You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2008.
My three-month old daughter will be baptized this Sunday. This will be a significant day for us. Before coming to the Reformed Faith, I cared little about the sacraments. They were insignificant and tedious practices. In the tradition I partook of, the Lord’s Supper was administered once a month, and in case we had guest speakers it would be postponed another month. On the other hand, baptism was treated in a little more serious tone. Adults came to the baptismal pool and confessed their faith before the congregation and were immersed. This was my experience both in the Baptist and Brethren traditions. These baptisms took on a more public nature. It was celebrated. I never had any dispute concerning the legitimacy of those adult baptisms, except that for some, it had been the second or third time they were being baptized. Since a profession of faith was expected, most of them who had made early professions of faith and were consequently baptized in their youth, felt that their early baptisms were the result of an unclear and false faith. Naturally, many of my friends–myself included–went through the waters twice.
Coming to the Reformed faith meant accepting what Paul says in Ephesians that there is only one baptism, as there is one Lord and one faith. It is accepting that water poured/sprinkled on an infant actually confers the benefits of the covenant. As Peter Leithart observes:
When an infant is baptized, the baptism itself is a gift from God’s unmerited favor. Baptism itself gives the child membership in the church, an identity as a member of the people of God and as a Christian, a family of brothers and sisters whose Father is in heaven and whose Brother is on a heavenly throne, the gift of public identification with Christ, a place in the temple of the Holy Spirit, a commission to serve Christ, a deputation (to use Thomas’s language) to a place in the worship of God, and much more. These are not, I submit, merely offered or promised to the child, but actually delivered. And they are his, whether he believes and trusts or not.
Covenant children are baptized because they need a heavenly mother and heavenly Father. Baptism actually does what it says it will do: it saves (I Peter 3:21). It will bring my little daughter to the arms of her Lord just as He called the little children to Himself (Matthew 19:14), she will be united to He Savior in baptism (Romans 6) and she will partake of all the benefits of the covenant just as the children of the saints in the Old. As Abigail grows in her faith, believes in Her faithful Lord, she will be adorned and cleansed daily by the Spirit of God. When she disobeys she will look to the waters of life and be reminded of the graciousness of Her Lord. And when she repents in humble submission to her Messiah, she will know that God has been faithful to His promises.
Our prayers for Doug Wilson who is currently on a tour debating atheist Christopher Hitchens. After Bahnsen, Wilson is one of the most able debaters in the Van Tilian tradition. Next debate: Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.
My friend Steven Wedgeworth has been delving into C.S. Lewis. His discussion led me to think about what I call the de-Trinitariazation of evangelical dialogue. Most of the discussions on incarnational and relational ministry is as Steven writes “a way to remake things in our image.” This thinking generally subtracts Trinitarian living and adds a form of relationality devoid of the Trinitarian covenant. Again Wedgeworth:
The primary relationship of all relationships is indeed that inner-Triune life, what the old Christians called being, however, we know nothing of that relationship until we are properly related ourselves to God.
Some liberals have the common sense to speak positively of Ron Paul. Recently, Rachel Maddow wrote that her favorite Republican was Ron Paul because he is fearless and civic-minded in his beliefs and yesterday she had Ron Paul speak on the inadequacy of the two-party system and the bias towards third-party candidates. I understand she could care less about Ron Paul’s concerns on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy, but maybe a few of the million who heard him may.
John Quincy Adams famously wrote: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” I have tried to faithfully use that principle in political judgment.
Third party candidates have a long history in United States politics, however, there has not been an elected third-party candidate as president since 1860. Back then the reigning parties–Democratic Party and the Whig Party–were the only parties available. With the rise of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party ( a third party) finally took office. Lincoln led the country through its greatest and most despicable internal war. In many ways, he set an example that would be followed by modern day Republicans. Despite–in my opinion–Lincoln’s abuse of power, his example is a strong testimony to the power and origin of a third party system in the United States. In the 21st century, third parties have become overwhelming. These days anyone can start a party. Communist, socialist and even neo-nazi parties are part of the American democratic system. Fortunately, these parties are nothing but an iota in the great political scheme.
In light of this brief history, why is my family supporting a third-party candidate? The first thing to say is that the Constitution Party is the largest growing third-party in the US. It was established to limit the Federal Government to its constitutional boundaries and to restore civil government to the principles our country was founded upon. It is a nationally recognized party.
Secondly, we are supporting Chuck Baldwin because he best represents our principles as a family. These principles are written in the US Constitution. This same constitution that has been trampled on for the last 40 years. This Republic has experienced more abuse in these last eight years than perhaps in the previous forty years combined. The presidency of George W. Bush has made the Constitution a forgotten document. The Patriot Act served as an example of how far American policies have strayed from the Constitution. It was in the process of discussing the Patriot Act that our current president uttered the famous lines: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a g*damned piece of paper!”
The Republican Party, in my estimation, is not a completely lost cause. Once in a decade it presents a man like Dr. Ron Paul who believes so strongly in the Constitution that it makes him the oddball in a room of Republican candidates, when in reality, he is the true heir to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Despite Paul’s immense success nationally and financially, it was not enough to give him the preeminent seat at the Republican National Convention. In fact, they wouldn’t even allow him in. This in itself shows the distasteful state of the “Conservative Party.”
Make no mistake, I am under no illusion that the Constitution Party under Chuck Baldwin’s leadership has a chance to win this election. At this point in history–despite Ron Paul’s support of third parties–Chuck Baldwin or any of the major third parties in the US today (Constitution Party, Green Party or Libertarian Party) does not have the slightest chance of competing with the billions of either major American parties. But this is exactly what makes the choice of Chuck Baldwin so appealing. Let me explain. In a day where corruption, fraud, immoral behavior, lack of Constitutional understanding and radical interventionism prevail in the Republican Party, the time is ripe for Christian citizens to stand up for the only thing that makes us who we are: our Biblical principles.
If we do not begin to vote as Christian citizens, we are no better than the ignorant who vote because of race or because of the free government benefits. On the other hand, some are more principled and take the “lesser of two evils” argument to new heights. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. It is true that there is no perfect party or candidate, but imperfect is not the same as evil. Some are very fearful that an Obama presidency will make our dream of abolishing Roe v. Wade a distant possibility, but it is wise to remember that the Supreme Court judges were largely nominated by Republicans.
What began as a decent attempt to restore conservatism in Ronald Reagan has now declined to the big-government “conservatism” of our current president. If the trend continues, and if McCain is elected (a doubtful proposition), the elections of 2016 will feature a historic election with identical candidates. What some have already coined: Republicrats. For some of us who observe the political scene, this has theoretically occurred. All we need is an official ceremony, a marriage ceremony that is.
While Palin is an attractive candidate (pun intended), she is only a puppet in the hands of the neo-conservative mafia. Some may look to 2012 as a Palin administration. But we do not do evil that good may come, if good at all.
The radio stars and the Fox elite will continue to uphold their supposed commitment to conservative principles, but what they will really uphold is their hatred for the left and unswerving validation of whoever the Right selects, even if in the end he is only a better looking clone of his Democratic counterpart.
In the words of Oscar Harward: “If John McCain is a Conservative, I am an astronaut.” What am I supporting if I endorse McCain? I am supporting someone who believes in stem cell research, someone who believes that abortion is legitimate under certain situations like rape and incest (which consists of about 15,000 abortions a year), someone who continues to expand America’s wars, someone who refuses to shut down the unnecessary 700 US bases worldwide in countries that have no animosity towards the US, someone who does not even blink before allowing the government to bail out anormous corporations (even some Democrats had better sense), someone who embraces global warming as a fact, someone who was part of the McCain-Feingold legislation, which regulates the financing of political campaigns, someone who will embrace illegal immigration, someone who abandoned his first wife because she no longer fit the model profile. If he has enough character to endure five years of torture, why does he not have enough character to love his sick wife?
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he opposes everything McCain stands for. He is filled with integrity, committed to an orthodox Christian faith and endorsed by Ron Paul.
If some accuse my family of wasting our vote, then I shall ask: What are you gaining with yours?
Meyers has started a series of liturgical advices. I have never heard background music during the pastoral prayer, but I have head long pastoral prayers before. I have a friend who was hired by a Presbyterian church and one of the requirements of the session was that every Lord’s Day he took 15-20 minutes in his pastoral prayer. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. Jeff’s advice is valuable. The church has provided powerful pastoral prayers, or pastors can spend their time crafting their own prayers so that they are Biblically rich. We need to be intentional about how we pray during the worship service. If liturgical reformation is to occur, we need to consider every detail of our liturgy.
So here is my first piece of advice: don’t play background music during the long pastoral prayer. You know what I mean. The piano or synthesizer is playing some slow, nondescript muzak as the pastor begins to pray. The soft, simple music continues throughout the prayer. Sometimes the music is meant to conjure up “heavenly” thoughts or even “outer space.” Oh yes, I’ve heard synthesized “space music” played as the prayer is being made. I don’t know what else to call it. It’s the kind of music you might hear during a presentation at your local planetarium.
This practice is pure cheese. It is so incredibly annoying and ridiculous. I suspect that it comes directly from televised church services and other televangelistic “ministries.” Don’t do it. Just pray. If people are having a hard time following your prayers, pastors, then shorten them. That’s right. Most pastoral prayers are way too long. Better yet, use a form of prayer—a litany or a bidding prayer—that actually incorporates the congregation in the act of prayer. Now, there’s a novel idea. No, actually, it’s an ancient practice that treats the congregation as participants in the liturgy rather than simply as an audience that is being manipulated by emotive music.
Much has happened in these last 10 days. I have returned from my time in Texas where I attended a Council/Presbytery meeting for the Conferederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and the Ministerial Conference on Father Hunger hosted by Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. It was a delight to meet so many fellow-laborers. It was a special delight to see my brother Tom Brainerd once again and also Steve Dornan. Both went to RTS/Orlando with me and shared the burdens of seminary life.
I am also indebted to Pastor Randy Booth and his lovely wife who invited me to their home and treated me so well. It was a delight to minister in word at Grace Covenant Church in Nacagdoches, TX.
You are my God, and I will give thanks to you;
you are my God; I will extol you.
Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
for his steadfast love endures forever! –Psalm 118:28-29
In the Joint Declaration of the Federal Vision, Leithart, as a signer of the statement writes,
“…Adam was in a covenant of life with the Triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone.” [Signed statement “A Joint Federal Vision Profession,”Credenda/Agenda vol. 19, no. 3, 11]
One of the main distinctions of Federal Vision advocates against many who espouse a strict subscriptionism is the significance of the Adamic administration. In recent years, disciples of Meredith Kline have taken the confessional disctinction between the two covenants (works and grace) and have made them permanent enemies, thus making this unconfessional disctinction an issue of Reformed orthodoxy. Hence, many claim that as a result of this distinction it is imperative to maintain a sharp dichotomy between law and grace. It is true that FV advocates are not comfortable with the confessional term “covenant of works,” nevertheless, this in no way entails that the essence of the Adamic administration is identical to the covenant of grace (Gen.3:15). There are distinct differences: Adam failed, Christ did not. But what is at stake in the debate is how different are they? As the majority report affirms:
The Standards themselves do not define a distinction between the nature of the response to which the soul was summoned in the first covenant and to which man is summoned in the Covenant of Grace…In any case, the committee strenuously objects to the assertion of the minority report that the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace should be understood in terms of the dialectic of law and gospel. Both biblically and confessionally the first covenant was a covenant of works precisely in the sense that the second covenant was as well: eternal life for others was the promised reward of the obedience of the federal head. [Rom. 5:19; WCF VIII, v; LC 31, 71]
You can reject categorically the dialectic of law and gospel, while at the same time rejecting Federal Vision theology. In fact, the first to make charges against the Auburn Avenue Theology was Rev. Joseph Morecraft. Morecraft affirms the confessional language of “covenant of works,” while denying the law/grace dialectic. When discussing the bi-covenantal theology of Peter Leithart, it appears that the Klinean school is the one taking aim at Dr. Leithart, not Joseph Pipa or Joe Morecraft. Indeed there is evidence that those who drafted the minority report are unashamedly Klineans. Hence, it appears that the underlying rejection of man like Leithart is also an attempt to rid the PCA of men like John Frame, Reggie Kidd, Robert Rayburn and others who share similar ideas on covenantal theology and its implications. This is very unfortunate in my estimation.
The committee in charge of the majority report approached this matter correctly and were willing to give Dr. Leithart the benefit of the doubt (I Cor. 13:7). This is the appropriate tone– in my opinion– that should undergird any deliberation. Beyond that, they also acknowledge the theological disagreements that have been an undeniable part of Reformed Confessional tradition. They write:
American confessional Presbyterianism, as a subdivision of the Reformed Church, has, in fact, a long history of discussion and disagreement regarding a number of doctrinal formulations, including some of the very matters presently in dispute in our church, viz. election, covenant, baptism, and ecclesiology.
For those wanting to read through the Majority and Minority Report, here are the links:
Mark Horne once again alerts me to the witch hunt that continues in the PCA. I have tried in the past to give these men the benefit of the doubt, after all they have strong convictions about what is confessional and what is not. However, I often wonder what is the motivation to go after some groups and not others. In other words, why is a high sacramental view more offensive to these men than a deeply low, almost non-existent sacramental view? Why is it un-confessional to wrestle with how the Bible uses certain words and what meaning the Biblical text gives these words?
Pastor Lane Keister is incredibly blunt on this post concerning his goals to eliminate any influence of a covenantal vision in the denomination. In my opinion, the PNW Presbytery is the best presbytery in the PCA and if they succeed in eliminating the influence of men like Pastor Robert Rayburn, the PCA will have little hope in recovering a robust view of the church.
I am finally back from my visit to Tallahassee and Pensacola. It was a great joy to fellowship with the saints at Providence Church. This coming Monday I will be going to Texas for the CREC presbytery and the Ministerial Conference.
On a more serious note, my daughter started rolling over from stomach (“tummy” in our household) to back for the first time and I have it on video. It’s hard to believe she will be three months on the 17th.
We made our first long trip with our baby. She was surprisingly pleasant throughout the five-hour drive. We arrived safely in Talahassee, Fl. where the weather is currently 44 degrees. TIme to take out the “winter” clothes!
Mark Horne directed my attention to a 2007 discussion where the panel mocks Peter Schiff. As Horne observes: “Who is laughing now?”
While Joe Klein from Time Magazine blames libertarians for not passing the monstrous bailout, Rush Limbaugh has been libertarianiesque this entire week. “Get government out of our homes,” he said. Even the Constitution has been quoted positively:
I take you back to the preamble of the United States Constitution where it says protect the general welfare, not ensure it. Folks, there’s a word for this. It’s called socialism. When the federal government’s going to ensure all these things for you and make sure that there’s no risk, make sure that you’re never going to lose any value here, which they can’t do.
Even Rush deserves credit once in a while.
Recent Comments