New stuff is in BW8 like the entire Church Fathers set, the Babylonian Talmud, and lots more.

In all seriousness though–if your pastor, ministerial student, elder, or other exceptional Bible teacher doesn’t have this software already (I confess! I already have version 7 which means I’d qualify for the upgrade price! [wink, wink])–this is the gift to buy them for Christmas. Seriously.

And we think the Catholics are bad with trinkets. Come on, people! Wake up! This is the sort of thoughtless garbage that gives Christians a bad name. I wonder if you order from Mississippi or Louisiana you get white hoods along with it. :) Man!

[HT: Civitate Dei]

So, that said, that’s my one comment rule. Valid email address or no comment. If you want to be anonymous, use an anonymous email address. :)

Just make sure you respond when/if I follow up. Otherwise, as Helen Hunt said on SNL, “Buh Bye”.

Pastor Douglas Wilson is a huge sardonic critic of all that is evangelical and popular in today’s churches and yet he has no problem riding the circuit with a well-known atheist, writing self-aggrandizing books, publishing in Christianity Today, and doing all the stuff necessary to be the next Brian McLaren. We’re ready to give him a pass because he thinks he’s Reformed and not just like every other semi-famous evangelical touting his wares?

Why can’t ministers just tend to their flocks without all the hoopla? Why pretend it’s the grand adventure, “Clash of the Titans”, or the missing and final Jason Bourne sequel?

I listened to the debate today between Wilson and Christopher Hitchens and was summarily disappointed.

First of all, whatever other talents Wilson may have in writing his performance at this debate was a matter of being outclassed ten to one. In terms of style, Wilson uses more verbal pauses in his speech than Barack Obama without a teleprompter. This is nothing new of course but it makes me wonder why Hitchens would join the stage with this particular minister except that it gives him a decided advantage in the debate. In contrast, Hitchens was lively, engaging, and lighthearted.

There’s nothing like using the age old trick of debating an opponent that’s just not on your level. Makes your arguments look almost entirely cogent and reasonable. Throw in a bit of humor and voila you’ve won the debate. Here’s the mp3’s by the way–don’t take my word for it–judge for yourself:

Wilson/Hitchens Debate, Introduction
Wilson/Hitchens Debate - Presentations
Wilson/Hitchens Debate - Q & A

More important than Wilson’s stuttering style is that Bahnsen/Van Til presuppositionalists have to wake up to the fact that philosophy and theology is just not done the same way as it was some hundred years ago. Kant and his close friends are not so close to us anymore. It’s not the huge victory it used to be to demonstrate that a position is inconsistent. Many people today are completely unconcerned with a consistent worldview even in Christian circles and failing to account for this fact in our apologetics means that we will lose people to atheism and other religious maladies if even for a moment we think we’ve won a debate because we’ve demonstrated the logical inconsistency of a position. People like Hitchens maintain their viewpoint and consider it completely rational whether it is or not. Wilson constantly tried to make Hitchens’ viewpoint appear logically inconsistent and Hitchens was already wise to the idea and had him at every corner turn of the debate. Even if Wilson succeeded in demonstrating that Hitchens was being inconsistent–it was a shrug of the shoulders and a move on to something else for the Oxford-educated atheist. So what? Who did Wilson convince besides those on his own side?

We also can’t afford in these types of debates to caricature a position by pretending that the atheist makes the same logical conclusions about his viewpoint that we might like to think he does. You can’t go around asserting that someone believes XYZ when they clearly don’t. Trying to make this square peg of postmodern atheism fit into the round hole of presuppositional apologetics is just not going to cut it without a great deal of work rounding off the hard corners of the unbeliever’s point of view. Wilson’s just not cut out for that sort of apologetic work because it requires detailed and thorough examination and attention–something Wilson just doesn’t do in anything he writes, says, or does. Propaganda artists masquerading as pastors shouldn’t be the people we put publicly in front of us to slay the popular giants of atheism. No, that’s what real apologists are for–people like James White who in January of 2009 is going to be debating Bart Ehrman on the reliability of the Scriptures.

It amazed me that Wilson started out his opening statements talking about what is true, good, or beautiful but it was Christopher Hitchens that demonstrated that beauty by describing the wonder and glory of the natural universe quite without the need for a God to explain it all. Wilson completely missed the opportunity to challenge Hitchens on this point in a winsome way that added to the normal presuppositional approach. Had he done so it would have made all the difference in the world. Instead, he allowed Hitchens to tan his hide about miracles both true and false and made Wilson appear like a fideist because the good pastor just couldn’t adequately explain his reasons for believing miracles to be true.

All in all, you’ve got to hand this debate to Hitchens plain and simple. Not that I agree with him in the slightest, but we have to make the defense of our faith intelligible, amiable, and attractive as much as possible to those who disagree with us and I don’t believe Wilson was able to do that in this debate.

1635, Salomon de Bray

Judges 4 tells the story of Jael and Sisera. An interesting read especially after doing a post on Romans 13.

But, I was looking around for more art and came across this little masterpiece (click on the image to see it full-size). That look she gives us holding the hammer and tent peg. You know, the one that made it straight into Sisera’s temple. Not a good day for those opposed to the people of God.

But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6:22) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12:28) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5:11) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death,” (Prov. 16:14) But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” (Acts 5:29) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7:23) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume IV, Chapter 20, Paragraph 32.

We get in trouble if we lend unqualified support to the idea that Romans 13 means total and absolute obedience to our rulers especially given the fact that our government here in America is widely different than the government Paul found himself resigned to support. The establishment of American government is by consent of the governed and as a result when that consent is revoked there no longer remains a basis for the government to exist. This sort of thing was always present in ancient society though the United States of America was perhaps the first to really implement this constitutionally. Because we are governed by the citizenry, our government has more obligations to the people than the people have to those who govern.

That said, the admonition of Romans 13 regarding our obedience to those who govern is not without force but these same admonitions are also not put down absolutely without the knowledge and comment of other Bible passages and our overall understanding of God’s authority when we come to the sweeping statements made by the Apostle Paul.

These things are important for us to remember because tyranny is not dead in our day and there are always those who press illegitimate authority over us both in the government and in our churches. Often forgotten by these authoritarian hacks is that any authority they do have comes from God and it exists explicitly to do the people good (the part of Romans 13 that is often under emphasized in authoritarian environments to the hurt of the people governed). In truth, much more responsibility is present in that authority than the privilege to lord authority over others. However, the privilege to legitimately reign over others only comes with the grace and pleasure of God.

Paul’s message in Romans 13 is that we should obey rulers and do so voluntarily in the freedom we have in Christ. But, there are also times to disobey because there is a higher law and a higher Lawgiver that ultimately demands and receives the obedience of us all–including those who govern. We cannot ever forget that.

UPDATE: Here’s a good series of other posts and opinions to read on Romans 13.

In regard to the execution of the pact of salvation in time, however, we must be careful to distinguish between the covenant of grace in a broader and a more restricted sense. The universal idea of the revelation of salvation does not get its due when, in the discussion of the covenant of grace in time, we immediately proceed to Israel and the church of the New Testament. Scripture, after all, does not move all at once from Adam to Abraham either; it does not abandon humanity as a whole but in broad strokes describes its development up to the time of Abraham. Then, when out of the whole human race, Abraham and Israel are chosen, the bond with that mass of humanity is not severed. Israel does not float, like a drop of oil, on the sea of peoples but remains connected by numerous ties to those peoples and to the end keeps expectation alive also for them. In the fullness of time, Jew and Gentile were reconciled in the one Man: humanity as a whole gathers around the cross; and the church, chosen from that humanity, is closely united with it. Nature and grace, creation and re-creation, must be related to each other in the way Scripture relates them. And when we do, we note that the first promises of grace that are addressed by God to Adam and Eve after the fall are totally universal and concern the whole human race. Earlier we pointed out that all punishment pronounced on sin in Genesis 3 can be simultaneouly recognized as a revelation of God’s grace. And that grace is there extended without any restriction to the whole of humanity. Common grace and special grace still flow in a single channel. In the punishment that God pronounced after the transgression on the serpent, the woman, and the man, we hear the voice of God’s mercy more than that of his wrath. It is both punishment and promise; it is a “gracious and joy-filled punishment” (Luther). In it, accordingly, lies the origin and guarantee of continued existence, the expansion and development, the struggle and victory of humankind as a whole. Religion and morality, cult and culture have their beginnings there. In the long period from Adam to Noah, all of them develop under the influence of God’s common and special grace. The original powers, instilled by God at the creation in the various creatures, though broken, continue to be effective even after the fall for a long time.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3, p. 216.

You will see criticism of the Reformed world on this blog - sometimes in spades. Part of this has to do with my own agreement with Reformed theology as a whole and my insistence that to whom much is given, much more is required. What that means practically is that the Reformed are even more obligated and responsible than others to be doing the right thing in their churches and making sure that they are properly proclaiming and living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We need higher standards in our churches and not lower ones. As a result, a Reformed church carries much more responsibility because in general their understanding of doctrine and the Christian life is closer than other communions in the Kingdom to the truth of the matter.

This responsibility on the part of Reformed churches is actually a privilege and gift of God. As a result, Reformed churches should be leading the charge of the Gospel in this world whether other churches or individuals follow or not. Some Reformed churches are doing that and they should be credited for their faithfulness. Other Reformed churches resemble more of what I’ve already criticized in my recent post to their shame.

The other main reason I feel impressed to lay down these criticisms is because I very much identify with the concerns and identity of Reformed people in general. In other words, I’m working on ‘taking the log out of our eye’ before looking at the splinter in someone else’s. That’s not to say constructive criticism of other groups, churches, communions, and teachings are out of order and you can read some of that as recently as two days ago that I’ve written (here taking Dave Hodges to task for his Roman Catholic misapprehension of Protestant and/or evangelical worship).

I wrote my original post about reasons to avoid Reformed churches within the context of people leaving evangelical churches for what they think are greener pastures (ie. Reformed churches). But, there are a great many people today who have come to the conclusion that church is just not necessary and something to be avoided. Even the White Horse Inn recently did a podcast on people who are quitting churches. People are publishing books about this sort of thing and so it’s more popular than some might think.

But if you aren’t actively involved in a church, you should be. The Bible tells us to ‘forsake not the assembling of yourselves together’ and there shouldn’t be a Sunday when you’re not in church somewhere. Please don’t take my admonitions about the problems in many Reformed churches to mean that you shouldn’t be going to church at all and certainly not to a Reformed church. I also wouldn’t want people to read this blog or anything else I’ve written and think I’m encouraging them to stay away from involvement in any church.

The lack of fidelity to the Gospel, corrupt leadership, or just plain bad experiences on behalf of some Reformed or other churches is no excuse to stay away from all churches whether they have “Reformed” in their name or not. You should be looking for a church that does in large part agree with what you believe to be the Gospel truth of your faith and until you find that church you should still be attending somewhere every week. For my Reformed brothers or sisters, that somewhere is not Rome or the East. You may be able to find the right evangelical or Baptist congregation depending on your circumstances, but ideally speaking you’ll probably fit much better in a healthy Reformed church. It’s just like dating–you should only date a person you’re willing to marry.

But, the only real way to find out if a Reformed church near you is being faithful though is to take the risk of attending and getting to know the people in the church. That’s not always easy but no one ever said the Christian life was a cakewalk. It’s the narrow road and not the broad way that we walk.

I know it can be difficult to walk into a church full of strangers you don’t know and try to find out if this is the place and the people God has for you. It will take time, patience, and an active effort on your part to bridge whatever may be the gap. But, whether we realize it or not, you’re not really walking into a church of strangers–they’re your brothers and sisters in Christ and even if they don’t welcome you the way you feel you should be welcomed–you ought to still feel welcome because you are an adopted son or daughter of the Lord Most High.

True to who you are, local churches need sensitive and careful people like you to stay on the right track. Without you the local body of Christ is not complete and your presence is just as much a ministry to others as the presence of a pastor in the pulpit. Never discount your own contribution to a church and remember that you’re always needed there even if other Christians around you don’t think of it that way.

I have often wondered where exactly all this covenant renewal worship business came from and lo and behold Dr. James Jordan matter-of-factly admits that his thoughts on the matter came from the Anglo-Catholic magnum opus, Dom Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. He writes:

As I reflected on Dix’s observation, I began to alter, refine, and expand upon it in terms of the discussion going on in Tyler. Because of my covenantal-worldview interests, I saw that Dix’s four-fold action applied to all of life: “The central ritual of the Church is the four-fold action of Holy Communion. Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke and distributed it, and they all ate it. This four-fold action (taking, thanking, sharing, enjoying) is the key to the Christian life in every area. An artist takes raw material, thanks God for it, creates his art and distributes it (playing a concert, exhibiting a painting), and enjoys it in fellowship with others. A businessman takes raw material, thanks God for it, works with it and shares it by means of the free market (exchanges it for a share of someone else’s goods), and then enjoys it in fellowship with others. This is the Christian life, and it finds its most concentrated expression in the liturgy of the sacrament.” (Jordan, “Should Churches Incorporate,” 1984; reprinted in The Sociology of the Church.)

Now, it is no wonder then that we are seeing folks who have embraced this point of view and the other associated ideas in the same camps (ie. Federal Vision, etc.) run hither and yon from their churches into Anglican and Roman Catholic environments. Is it not ironic that the apex of historical support and documentation for the legitimate descendants of the now gone Oxford Movement has seen a revival among Calvinist adherents of liturgy?

But, like everything else with the Oxford Movement, Dix’s monumental work has already been largely discredited and scholars today are realizing there is much more to the history of the matter and much less in Dix that is relevant to their concerns or a reflection of the truth of the matter. Anthony Burton wrote ten years ago:

This highly influential interpretation [by Dix] has been questioned by the Jesuit liturgical scholar Robert Taft who states, “Historical sources…show how totally wrong Dix is in almost every aspect of this interpretation.” The distinctions Dix asserted turn out not to exist; instead there are profound continuities. The monastic movement did not arise in response to Constantine’s conversion but pre-dated it. However, according to Taft, who marshals a great weight of evidence, the Daily Offices turn out to be not a monastic innovation but an earlier development of Christian prayer. The supposed contradiction of eschatological orientation and personal edification also falls apart on examination: they lived happily side by side. Indications are that the Daily Office, even on Sundays, was just as central to the Church’s life as was the Eucharist, if ‘centrality’ can be measured by frequency, which is itself doubtful.

It is historically true to form that conservative Presbyterians run a hundred years behind their Anglican betters and it has nearly always been this way.

What is going to happen when newly minted self-described Reformed churches and denominations figure out that the historical evidence for weekly Eucharistic worship in the early Church is undoubtedly much weaker than some would like to admit? Or, what will they do when they realize that the structure and nature of their covenantal renewal services are based on ideas more Catholic than Reformed?

Perhaps by then there will be a Reformed Use Society to handle the appropriate concerns in a way designed to keep the spirit and flame of Covenant Renewal Worship alive and kicking no matter what the facts have to say about it.