By Farther Steps

Reformed and Reforming, semper reformanda to Christ's glory.

Author Archive

Wise Spiritual Hermeneutics

I’m currently reading Roland Allen’s book Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours for church planting. It is a rich book. Allen is critiquing Anglican mission methods but the way he does it hits on Christian mission methods in general. It also tends to nail how we do church in general.

However, it kind of clicked with something I’ve been thinking about as far as Bible reading goes to. This thought is entirely incomplete so give me some slack if it sounds odd. First let me quote Allen to see if his thoughts can help me frame mine.

Allen is discussing how Paul conducted church discipline:

How did St Paul deal with this very serious difficulty [i.e. fornication in the Corinthian church]? There is not in his letters one word of law: there is not a hint that the Jerusalem Council [Acts 15:22-29] had issued any decree on the subject: there is not a suggestion that he desires a code of rules or a table of penalties. He does not threaten offenders with punishment. He does not say that he shall take any steps to procure their correction. He beseeches and exhorts in the Lord people to whom the Holy Spirit has been given to surrender themselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to recognize that He is given to them that they may be holy in body and in soul, and that uncleanness necessarily involves the rejection of the Holy Spirit and incurs the wrath of God. (p. 113)

Thus his exercise of discipline was in exact accord with his exercise of authority. Just as he appealed to the corporate conscience to check serious and growing evils in the church, arguing and pleading that the Holy Spirit in them would show them how to apply the principles and strengthen them to use them; so in discipline he showed them the right way, but left them to discover how to walk in it. He told them what they ought to do, but not in detail. He threw upon them the responsibility and trusted them to learn in what way it was to be fulfilled. In the last resort he threatened to intervene, if they refused to do their duty, but it was only after he had exercised all his powers to make his intervention unnecessary. (p. 124)

Isn’t that fascinating that Paul did not appeal to the Jerusalem Council as an authority? That really struck me. Paul trusted God to lead his people as they dealt with these issues. And he did that despite the fact that up to this point they had already neglected to do what they should! Paul seems to believe that with his nudge, the Corinthian church would respond to the Holy Spirit in the end. He trusted that they would exercise Spirit granted wisdom. Read On…

Rosie Rides Again!

I have no idea why I am keeping track of her stupid statements but I can’t seem to help myself. That’s right, Rosie’s done it again. Clay Aiken, the American Idol star was on some talk show and he put his hand over his co-host, Kelly Ripa’s mouth (whoever she is) at some point. Looks like he did it innocently enough but she copped an attitude about it. The next day on “The View” Rosie played a clip. Kelly kind of scolded Clay for doing it and then said, “I don’t know where that hand’s been, honey!” The tape pauses and Rosie inserts her foot in her mouth once again: “Now listen, to me, that’s a homophobic remark.” Here‘s a clip.

What an idiot. How on earth is that a homophobic remark? I’ve said that to straight people in the past. I’ve had it said to me. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I’m thankful that every stupid thing I say isn’t recorded and reported on, but she really needs to learn from her mistakes.

Addendum: Despite rumors, Clay has not come out on his sexual orientation one way or the other. Rosie presumed that Kelly believed Clay to be gay.

Sins of the Father

falling-appleA while ago I called Tony Campolo a heretic. I sadly stand by that because I haven’t heard him recant or say something better and clearer. The issue then was that he was stripping God of his sovereignty in order to excuse God from the damage of Katrina.

The old adage “the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree” is generally right in both positive and negative ways. 1The adage fails in that it fails to take into account God’s sovereignty and his grace. God intervenes or we would all be lost, each patterning ourselves after Adam. There is also a principle in the scriptures where God sometimes threatens to visit the sins of the father upon the son 2It is not an absolute principle. God is free to apply it as he will. Consider the counterexamples in Ezek 18:20, Jer 31:29-31 as promises in the New Covenant. for example in Exodus 20:5 and Leviticus 26:30.

This principle (at least) sometimes involves not the innocent children being punished for the father’s sins but the pattern of the father’s sin repeating itself in the son. I fear that may be what has happened with Tony’s son Bart. It appears that Bart has been drawn away from the authority of Scripture in revealing who God is. Bart works in inner city missions and he’s struggled with theodicy. 3Theodicy is the area of dealing with God and evil. How can evil exist and God be good? He announced this in an article titled “The Limits of God’s Grace“ in the November/December 2006 edition of the Journal of Student Ministries. 4The paper was hosted on the Youth Specialties website but they pulled it due in part to the negative response it generated. The editor said, “without a strong lens of understanding as to why the questions raised by the article are worth talking about, or a counter-argument by someone else, we were concerned that the article could be more damaging than helpful.” They did the right thing. Updated 7/31/07 – The original link was replaced but I googled it and found the original at a different location. To demonstrate this rejection, allow me to quote part of his paper and include in square brackets some of the scriptures he’s rejecting. (Also, I “tamed” the text a bit by removing some of the specifics of the evil and generalized it.) Know that Campolo has a very concrete, very disturbing and very evil event in mind.

Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to God’s will. [Romans 9, Ephesians 1, Jude 4] Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. [Job 42:1-9] Perhaps, as many believe, all who die without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior go to Hell to suffer forever. [John 8:21-24, 14:6, 2 Thessalonians 1:9] Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that although God could indeed prevent [bad things from happening], God is no less just or merciful when they [do], and [the victims] and we who love them should uncritically give God our thanks and praise in any case. [Job 13:15, 1 Peter 4:19 5This verse is significant. Here, those who suffer are called to entrust their souls to God. If he is not in control then what good would it do to entrust our souls to him when we suffer? He can’t do anything about it. But if he is sovereign, then entrusting our souls to him is the best and wisest thing we can do.]

My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.

Indeed, Campolo is blunt in his statement about the relationship between his conception of God and revelation: “First of all, while I certainly believe my most cherished ideas about God are supported by the Bible (what Christian says otherwise?), I must admit they did not originate there.” So where does the Bible stand in reference to his conception of God? “I required no Bible to determine it, and honestly I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggest otherwise.”

At least Bart is honest in announcing where his concept of God comes from: experience. So what has his experience taught him a real God, one he can worship, should be like:

Please, don’t get me wrong. I am well aware that I don’t get to decide who God is. What I do get to decide, however, is to whom I pledge my allegiance. I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am. (Emphasis mine)

Bart has set his ideal and his timetable for compassion as the standard by which God must measure up. Not only must God be at least as compassionate as Bart is, but apparently he must do so in the amount of time Bart has alloted him.

So in this configuration who is sovereign here? That’s right, Bart is. Consider:

You can figure out the rest. I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet.

I don’t hate God because I believe God is always doing the best God can within the limits of human freedom, which even God cannot escape.

I don’t hate God because, although I suppose God knows everything that can be known at any given point in time, I don’t suppose God knows or controls everything that is going to happen. (Emphasis mine)

Since Scripture cannot be appealed to with Campolo, at least not in this area, we’ll have to use reason. However, once you cast off God’s self-revelation the kinds of things listed above seem reasonable. But that’s exactly the problem; human reason is not in tact. The doctrine of total depravity is not that man does all the evil he can all the time, it means that man is corrupted by sin in all his faculties. There isn’t one part of man that is not affected by the fall; body, soul, mind, will, emotions, reason. All of them are corrupted by sin. So when we cast off revelation, we are not left with pure, naked reason to guide us. We’re left with a compass with a bent needle and an misaligned magnet. Bart is using this to guide him to a true doctrine of God and it can’t. That faulty compass must be corrected by revelation. This leaves us in a pretty horrible situation since Bart won’t allow Scripture to correct his compass.

Why does any of this matter? Why should I get so excited about this? Because “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises.” (2Pt 1:3-4) The doctrine of God is not important just so that we don’t commit idolatry, it reaches much further. Without a proper understanding of who God is we cannot advance in our Christian growth!

I’ve been reading in blog comments things such as “he’s just being honest about his struggle” and “he’s out there working with the poor and you’re not so shut up till you get out and see what he’s seen.” First, it doesn’t sound like a struggle. It sounds like a done deal. “I refuse to believe any of that” is a far cry from “I’m struggling to understand how it fits together.” And second of all, all the good works in the world are as spider webs if he rejects the One, True and Living God. You see, even if I am not engaged in feeding the hungry (to my shame) my righteousness surpasses his because I am clothed in Christ and he is not. Also, seeing evil does not excuse what he’s done. Consider Job, Job experience evil first hand and he never said things like Campolo has said. He was righteous.

Part of the “knowledge of Him” that Peter puts forth as our only hope for life and godliness requires that we wrestle with theodicy. A better, more Biblical engagement with theodicy can be heard here. After the tsunami in 2005 NPR interviewed John Piper to get a Christian perspective. They only used about 3 seconds in the show but Desiring God presented most of the interview. It made me cry when I first heard it.

Since we believe in a sovereign God who can and does change human hearts, who has revealed who he truly is, who loves the fallen world and redeems people out of it, we need to pray for Bart, Tony and those who think like them. God can change their hearts and inclinations and correct their view of Him.

Sovereign Lord, please have mercy on this father and son. Grant them repentance and faith in the True and Living God as You have revealed Yourself in Your scripture, not in their vain understandings. Amen.

[HT: Justin Taylor]

UPDATE: The Journal of Student Ministries has since pulled down the link to Campolo’s article. I still have a hard copy of it in my office. Also, Campolo has, tragically but not surprisingly, come out as an agnostic humanist.

↩1 The adage fails in that it fails to take into account God’s sovereignty and his grace. God intervenes or we would all be lost, each patterning ourselves after Adam.
↩2 It is not an absolute principle. God is free to apply it as he will. Consider the counterexamples in Ezek 18:20, Jer 31:29-31 as promises in the New Covenant.
↩3 Theodicy is the area of dealing with God and evil. How can evil exist and God be good?
↩4 The paper was hosted on the Youth Specialties website but they pulled it due in part to the negative response it generated. The editor said, “without a strong lens of understanding as to why the questions raised by the article are worth talking about, or a counter-argument by someone else, we were concerned that the article could be more damaging than helpful.” They did the right thing. Updated 7/31/07 – The original link was replaced but I googled it and found the original at a different location.
↩5 This verse is significant. Here, those who suffer are called to entrust their souls to God. If he is not in control then what good would it do to entrust our souls to him when we suffer? He can’t do anything about it. But if he is sovereign, then entrusting our souls to him is the best and wisest thing we can do.

Too Zune? You Decide.

*Deep inhale*

Microsoft has introduced the Zune, their MP3 player designed to rival the iPod. There has been some skepticism, but I think overall people are waiting to see. The promise of wirelessly sharing your music sounds appealing and it is one of the features Microsoft is banking on. Microsoft thinks they can win.
There is a lot of punditry out there offering opinions on how the Zune will succeed or fail, most of it good. So why not, I’ll throw my hat in the ring and offer my opinion.

In order to beat, or even dent the iPod, the device is not the most important thing. Notice that Microsoft missed that by banking on the wireless aspect and the Zune interface. Both are good, but neither are paramount. In order to steal some wind from the iPod’s sails you need to defeat iTunes and that is a tall order. iTunes has the following going for it:

  1. Apple’s signature ease of use.
  2. Content.
  3. Price point. 99¢ per song is about what people are willing to pay.
  4. A DRM you can live with.
  5. No subscription service.

Further discussion after the jump.

Read On…

Strange, Really Strange

I don’t like Will Ferrell. I haven’t seen one of his movies and I have never been interested in seeing them. They all seem juvenile to me. He essentially has one shtick and he does it over and over. Adam Sandler does the same thing. So do 100 other comedy actors. However, Ferrell’s new film, Stranger Than Fiction has gotten my attention. It looks very different and very good. I read a review somewhere that compared it to Jim Carrey’s change of role when he did The Truman Show. I loved The Truman Show and was pleasantly surprised at Carrey’s acting. It looks like Stranger Than Fiction holds out that same hope. I’m going to have to see it.

Evangelistic Evangelicals

Tangent to the Haggard story: I just read a report in the LA Times with a video link to one of the local LA stations on the Ted Haggard story. They called Haggard an “evangelist”. Now, I confess to not knowing a bunch about the guy, but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t an evangelist. He is an evangelical though.

The media can’t seem to keep these terms straight. I remember hearing a story on NPR about the Pope (can’t remember which one) being evangelical. Ha! I wish. I think they mean that he was evangelistic as in reaching out to others.

Just for clarity sake. Evangelistic/evangelist: the process of or one who propagates the gospel and calls people to faith in Christ and has noteworthy success.

Evangelical: A broadly defined term that essentially includes all Protestants who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Back to the media frenzy already in progress…

The Church’s Beginning

Jesus’ use of the term ἐκκλησἱα (ekklesia, congregation or church) is without reference in Matt 16:18; 18:17. He doesn’t ever mention what or who his church is; that gets developed later in the New Testament. When we look for how Jesus might have understood the term, we have to keep in mind that he was familiar with the Greek Old Testament, it was the King James of the day. 1Ugh, now I have to deal with that. I don’t mean that the King James is the one, true Bible but that it is the Bible we are culturally familiar with. Most people who know the Lord’s Prayer know it in King James English. On a side note, both the Greek Old Testament and the original edition of the King James included the Apocrypha, extra-Biblical books rejected by the Church. Well, except Rome but you can just add that to their errors. In it, the congregation of Israel is the ἐκκλησἱα. It can be assumed that this is what Jesus had in mind, but not without modification. He is the Messiah and King of Israel so Israel that is faithful to him is his ἐκκλησἱα.

So let’s see what the New Testament has to say about the ἐκκλησἱα when it refers to Israel and keep in mind that ἐκκλησἱα now refers to the Church which includes believing Jews and Gentiles. 2Simply looking at it linguistically, the word ἐκκλησἱα in the context of people in relation to God is His people. As I said in the previous paragraph, the coming of Christ modulates the meaning. In the Old Testament, it was those of Israel who feared the Lord. At the time of Christ, it was those who allied themselves with him rather than showing him apathy or hatred. After Jesus it is those who have faith in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. According to Acts 7:38, then, the Church didn’t begin at Pentecost but in the Exodus since ἐκκλησἱα is the word for ‘congregation’ there. What happened at Pentecost and in Paul’s ministry was not the creation of the Church but the spread of the Church.

The other New Testament reference to Israel as the ἐκκλησἱα ties together faithful Israel and the Church even more explicitly. The context there is those “he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call…brothers” (Heb 2:11b). It is those “who are sanctified” (2:11a). In the context of the New Testament, that would be the Church, but it is significant that the author of Hebrews cites Ps 22:22 where David is speaking of the congregation of Israel, specifically those who fear Yahweh (Ps 22:23a). These are those who Jesus calls ‘brother’ and whom he sanctifies.

↩1 Ugh, now I have to deal with that. I don’t mean that the King James is the one, true Bible but that it is the Bible we are culturally familiar with. Most people who know the Lord’s Prayer know it in King James English. On a side note, both the Greek Old Testament and the original edition of the King James included the Apocrypha, extra-Biblical books rejected by the Church. Well, except Rome but you can just add that to their errors.
↩2 Simply looking at it linguistically, the word ἐκκλησἱα in the context of people in relation to God is His people. As I said in the previous paragraph, the coming of Christ modulates the meaning. In the Old Testament, it was those of Israel who feared the Lord. At the time of Christ, it was those who allied themselves with him rather than showing him apathy or hatred. After Jesus it is those who have faith in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile.

“Real” Christians

Do you remember a few years ago when Jim Bowers and his family were shot down in Peru? They were missionaries and the government mistook their aircraft for drug runners. Jim’s wife and infant daughter were killed and the pilot was injured. At the funeral service, Jim announced that he and his surviving son would indeed return. Though I can’t find them now, I seem to remember that some of the commentators thought he was wrong and they mildly criticized his decision.

More recently we heard the tragic news of a gunman killing 5 Amish children in their schoolhouse. The Amish community quietly came together and buried their dead and prayed for the one who killed them. I understand that Bill Maher said this week that the Amish were “real Christians”. I know the news media really embraced the Amish and sympathized with them.

Why the different approaches to the tragedies? Why were the Bowers wrong and the Amish right? I won’t pretend to have all the answers or even that there isn’t a difference. But it was Maher’s comment that the Amish seemed like real Christians to him that got me thinking of these two.

The Amish are appealing because they are “quaint”. We like them because they’re different and sequestered. They have their beliefs, strong beliefs at that, and they hold them dearly, but they don’t try to spread them. That’s comfortable for American society. Such religious beliefs are museum pieces we can look at safely displayed behind glass. When we stop thinking of them, they go away. They make no demands on us. But missionary Christians, whoa, that’s another issue. They aren’t safe. They are not museum pieces, they are involved in society. They vote and express their opinions and sometimes make demands of us. They climb outside the glass case and live lives that are compelling. Missionaries who get captured by the Taliban or shot down by the Peruvian government live lives that we can’t just observe from the outside and say “aww, that’s nice.” There is something about those kinds of lives that shout at us. There is something that would lead a person, a seemingly sane and normal person, to go and do those things. The two women captured by the Taliban were especially arresting for our news media because they looked good on camera. That kind of a thing gives instant credibility in the image-based culture of the news media. “Now what are we supposed to do with them?” the news anchors ask, “We can’t make them look crazy, they’re pretty!”

The juxtaposition of these two reactions demonstrate, to me, what Jesus meant when he said “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat 5:16 ESV)