been exposed to similar types of groups, and have been directly involved with legalistic groups who have mastered the art and science of promoting men's commandments with equal or greater emphasis than God's word. So, Wells' site strikes a chord with me, and I can to some degree emphasize with him, his experience, and the experience of so many others who are trapped inside destructive religious systems, whether the victims know it or not. If you have an interest in learning about the dark side of fundamentalism, I encourage you to give Wells a read.
I stumbled across a blog by a man named Lewis Wells titled, Commandments of Men. After a bizarre situation where a fundamentalist family removed their daughter from marrying this man just prior to their wedding date, Wells takes a painful look at hyper-fundamentalist groups and the strange teachings they hold and act upon. Especially examined are the Patriarchy, Quiverful and Courtship movements. Wells demonstrates the emotional and spiritual abuse common in these groups and links to other sources dealing with similar things.
In my own Christian life, I have been exposed to similar types of groups, and have been directly involved with legalistic groups who have mastered the art and science of promoting men's commandments with equal or greater emphasis than God's word. So, Wells' site strikes a chord with me, and I can to some degree emphasize with him, his experience, and the experience of so many others who are trapped inside destructive religious systems, whether the victims know it or not. If you have an interest in learning about the dark side of fundamentalism, I encourage you to give Wells a read.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
A week in the life:
- My eight year old, who is the virtual Crocodile Hunter of the insect world, held a tiny spider in his hand and it started making a web from his finger to the porch swing.
- I'm announcing a new blog for those who are interested in baseball cards. It's called "1974 Topps Set" and is about my collection from that year during my childhood. I post scanned pix of each card I have in the set and tell a little about each one, with some stories or info along the way.
- The dryer in our house has one of those buzzers that jolt you out of your chair at about 120dB. It looks to be a late 70's or early 80's model, and there's no setting to turn it off like on today's models. I'm guessing a Phillips screwdriver and wire cutters are in order.
- I've noticed a trend in the last ten years maybe. I don't know of any 24 hour grocery stores any more. They all used to be, except for the one closest to the large retirement community, which closed at 9pm for obvious reasons. Now I feel fortunate to find one open until midnight.
- Our doorbell goes "dong." For some reason the "ding" doesn't work. The little girl next door often rings it twice, so we hear "dong dong."
- Steve Scott stays well adjusted at Bachmeyer Family Chiropractic.
- Racked my brain trying to think of the lyrics these last several months. I knew the melody, but couldn't hear words concrete enough to Google, until Mrs. Scott guessed a few and found this on YouTube. They just don't make music like this anymore. Dig the brass.
Book Review Update
It's a slow process for me to read a book, but I'm about 3/4 the way through both John Armstrong's Your Church Is Too Small and the late Michael Spencer's Mere Churchianity. Once done, I'll review each book on this blog.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Blog Plug: Islam and Christianity
What I originally found to be an interesting blog that shed some facts on Islam, has turned out to me to be a very fascinating slice of real life in the real world. Abu Daoud writes on his blog, Islam and Christianity, which is subtitiled, "This blog is written by a Christian living in the Middle East. My desire is to discuss Islam and Christianity in ways that will be helpful for people of the other religion."
Abu's blog isn't some warmed-over extension of the post-9/11 image of Islam that we have courtesy of the mainstream American media. He is an intelligent, articulate, educated, well blog-read, passionate Christian who actually lives in the Middle East, and gives a depth to his topics in a way that few Americans can even imagine, much less experience. He writes not only about Islam and Christianity, as separate religions, but about the entire history of their interaction. Also, he writes much about the Koran, Islamic theology, Sharia law, folk religion, Muslim influence in Europe, Africa and America, unreached people groups, and personal interaction with Muslims where he lives.
A must read for anybody interested in Islam or Middle Eastern culture.
Abu's blog isn't some warmed-over extension of the post-9/11 image of Islam that we have courtesy of the mainstream American media. He is an intelligent, articulate, educated, well blog-read, passionate Christian who actually lives in the Middle East, and gives a depth to his topics in a way that few Americans can even imagine, much less experience. He writes not only about Islam and Christianity, as separate religions, but about the entire history of their interaction. Also, he writes much about the Koran, Islamic theology, Sharia law, folk religion, Muslim influence in Europe, Africa and America, unreached people groups, and personal interaction with Muslims where he lives.
A must read for anybody interested in Islam or Middle Eastern culture.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Another week, another dollar or less:
- I've noticed an eternal truth. A bag of regular potato chips lasts two weeks. A bag of BBQ potato chips lasts two minutes.
- A little Hollywood and TV secret I learned from my retired CHP dad. All California license plates used in a movie or TV show are not real numbers. The DMV has its own license plate rules for the placement of letters next to numerals. Letters that resemble numerals, like "Q," "O," and "I" cannot be used next to numerals. So, the plates used are ones that have those arrangements.
- It's surprising just how often the side gate has to be tweaked in order for it to close properly by itself.
- The National League won the All-Star game. So that means, let's see...I forget, but it has political ramifications in an election year.
- A neighbor's fig tree is dropping figs over the fence. I wouldn't have a clue how to eat figs.
- I was driving through Bakersfield just a couple of weeks ago. Don't know if I ran any red lights, but I'm surprised it took me so long to think of this for my FNP song.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Adding Links
I'm adding a few links to my sidebar that I read often. First, Arthur Sido's the voice of one crying out in suburbia. Arthur writes from a reformed Baptist position on many things, and always seems to check that idea out against scripture. Next, Bob Spencer at Wilderness Fandango. Bob has a slightly different way of looking at church. Finally, Bobby Grow at The Evangelical Calvinist. Bobby digs deep into Calvinist history to look at Scottish theology's different angle on Calvinism. Just for fun, he's occasionally seen stirring things up in the comment section of Pyromaniacs (insert favorite emoticon here).
Rotated Subtitle
My latest rotating subtitle:
From the Pew:
Because sometimes that's where it needs to come from.
From the Pew:
Because sometimes that's where it needs to come from.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Part 1)
Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.
Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.
I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.
Read Part 2.
Read entire series in a single post.
.
Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.
I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.
Read Part 2.
Read entire series in a single post.
.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Sometimes weeks go fast. Other things do too:
- Our first signs of ripe fruit on the apricot tree. Another few days. But, the squirrels beat us to it, and devoured the entire tree's worth of almost ripe in just one day. All the damage was lined up on top of the back fence.
- Our youngest recently turned three. He suddenly plays in the street, talks about how he's bigger, and recently had his first unchaperoned date. The four year old girl next door came over and asked if he wanted to play.
- Watched fireworks on the 4th at the marina park in the last town we lived in. It was a tradition that started before we even moved there. One can see four different fireworks shows - ours, the town across the water, a town up the straights and one at a theme park. Being on the shores of San Francisco Bay and it's connected waterways means cooler and windier weather within a mile of the water.
- I've discovered a way to get my daily jogging in while I'm with my kids. Take them to the park, let them play in the play area, and jog around the perimeter or close enough to it to keep an eye on them.
- I hope the riot situation in Oakland doesn't last long as I'd like to go to an A's game sometime soon. Is this a national news story?
- We're scheduled for roasted chicken tomorrow. Mmmm, one of my favorites.
- Does this still apply in today's digital world? I'm not sure it does. Brings back memories, though.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Ongoing Blog Series
The ongoing blog series that have been such a staple to From the Pew - and the ones that can be found as links in the right margin - are undergoing change. Several of these series are being deleted, some are going to be re-worked in a different way, and some - well, I just don't know yet. Stay tuned for more...
Legalism And Liberty, Pyro Style
Last month, Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs fame wrote a post on legalism and Christian liberty, and said he desired to write on this topic again in the weeks to come. He asked commenters to ask questions they would like answered. So, I chimed in with a couple of questions I would consider not the act of lobbing softballs:
I agree with what you've had to say about legalism and liberty in these two posts. An observation: I've never heard a legalist admit to being a legalist. Legalists always seem to claim their legalism comes directly from Scipture, even if it takes twenty successive logical fallacies within a greater slippery slope fallacy to make their claim. Do you see the same thing?I look forward to hearing Phil's take on legalists, conscience and the weaker brother. If he gets around to this topic, I'll post more.
Also, could you give your view on "offending" the "weaker brother"? Do you think that somebody inducing indignation within their own heart over an activity they see another engaging in constitutes offense, or do you think it has to do with actually inducing somebody into an activity contrary to their conscience? In between?
Oh, and would you see somebody as "weak" because they abstain, or because their conscience hasn't been fully persuaded?
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Friday Night Potpourri
Days, weeks, months, years...
- The older I get, the more difficult it is to know which day of the week it is and which date of the month.
- Weeks are easy and easier to track, partly thankful to Friday Night Potpourri.
- Months generally follow the calendar page on the fridge, but sometimes the rent check makes it to the landlord on a "oh, my goodness" trip over there. Whew.
- Years are so long, yet so short. Gee, just this time last year is easily remembered.
- Our youngest just turned three. Each of his birthdays is easily remembered as happening not too long ago, yet multiply just a few years by ten, or a hundred (which are small numbers) and I realize just how fast history happens.
- 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. The decades pass as well, and our parents remember several more than we. What was 50's music really like outside of oldies stations on the radio in the 70's?
- Say what you want about quality, it's just this type of song is the type you remember the very first time you hear it.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Baptism: Another View (Entire Series In A Single Post)
Each title below is a link to the original post for that part.
Baptism: Another View (Part 1)
Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.
Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.
I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.
Baptism: Another View (Part 2)
In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.
Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.
I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.
Baptism: Another View (Part 3)
Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."
The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.
Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.
In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.
Baptism: Another View (Part 4)
Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.
These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)
Baptism: Another View (Part 5)
In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?
Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.
Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches. The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.
But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission. So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.
I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors. Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.
Baptism: Another View (Part 6)
One problem I have with both Baptist and paedo-baptist theology regarding baptism is the lack of clear scriptural descriptions of their views. It seems to me that if baptism is supposed to be administered to only adult believers after conversion, then I think the bible would say so in no uncertain terms. If it is to be administered to infants, then the same should be true. It's that way with circumcision. It's that way with church discipline. It's that way with how to pray, how many times to forgive, who to visit in their distress that describes true religion. It's that way with all duties of man before God. Man's duties are spelled out relatively clearly so that most of us can either "get it" or have somebody easily explain it to us.
Take circumcision for example. In Genesis 17:11-12, a great deal of information is packed into less than two verses:
What, where, how, to whom and when are all answered. No guesswork. No thousand page systematic theology volume. No ecclesiastical traditions. It is named "circumcision", it is to be "in the flesh of your foreskin", it is called "the sign of the covenant", it is to be administered to "every male", "who is eight days old." Not seven days, not nine, not in the flesh of your knee, and it's not called "surfing." Church discipline is "if your brother sins" and is "in private", then with "one or two more", then "tell it to the church", then excommunication.
Okay, it's true that many points of theology are quite arduous in their developments and have been hammered out over millennia, and the wisdom necessary to live everyday life is constructed line upon line, precept upon precept and isn't even complete by the time we die. But the basics of our religion are simple, to the point and spelled out by God. Baptism, I think, is no different. The great commission commands that disciples are to be made of all the nations, and they are to be baptized. But...
All the information we need about baptism is spelled out. It is to be done with water, believers should be baptized, it should be done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Liberty as to mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) and subject (infant/adult/professor, family/household member/church attendee) I think is allowed for the simple reason than none of these things are clearly spelled out. What is clearly spelled out with respect to children is instruction in the Lord - educating them in the Word, obedience to parents, not provoking them to wrath, etc.
It is interesting that claims of these baptismal things being spelled out are really nothing more than sectarian theological conclusions of non-baptismally specific passages applied to baptism. Theological presuppositions about other doctrines are brought to baptism. When Jesus said, "suffer the little children", he was not speaking about baptism specifically. Only a theological leap in logic does this. Also, nowhere in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as either the sign or seal of the New Covenant, even though circumcision is spoken of as a sign to Abraham (Rom 4). Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't equate circumcision and baptism either. Only the same theological leap does this.
A final word for this post. I'm not against baptism at all. We should be baptized with water. What I'm saying is that Baptists and paedo-baptists should learn not to condemn each other for their non-biblical (I'm careful to not say "un-biblical") traditions of baptism.
Baptism: Another View (Part 1)
Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.
Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.
I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.
Baptism: Another View (Part 2)
In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.
Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.
I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.
Baptism: Another View (Part 3)
Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."
The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.
Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.
In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.
Baptism: Another View (Part 4)
Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.
These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)
P: Baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision, so infants should be baptized.On and on this goes. Jesus had a lot to say about traditions. He really didn't condemn those who held to traditions, but had a problem with those who held tradition equal or above the word of God. I'm afraid many throughout church history have done just this with their arguments about baptism. I know I did. Forgive me, Lord.
B: There's no evidence in the NT of children being baptized.
P: But the households of new converts were, so there must have been children in those households.
B: You're making assumptions. It could just have easily been believers old enough to know.
P: Well history is on our side, because there's archaeological evidence that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century AD.
B: But no earlier, of course. It was a Roman Catholic doctrine introduced to soothe the fears of parents who wondered if their unbaptized children would go to heaven if they died. The Reformation was a good thing, but they didn't go far enough in dealing with Rome's doctrines.
P: Well, let's just see what the Westminster Confession has to say.
B: Huh? This is a Scriptural issue, so we should limit our conversation to the bible alone and not bring history into it.
P: "XXVIII, IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."
B: You're off course again.
P: "XXVIII, III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."
B: Well, you and they both obviously missed the meaning of the Greek word, baptizo, which means literally "to immerse." The writers of the King James bible, through built-in fear of the dominant Catholic church, neglected to translate the word as "immerse," but instead transliterated the word as "baptize." The result is that the English speaking world is in confusion about even the biblical mode of baptism.
P: Say, you're bringing enough of your own history into this as well. You miss all the biblical references to sprinkling in the OT, and how Col. 2:11 ties baptism and circum...
Baptism: Another View (Part 5)
In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?
Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.
Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches. The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.
But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission. So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.
I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors. Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.
Baptism: Another View (Part 6)
One problem I have with both Baptist and paedo-baptist theology regarding baptism is the lack of clear scriptural descriptions of their views. It seems to me that if baptism is supposed to be administered to only adult believers after conversion, then I think the bible would say so in no uncertain terms. If it is to be administered to infants, then the same should be true. It's that way with circumcision. It's that way with church discipline. It's that way with how to pray, how many times to forgive, who to visit in their distress that describes true religion. It's that way with all duties of man before God. Man's duties are spelled out relatively clearly so that most of us can either "get it" or have somebody easily explain it to us.
Take circumcision for example. In Genesis 17:11-12, a great deal of information is packed into less than two verses:
And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
What, where, how, to whom and when are all answered. No guesswork. No thousand page systematic theology volume. No ecclesiastical traditions. It is named "circumcision", it is to be "in the flesh of your foreskin", it is called "the sign of the covenant", it is to be administered to "every male", "who is eight days old." Not seven days, not nine, not in the flesh of your knee, and it's not called "surfing." Church discipline is "if your brother sins" and is "in private", then with "one or two more", then "tell it to the church", then excommunication.
Okay, it's true that many points of theology are quite arduous in their developments and have been hammered out over millennia, and the wisdom necessary to live everyday life is constructed line upon line, precept upon precept and isn't even complete by the time we die. But the basics of our religion are simple, to the point and spelled out by God. Baptism, I think, is no different. The great commission commands that disciples are to be made of all the nations, and they are to be baptized. But...
All the information we need about baptism is spelled out. It is to be done with water, believers should be baptized, it should be done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Liberty as to mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) and subject (infant/adult/professor, family/household member/church attendee) I think is allowed for the simple reason than none of these things are clearly spelled out. What is clearly spelled out with respect to children is instruction in the Lord - educating them in the Word, obedience to parents, not provoking them to wrath, etc.
It is interesting that claims of these baptismal things being spelled out are really nothing more than sectarian theological conclusions of non-baptismally specific passages applied to baptism. Theological presuppositions about other doctrines are brought to baptism. When Jesus said, "suffer the little children", he was not speaking about baptism specifically. Only a theological leap in logic does this. Also, nowhere in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as either the sign or seal of the New Covenant, even though circumcision is spoken of as a sign to Abraham (Rom 4). Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't equate circumcision and baptism either. Only the same theological leap does this.
A final word for this post. I'm not against baptism at all. We should be baptized with water. What I'm saying is that Baptists and paedo-baptists should learn not to condemn each other for their non-biblical (I'm careful to not say "un-biblical") traditions of baptism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)