The Vulgarity of the TULIP

Vulgar - Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.

I have a sort of love/hate relationship with the acrostic that, for many, defines what has come to be known as "Calvinism." The old acrostic is the "TULIP", and the TULIP is supposed to represent the 5 points of Calvinism. Here is what the acrostic stands for:

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

If defined correctly, I whole-heartedly agree with each of the 5 points of Calvinism. However, in an effort to make simple the complex, I have found that the TULIP itself can cause more trouble than help. I am rather envious that Arminians do not have a similar acrostic to put their feet to the fire. It is, perhaps, one of the reasons that a mostly-Arminian can remain so easily uncommitted to a system of theology that they so readily embrace.

I believe that the TULIP is vulgar. Not in the sense that it is slanderous or profane, but in the sense that it is common and lacks refinement. If one uses the TULIP as a teaching tool, a great deal of time must be spent undoing the very images that the acrostic conjures. Namely, you have to explain what you mean by "Total Depravity." Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are also worded in an unhelpful way. Particular Redemption and effectual grace are far better, but I guess that TUPEP isn't as catchy as TULIP.

The real reason that I dread the acrostic is that people make the mistaken assumption that if you have memorized the TULIP then you know the sum total of Reformed theology. As if the mystery of salvation, and God's decrees, and the truth of predestination and election could be summed up neatly with an acrostic. I have a similar unpleasant reaction when people use the word "Calvinism" or even when I am labeled a "Calvinist." I love John Calvin. I have found him to be a profitable teacher even when I disagree with him. My book shelf is lined with Calvin's commentaries from Genesis to Jude, and I also have his Institutes. To think that such mammoth contributions to theology can be regulated to 5 points is, well, vulgar. Besides, Calvin would not have cared for my theology very much. He would have run me out of town for being one of those unstable "Anabaptists," so I doubt he would want me wearing his label. Indeed, he would probably be quite upset if he learned there were any "Calvinists" at all. His regard and affections were centered on the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Word, I believe he would have found the term Calvinist repulsive.

Alas, I am afraid that there is no remedy for the dilemma. The TULIP is as good a start as anyplace to begin a conversation about God's sovereignty in salvation and man's inability to save himself. I'd prefer we start in John 6 or Romans 9 or Ephesians 1-2, but we'll make do with what we have.

Information on Calvinism/Reformed Theology

The issue of Calvinism and Reformation theology is swirling around in our church, and I thought it might be helpful to include a link to some places that explain the theology. This Wikipedia article might be a good start. You can also check out Bethlehem Baptist's statement regarding what they believe about the Five Points of Calvinism. John Piper is the pastor of that church, and he is probably one of, if not the most well-known evangelical preacher in the United States. This Ten Things List might also be helpful. If you have other helpful resources, feel free to post them in the comments.

Funny Quote for the Day

I got zilch in the creativity department, so I'll mooch off of others. This quote comes as a "critique" of the wardrobe choices in Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel of Matthew:

Some of the Jewish leaders have hats so ridiculous that even the Pope wouldn't wear them.

You can read the The 10 Worst Movies About Jesus for yourself. Funny stuff there.

HT:Evangelical Outpost

The Koran and the Highly Insultable Islam

It seems that an American soldier has been sent home from Iraq because he shot up a copy of the Koran. Indeed, President Bush has promised that he will be punished because of his insult to Islam. Do you think that his actions constitute a crime worthy of serious consequence? Is Islam now dictating the limits of freedom of speech and how much our soldiers should be punished? You can read the story here.

Charles Spurgeon on Election

From 1 Thessalonians 1:4-6:

From the very announcement of the text some will be ready to say, "Why preach upon so profound a doctrine as election?" I answer, because it is in the God's word, and whatever is in the Word of God is to be preached. "But some truths ought to be kept back from the people," you will say, "lest they should make an ill use thereof." That is Popish doctrine, it was upon that very theory that the priests kept back the Bible from the people, they did not give it to them lest they should misuse it. "But are not some doctrines dangerous?" Not if they are true and rightly handled. Truth is never dangerous, it is error and reticence that are fraught with peril. "But do not men abuse the doctrines of grace?" I grant you that they do; but if we destroyed everything that men misuse, we should have nothing left. Are there to be no ropes because some fools will hang themselves? And must cutlery be discarded and denounced because there are some who will use dangerous weapons for the destruction of their adversaries? Decidedly not. Besides all this, remember that men do read the Scriptures and think about these doctrines, and therefore often make mistakes about them; who then shall set them right if we, who preach the Word, hold our tongues about the matter?

I'm Not So Bad: A Lesson in Depravity

I do not know if you have yet heard of Josef Fritzl, and if you haven't, you might do well to walk away from this post. Fritzl is an Austrian man who decided twenty-four years ago to lock his daughter in a basement and rape her repeatedly. Indeed, over the course of that time she was never allowed out of her basement prison once, and she bore seven children in that dungeon. One of them died, and Fritzl disposed of the body by incinerating it. Such abuse is absolutely horrific and so utterly depraved that one would feel hard pressed to even dream up such a wicked scenario. Yet, look at the response that Fritzl gives to the community so shocked by his evil:

I could have killed them all. Then there would have been no trace. No-one would have found me out.

He goes on to insist that he is no monster because if he had not taken the oldest daughter of his daughter to the hospital to save her life, then he would not have gotten caught. Basically, all of the internal organs of the young girl of 19 were shutting down, probably due to her imprisonment. But Fritzl is no monster, he says. He is, in fact, a life saver. He could have just killed them all, right?

There is no depth to which the depraved heart will not sink in order to justify itself. After all the evil that he has perpetuated, Fritzl can still come up with an excuse as to why he is no monster. Should it then be any surprise that our moral neighbor has difficulty seeing himself as a sinner in need of grace? How we need the Spirit of God to awaken us from our depravity and shine the spotlight of truth into our hearts! Truly, the heart is a deceitful, self-justifying, God-denying, self-exalting thing that will make monsters of us all if not for God's mercy.

Go here to read more material and the source from which these quotes were drawn.

Quick Comment on the Book of Judges

Okay, is it just me, or do chapters 16-21 of Judges read like some kind of horror story. Every time I read it, I come away rejoicing that I did not live in those days.

Theology Devoid of Love

A sort of squabble has erupted in the comment section over at Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds over snobbish, prideful Calvinists foisting their theology onto others. That was not the intent of the article, but that is the brawl that has taken place none-the-less.

For full disclosure as a Calvinistic guy, I want to heartily agree with some of the commentors and affirm that Calvinists are indeed a prideful, snobby, and sometimes elitist brood. I also want to heartily affirm that this is true of everyone, regardless of your understanding of the atonement and regeneration, which is precisely why we are in need of the grace of Jesus Christ in the first place. So I confess my guilt and humbly beseech my dissenting brethren to search their hearts as well.

So why is it that folks can be so vindictive, divisive, and hateful over theology? Undoubtedly, all would agree that there are errors that are deal-breakers such as disagreements over, The Triune Nature of God, the full deity of Jesus Christ, the true of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the need for Christ's atonement, the veracity of Scripture, and etc. When I say "deal-breaker", I mean that if you mess up one of these you have strayed into heresy so deep that your soul is in peril.

The truth is that Arminian and Calvinistic theology both fall neatly between the orthodox ditches, and while the disagreements are real, there is ample room for charity. Indeed, both sides should hold the other in high regard, and I pray that the Lord God make it so. So why is there such division?

For one, I think the problem is that too many Christians have nothing to lose. Who is causing the trouble? Many would say that it is the Young, Restless, and Reformed. So let's analyze who these folks are. They are probably youngish, well-read folks who have waded in to the deep end of theology but are still in the baby pool concerning love. The reason, perhaps, is that while they are to be commended for taking the doctrines of Christianity seriously, they probably have little deep regard for brothers and sisters as they are. In other words, they have fallen so deeply in love with their understanding of the 'ideal' church that they are unable to function in the church as she is.

Here's my meaning. Let's say you have a single, romantically minded young man who desperately wants a wife and he really wants to be a good husband. So, he reads up on it in the Bible and he comes across the magnificent Ephesians 5:22 that teaches wives to submit to their husbands. So on every date the young man goes on, he queries his potential mate and evalutes her potential as a wife by asking, "Are you going to submit to me in all things as you would to the Lord Jesus? If you don't, I can tell you that this isn't going anywhere." What do you suppose is his likelihood of finding a wife?

The guy is right about a wife's call to submit to her husband, but his ignorance concerning the rest of the beauty of marriage makes him an idiot. Plus, he's really got no emotional attachment to the deal, he generally runs all prospects off on the first date. The only reason he invites them to dinner is because they looked attractive until they were put off by his Biblical mindset, so he thinks. Indeed, he probably gets a bit of a matyr complex and bemoans the condition of a world filled with women unwilling to submit to men as to the Lord.

Let's say, by the grace of God, this guy actually does get married. Let's pretend also that, shockingly, he actually turns out to be a tender and caring husband. Over the course of time, he feels that the Lord God is calling him to pack up and take a job in California, far from family and home, and well, his wife is not too keen. Do you suppose that he should take out Ephesians 5:22 and pound her over the head with it until she throws up her hands in surrender and moves to California? Theologically, he's got it in the bag, right? Ideally, she trusts in the Lord and moves to California. Realistically, it may take time for God to overcome doubt and refine the heart to love His call and Word.

That's my rough analogy for why Calvinists and others act so idiotically over their theology. They have nothing to lose because they are just flirting around with the church and the people in it, and if it does not immediately conform to their ideal, they puff out the chest and go someplace else. Isn't it true that it is possible to "understand all mysteries and all knowledge" and still be nothing? (1 Cor. 13:2).

As a special point to the most zealous of the divisive theologs, I have to wonder if where you are now theologically is where you began? Did you get here without struggle and honest questions? And what truth do you have now that God did not grant you to have? Do you think that you figured things out because you are smarter and wiser and less sinful than other men and women? If you are truly enlightened, then you owe it to both the wise and the unwise to be patient, gentle, forebearing, long-suffering, and kind. If not, we poor rubes may never see the glory of God as clearly as you see it, and that would be a lousy stewardship of the gift that God has given you, wouldn't it?

Burnt Offerings, Leviticus 10:1-20

The smell of burnt flesh lingered in the tabernacle, a noxious, unforgettable smell that burns into the memory like the flame that gave rise to the stench. The high priest stares, his eyes watering from the sting of smoke and the sight of charred ephods and burned hands; hands that once held his own, they were smaller then and plump, they were soft once and not black as they are now.

Just yesterday those hands were used to help him, the high priest, offer the blood which he had sprinkled on the altar for the people, the altar before which they now lay in utter ruin. They had stood by as he had lifted up his hand and blessed the people:

The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Just yesterday they had seen the fire come out from the presence of the LORD and consume the burnt offering and the fat on the altar. Now they are gone. Their hands will assist here no more. The same fire that consumed the burnt offering has consumed his sons.

"This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified.'" Moses spoke these words into the ear of his brother, still taking in the sight before him, and Aaron held his peace. Moses called to Aaron's cousins, and they came to take away the remains of Nadab and Abihu.

"Don't uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people. But let your brothers, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD has kindled." Aaron could only stand and watch as the bodies of his boys were carried out of the camp before the eyes of all the people.

Aaron turned to his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. This very day, they would wear the ephod and minister before the LORD. Their hands would assist in the task of intecession. They will not mourn their brothers. Today, they will offer incense and offerings before the LORD as Nadab and Abihu before them. Tonight, they will lie down to the chorus of a million wailing voices, expressing a grief they cannot utter themselves.

Traditional, Contemporary, or Blended? Part 3

Finally! We can get to the theological part of why I believe a 'blended' service is a Biblically faithful service. The reason that I say "Biblically" or "theologically" faithful is because I get the feeling that most traditional churches go for a "blended" style just to throw a bone to the young folks. In other words, the switch is born out of pragmatism, not out of theological reflection. As food for thought, I want you to think of all the traditional churches you know who have tried to make a move to be more blended, for whatever motivation. Have you, on the other hand, ever heard of a contemporary church making a move towards a more traditional blend? (Failed conversions don't count!)

I want to center my thoughts on one main passage, and you can then judge for yourselves whether my conclusions have any merit. Paul taught this to the Ephesian church:

Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:18-21)

Do you see that Paul includes psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? That is, in my mind, a blanket statement including every sort of song there is. Notice also at the end of the section that all of this praising of God and singing is bound up under our mutual submission to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Here is where I poke the traditional crowd. I have often heard it said that most contemporary worship is simply irreverent. The usual offense is either the loudness of the music, the instruments used to make the music, or the exuberance observed in the worshippers participating in the contemporary service. Behold Psalm 150: 1, 3-6:

Praise the LORD!...Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; Praise Him with the lute and harp! Praise Him with the timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes! Praise Him with loud cymbals; praise Him with clashing cymbals! Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!

If the guitar bothers you, then you only need look at this psalm. All stringed instruments are included, even commanded, to be used in the service of God's worship. (A lute is, after all, the forerunner of the modern guitar.) If drums bother you, behold the timbrel and cymbal! Ancient percussion was used in the worship of God, indeed, it is commanded. Further, the psalmist liked loud cymbals! And they danced! Dancing was commanded! So beware, beloved traditionalist, beware. There is no sense in trying to be more traditional than God's Word, and there is no sense in being less enthusiastic than we are commanded to be. It could be that, in part, the contemporary guy is right: You are sinfully uptight. Sinfully? Yes, sinfully. The Psalm commands the praise of the Lord in this manner, not always, but sometimes, and if you stifle that, you stifle genuine praise. Beware, lest you go the way of Mical who "looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart" because "David danced before the LORD with all his might" (2 Samuel 6: 16, 14). She thought his worship was shameful, but it was she who should have been ashamed.

If you really want to see variety, look no further than the Psalms. Do you hate 'repetitive' praise and worship songs? What do you do with Psalm 136 that repeats the line "His mercy endures forever" 26 times in 26 verses? Are the contemporary songs too short and fluffy? What of Psalm 117 that weighs in at a whopping two verses? Perhaps you find long hymns a drag? What of Psalm 119 that has 176 verses? Can you imaging a Worship Pastor saying, "Turn in your hymn books to Psalm 119, we will be singing all 176 verses."

I had planned on finishing this today, but I got busy. I'll finish up my thoughts on this tomorrow, if God wills. Suffice to say that if you are really anxious, just look up how many times we are commanded to sing a "new" song to the Lord. That should keep you busy for a bit.

Traditional, Contemporary, or Blended? Part 2

Today, I want to explain why I find the blended approach to a worship service the wisest, and I believe, most Biblical pattern for corporate worship. Before I dive into that, let me say a quick word about musical tastes.

I find that the typical objection to music used in worship is simply a matter of taste. In the worst case, the offending 'style' is thought to be detrimental, perhaps even evil, in its essence. In the best case, it is merely considered an annoying distraction. The first objection is patently absurd except in the case of 'discordant' music. The second, I hope to point out, is a selfish reaction that can be turned to a fuller worship experience if we are wise.

I am personally convinced that every music style is a 'tradition,' even contemporary praise and worship music. It is a tradition in the sense that it is what one is familiar with and it is the musical 'habit' one has developed via the radio, purchased CD's, or etc. For example, you may purchase a CD because you enjoy one or two songs on the CD. At first, these may be the only two you enjoy. However, after a period of consistent listening, you find that you are coming to appreciate, if not downright enjoy, some of the other selections that you once skipped. The reason for that is repetition and a growing like for a particular artist's style. Or, you may have come to appreciate an aspect of the song that you previously overlooked in your haste to get to your favorite song. This is why, in my opinion, many are 'hooked' on contemporary, Southern Gospel, traditional, or etc. It is simply all they have listened to in the context of personal worship.

To give a personal illustration, I freely confess to a period of country music obsession. I moved from pop/rock straight to "Boot, Scoot, Boogey." All the buttons on the radio were reset. My Poison/Warrant bumper sticker was replaced by Clint Black. I cannot pinpoint exactly how this happened, but it did, and through consistent listening to country music, I developed a taste for it. From there, I moved to the Blues. This happened via an accidental encounter with Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" performance. That CD, by the way, is still considered by yours truly to be one of the most outstanding CD's of all time. Just so you know. Basically, I have moved all over the musical map at some point in time, and I have found that time spent in any genre makes that genre more personally appealing. Hopefully, you will have found that to be true with your own tastes as well.

So why do we get aggravated when our local church sings contemporary songs when we like traditional or vice versa. I believe it is due to immaturity and a wrong-headed view of corporate worship. What the average church goer wants in corporate worship is what they experience on their commute to work. We become trapped into thinking that the way we worship individually should be exactly how we worship corporately. I submit to you that if your worship experience in your church gathering is basically the same as your corporate worship experience, then you are probably missing out on the corporate aspect of worship. They are, by design, supposed to offer differing experiences of the greatness of God. After all, if corporate worship is the same as private worship, why would we be called to gather together to worship God?

Part of the thrill of corporate worship is seeing and hearing others worship the risen Lord. Sometimes, that may mean seeing and hearing them worship to a different tune or in a different way than we are disposed to do it. For example, how many parents have worshipped the Lord through their little ones singing, "Jesus Loves the Little Children"? They are grateful that their children are learning the truths of God's Word, and they delight to hear them sing God's praise. Would they really want that sort of style for Sunday morning worship? Do they sing that in the car on the way to work? Or are they altogether enjoying watching and hearing and seeing someone else praise the Lord to a song that is not their first choice?

This brings me to how we can turn aggravation to a fuller corporate worship experience. Instead of being dismayed that a particular, perhaps unfamiliar, style or song is being used, why not watch and listen others. We can, and I believe that we should, enjoy that they are enjoying God. What is more fun at Christmas, opening your own present or seeing the delight of others as they open theirs? Both are great, aren't they? Can worship be the same? Why can we not worship and glorify God because others are worshipping and glorifying God? A good dad may not even bring his own fishing rod when he goes fishing with his son. Why is that? Does he not like to catch fish? Or is it simply that he finds more satisfaction in seeing his child catch one than catching one himself? In corporate worship, we have the opportunity to both personally praise God and to enjoy others praising our God. Perhaps some of us might worship more fully if we occasionally quit singing and started listening.

All this and I still haven't gotten to my main point. I'll work on it tomorrow.

Traditional, Contemporary, or Blended? Part 1

My greatest joy in life is the worship of the Living God. I love to worship Him with the gathered church, and I love to worship Him when I am alone. I love to worship Him in song, I love to worship Him in thought, and I love to worship Him in deed. Most of all, I love to worship Him through the proclamation of the Scriptures.

I confess that I find it downright aggravating that so much hoopla surrounds worship in song. I have heard people on both sides of the contemporary/traditional divide say things like, "I just cannot worship to that style of music." I find that remarkable. It seems to me that it should be rather easy to worship God in a gathering of saints to most any kind of orderly and doctrinally sound song. If a Christian can worship over the casket of a deceased child, if Peter can worship after a beating, if Paul can worship in shackles in a Roman prison, then surely we can suffer through, and even worship during, a Christ-exalting ditty that does not strike our musical palate as the "best" way to sing God's praises. Can you imagine Paul and Silas in jail, suffering in the Roman stocks, and Paul saying, "Hey Sy, let's sing 'How Great Thou Art'." And Silas saying, "No way man. I don't go for the old stuff. Let's sing, 'How Great is Our God.' I just can't seem to get in a worshipful mood with a less than contemporary beat."

I firmly believe that if we lived in a time of persecution, as do many of our brethren worldwide, then not only would we be happy to sing a contemporary or traditional song with a brother, we would simply be overjoyed to have someone to sing with at all. At least one of our problems is that we are so wretchedly spoiled with our Christian radio, CD's, and plethora of church choices, that we have come to value music style and personal taste over our own family.

That's my short rant. Now that it's over, I'll spend the second part of the 'series' actually dealing with why I believe theologically that a blended service is the best way to go.

It's a Girl!!!

Our daughter, Zoe Suzann Williams, was born this morning at 7:49 am. She weighed in at 7 lbs. 13 oz. and is 19 3/4 inches long. She has jet black hair and a powerful set of lungs. Mommy's doing very well and is holding baby Zoe as I type this. Please pray for our family this week! My grandmother, Zoe's great-grandmother, passed away this morning at 2:20am, she was 96 years old. Today is a day of rejoicing and mourning for our family. Pray for us when you think of us!

This Kills Me

I saw this by following a trail from Jonathan Moorehead's place on his Friday quotations. This is just too funny to pass up. I'll return to regular programming tommorrow. Do yourself a favor and go here and check this out.

A Lesson in Hymnody: They are Better Than You Think, Part 2

Yesterday I described my conversion experience to the joys of hymnody. Today, I want to tell you a little bit of the genius behind hymns and why it would be a great tragedy to lose that magnificent tradition. I will begin by investigation that great hymnal, The Baptist Hymnal, to tell you why I like it so much.

First, I will begin by naming a few of my favorite hymns. In no particular order they are: "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty," "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," "O Worship the King," and "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing." Here's a look at the respective authors.

The first hymn was written by Joachim Neander (1650-1680). Joachim was a member of the German Reformed Church and was one of the greatest of the early reformation hymn writers. This particular hymn is probably his greatest, and of the four verses in the hymn book, I like the second particularly well. Joachim writes:

Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wondrously reigneth,
Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth!
Hast thou not seen How thy desires e'er have been
granted in what he ordaineth?

Ah yes! Even in tragedy the Lord guides us to the desire of our heart, which is, hopefully, conformity to the glorious image of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The second was written by none other than Martin Luther himself (1483-1546), the German leader and most outspoken proponent of the Reformation. Herr Luther reminds us to "Let good and kindred go, this mortal life also; the body they may kill: God's truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever." Amen, Brother Luther!

The third was written by Robert Grant (1739-1838). Sir Robert Grant was a member of English Parliament and the eventual governor of Bombay. Sir Grant poetically describes God's gracious provision, "Thy bountiful care what tongue can recite? It breathes in the air, it shines in the light, It streams form the hills, it descends to the plain, and sweetly distills in the dew and the rain." Wonderful poetry, is it not?

Finally, I love Charles Wesley's "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing." Charles was the brother of the famous John Wesley, and Charles lived from (1707-1788). He even had a little help on the hymn from the great George Whitefield. Now I know that technically the angels are not said to sing, but don't let that deter you from loving one of the greatest hymns ever written in the history of the world. The entire hymn is magnificent from start to finish. The second verse is probably the greatest poetic expression of the incarnation of Jesus Christ that I know of anywhere. I promise you, it just does not get much better than this:

Christ, by highest heav'n adored, Christ the everlasting Lord:
Late in time, behold Him come, offspring of a virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, Hail th'incarnate deity!
Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel.
Hark! The herald angels sing, "Glory to the newborn King."

If you'll notice, none of these contributors to the Baptist Hymnal are Baptists. Neander was a German Calvinist Reform, Robert Grant and Charles Wesley were from the Church of England, and Martin Luther was, well, he was Luther. These hymns in particular transcend denominational confessions to teach core, orthodox Christianity. Indeed, they make doctrine devotional, and for that, we are immensely in their debt.

This underscores one of the facets of the beauty of hymnody. The reason that we have these great ancient hymns is because they have spoken truth in a way that has resonated with Christians for hundreds, or perhaps even closer to a thousand years. "All Creatures of Our God and King" is included in the hymnal and was penned by Francis of Assisi who lived from 1182-1226. If the Lord should tarry, I seriously doubt any modern praise and worship song will survive the test of time as these hymns have.

Think of the richness in singing a hymn that is 300 years old. That means that when you confess this truth as you lift your voice, you are singing a song that has encouraged believers just like yourself for centuries. You are confessing the same confession, and you are worshipping the same God. The same truth about God that moves your heart in the song moved theirs as well. In every way, such hymns transcend time, culture, and language to stir the hearts of that peculiar group of people known as Christians.

Next, we will look and see why overhead projection is limited and why hymnals are in some ways superior to them. Also, we will see that the poets of the hymnbook were master wordsmiths and not necessarily musicians. Finally, I'll talk about choir and why we should encourage the younger generation to join one for the glory of God.

A Lesson in Hymnody:They are Better than you Think, Part One

I love hymns. I confess it freely and unashamedly. I will confess further that if I had to pick between a hymnal and a compilation of the latest praise and worship music I would pick the hymnal hands down. What we have, for the most part, in our hymnals are the greatest poems and songs written in the past 1,000 years. While some of the current 'praise and worship' music is enjoying a season of popularity, they will not be sung in churches 100 years from now, or even 2 years from now.

I must admit that I was converted, rather shockingly, to a love of hymnody. I became a Christian in college, and I attended a "contemporary" worship service at a local church and I went to Campus Crusade through the week. Needless to say, there was never any organ music present at those events. Indeed, the country music band Alabama once had a hit song that said, "If you want to play in Texas, you've got to have a fiddle in the band." That sums up nicely how I thought of worship music, "If you want to have the Holy Spirit, you've got to have the drums, a guitar, and a band."

But that all changed, radically, my first chapel service in seminary. Upon walking into chapel, the first thing that I noticed was a monolithic pipe organ that would not even fit into most of the churches I have attended. It was not even subtly old school; it was in your face. And, to my great dismay, I saw no drums or guitar, just cold, steely pipes staring down at me like great gatekeepers of the old guard.

As i was taking in the sight of the new chapel, the music director came to the podium and announced that we would be opening with "And Can it Be" on page such and such. I dutifully turned to the page in the hymnal and looked at the bottom for the credit. It read: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788. Oh brother! Not only were they going to be using a pipe organ, but this song was older than dirt.

My conversion to hymnody was almost immediate and was certainly miraculous. The pipe organ spoke, and it demanded attention be paid to the music. It made all other organs I had ever heard sound like cheap, carnival hand-crank organs to which the monkeys dance. The sound did not come only to my ears but literally went through me, reverberating in my heart. And the singing! Over a thousand preacher boys with their wives and old professors and preachers lifted up their voices with one accord and sang this grand old hymn. It was as if that organ and the voices of that congregation lifted my soul to Pisgah and showed me a glimpse of the Promised Land.

I faithfully attended chapel all the years of my seminary experience. I can honestly say that after hearing three sermons a week for three years that I probably remember only five. I do not even remember who preached or what was preached that day, but I remember that song and I remember that organ. Part of me never left that place and that time, if you can believe it. That song and that music and that moment are still bouncing around in my soul as I sit here typing this post.

That conversion experience led me to take a closer look at hymns and the rich tradition that lies behind them. Indeed, it was because of hymns that I decided to join a choir and to learn to sing harmony. In more ways than I probably know, hymns have helped to shape my thought and my praise to God. Over the course of the next post or two I want to share a couple of neat things that I have learned about hymns and why I think that choirs are awesome. I look forward to your comments.

Privacy Fences and Neighbor Love

I am currently engaged in building a fence in my backyard. When completed, it will be five feet tall and have pickets spaced approx. one inch apart. God willing, it will also be straight and sturdy. It should be, considering I dug some of the post holes almost as deep as the posts were tall and then proceeded to pour 40 lbs of concrete into them. Barring tornado or natural disaster, some of my posts will remain until the Lord's return.

What bugs me about our culture is our great tendency to isolate ourselves. Nearly everyone in the community has build a six foot wall encircling their backyard. I wonder why we do that? What in the world is going on in those backyards that they don't want everyone else to see? Sun-tanning? Bizarre cult rituals?

As for me, about the most exciting thing that will happen in my backyard is baseball tossing and hamburger grilling. I look forward to standing on my deck on a nice spring day, flipping juicy steaks with grill spatula in one hand and waving to neighbors I can see with the other. As long as my fence keeps my children and my dog out of the street, I will be content. I am building the fence to keep my family in, not to block my neighbors out.

It seems strange to me that we, as a people, flee home after work every day to get behind a closed garage door as quickly as we can. Why don't we want to come into personal contact with one another? Why do we erect impenetrable barriers between ourselves and and our neighbors?

As a Christian, I wonder what sort of signal it sends to our neighbors when we build a privacy fence? Though it may be subtle, doesn't it say to them, "We want to keep you out?" Where is the God-given command to love our neighbor in that? If we were only interested in keeping things in, wouldn't a five foot fence with gaps do as well as a six foot fence with no gaps?

I don't know what everyone's motivation for building a fence may be. I know that I could never build a fence that would not allow me to wave at my neighbors. I want to know my neighbors, and even more shocking, I'd like to share my burgers with them. To me, that would be immensely more fun than watching TV or sun-bathing, and it would seem, far more Christian.

Pregnant Man?

Oprah has the ear of the world, and she has chosen to use that influence to highlight this. If you follow the links, be warned that the picture of the pregnant "man" will be disconcerting to say the least. The bottom line is that this man is no man at all. Rather, she is a woman who chose to pretend that she was a man and had surgery to make her look the role. However, the female reproductive organs were left intact, hence she is still able to carry a child.

Instead of whining about how terrible the world has become, the church should see things like this and realize that we must be actively on mission for Jesus Christ. Without Jesus Christ, without His Holy Spirit bearing witness that we are His, people are truly confused about who they are and what they are: image bearers of the One, True God. That's why people do things like this.

Personality Profiles are a Sham

I hate personality profiles. I hate them because I waste my time on them. I overthink them and speculate on the nature of the questions and what they are really asking. I always decide that I need to change a couple of answers after I submit them, and I am hardly ever satisfied with the results. More aggravatingly, I cannot seem to help but take them.

Today, I was sent two that everyone seems to be taking. They are both 45 question personality profiles. One is, "Which World Leader are You," and the other is "Which Movie are You." I turned out to be Mother Theresa and the Godfather. How is that even possible?

And how are you supposed to answer a question like this on a scale of accurate to not accurate?:

You desire the spotlight.

Obviously, I would enjoy more people to preach to on Sundays, and I would really like to write a book that lots of people would read. But does that mean I want the spotlight? So is that an accurate statement? Inaccurate? Sort of accurate? Forty-five questions like that and the day is nearly a waste.

Anyway, I'm just glad I'm not Sadam Hussein.

Cycling Hero

Ministry is not conducive to good health. I mainly sit around and read and think and pray and worry. (One of those is sin, by the way, and I am by no means promoting it.) When I am not sitting, thinking, praying, reading or studying, I am riding around to meet with someone, usually for a meal. None of these things will help to shrink my waistline or give me a healthy heart. So I have to seek out ways outside of work to exercise this body.

One of the ways I seek to do that is through gardening. This year, my garden is 25 feet wide by 45 feet long. That'll keep me pretty busy, and it is a good form of exercise and will be, God willing, a good source of healthy food. But my newest and greatest love, the love for which I have basically abandoned running, is cycling.

There are so many wonderful dimensions to riding a bicycle that I am surprised that more people are not involved in this sport. If you can get past a few pride-killing issues, it is one of the most manly sports I've ever participated in. Let's do the bad end of it first, because I am convinced that if more men could get past this part we'd have more cyclists.

First, there is the spandex. Nothing says "sissy" better than a pair of spandex shorts. After that, there's the goofy helmet you have to wear. It seems to be made of a combination of Styrofoam and plastic. It does not give me the feeling of safety and only makes me feel like an idiot. Then there are the jerseys. You've seen them on the Tour de France...maybe. If you have, you know that they are quite often bright yellow or even polka dotted. And they often fit like, well, spandex. They are not flattering in a manly way. Next thing that comes to mind are the fingerless gloves. These might be manly in the right environment, but in combination with those things mentioned above, they only seem sort of Michael Jackson-ish. The only redeeming factor in this ensemble are the sunglasses. They are sort of like the stinger on a honeybee. There is no way that you get get away with wearing that much yellow without some sort of edge and that is precisely what the sunglasses provide. Just as you are about to laugh at a cyclist for his apparel, he looks at you with those razor sharp glasses and you think, "Whoa. Better not."

I freely admit that all of the above are a little difficult to get past. But if you can get past the outfit, what you will find are manly elements that more than make up for the uniform. Allow me to mention just a few.

First and foremostly, there is the bicycle itself. Mine is a Giant TCR with a combination carbon/aluminium frame, a Compact crank, and Shimano 105 components. Fully loaded that baby weighs in at slightly less than 20 pounds, and the paint job on her is something you really must see to appreciate.

Then there is the speed. My personal best is currently just over 48 mph. I cannot do justice in mere description how much fun it is to go 48 mph in a 35 mph zone on a bicycle. My goal is to break 50, which I expect to accomplish within the next few weeks.

Finally, and probably my favorite part of cycling, is drafting off of other riders. If you get a group of guys in a line and you are tucked in behind a couple of them, you can go the same speed as the lead man with at least 20% less effort. That makes cycling a genuine team sport. By taking turns being the lead man, a group of riders expend far less effort than a single rider and can average much higher speeds. On the last group ride I made, I averaged 15.9 mph over the course of 25 miles. I was, regrettably, dropped from the main group or I would have averaged a little better. I can't keep up with the guys yet being the newbie that I am. I look forward to be a little more competitive. For now, I am content just to be riding.

If you happen to be in the area and see us while you are out driving, remember these tips please: One, give us plenty of space when you pass. Two, we will not be as easy to pass as you think because we'll be rolling at around 20 mph. Three, not every guy in spandex pants is a sissy. I'd wager that most of us could still outrun, outplay, and outdo you even after riding 25-40 miles. If that doesn't convince you, then just look at our cool sunglasses.

2nd London Baptist Confession: Concerning Justification

Because I cannot seem to come up with any creative thought on my own, I thought I'd quote something beautiful from the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689 regarding justification. This is article 11 Sections 2 and 6:

Faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification, yet this faith is not alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied by all the other saving graces. And it is not a dead faith, but works by love.

The justification of believers during the Old Testament period was in all these respects exactly the same as the justification of New Tesatment believers.

What do you think of that? If you'd like to view the confession's full dealing with justification to try and figure out how sections 2 and 6 of article 11 fit together, you can check it out here.

An Apology to Dr. Marsh, a Thinking Baptist

On January 22, 2008 I printed a post entitled "Onward, Thinking Baptist" in which I reminisced about a trip I took to the home of Dr. Leon Marsh. The point of the post was to capitalize on something that Dr. Marsh said about being a "Thinking Baptist." Instead, my ineptitude and slap-dash writing led to offense. I am ashamed.

Here is the section wherein I discussed my recollection of the conversation:

Dr. Marsh and I do not agree on many things. He claims to be a 3 point Calvinist with a laugh. His idea of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures are not the same. I did not argue with him but I let him have say his mind. I enjoyed his banter and candidness if not his theology. His love of Christ was evident, and his joy at our visit was apparent. I was thankful to have gone and hope to go back.

The first sentence is just dumb. Dr. Marsh and I agree on many things. What an absolutely idiotic thing to say, and I cannot imagine what I was thinking. We may not agree on a few things, but on the overwhelming majority of all things important, I amen whatever he said. The second line was meant to reveal his humor. Instead, it reaveled my inability to communicate his wit and only served to expose my inability to articulate things. The third line is awful by any measure. I wrote, "His idea of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures are not the same." Same as what? Same as the Pope's? I meant to say the same as mine. I said this because Dr. Marsh said a couple of things that I did not agree with. Now, that could be due to a couple of reasons: 1) I did not understand what Dr. Marsh was saying. or 2) We disagree.

This apology is not meant to be a parsing of what is meant by inerrancy or infallibility, so I will cut straight to the chase: Dr. Marsh believes in and spent his life teaching that the Bible is completely, wholly, and totally true. My statement was foolish because of my omission of the words "like mine" and the use of shibboleths like "inerrant" and "infallible" left the impression that Dr. Marsh did not have a high view of Scripture. That is an awful thing to do flippantly, and I am ashamed.

Let me go ahead and skip to the part where I wrote "I enjoyed his banter if not his theology." This is so sloppy that I am afraid to continue writing if I cannot do any better than this. What theology did I disagree with? As I stated before, Dr. Marsh and I may not agree on some things like "3 Point" Calvinism. But to imply that I did not like his 'theology' is just awful. What I meant to say was that I really enjoyed Dr. Marsh's wit even if I did not agree with everything he said. That is so much better than what I wrote. And in case anyone thinks that it is a 'big deal' for me not to agree with everything Dr. Marsh says, let me make it clear that I do not even agree with everything that I have said, especially on January 22, 2008 in the post that prompted this apology.

In the end, just about the only thing I like in the original post and can wholly endorse are these words: His love of Christ was evident, and his joy at our visit was apparent. I was thankful to have gone and hope to go back. Dr. Marsh, I apologize, and I hope that you forgive me. I do hope to make that return visit soon in dust and ashes or with your favorite cake, whichever will help you forget my blog post the quickest.

A Wonderful Post

Go over and read Tim Brister's reflection piece on something that occured on his birthday. You can check it out here. It is entitled "The Cross isn't Sexy: A Dying Man's Confession." Seriously. Go read it.

One Time the Pope and an Imam Were Talking....

Go and read this and let me know what you think. Especially this line:

Muslims around the world protested and the pope sought to make amends when he visited Turkey's Blue Mosque and prayed towards Mecca with its Imam.

I swear, sometimes it feels like I am living in a Tim LaHaye novel.

Being Spared the Truth

There is a scene from the film "A Few Good Men" in which Tom Cruise's character, Lt. Daniel Kaffee, spars with Jack Nicholson's character Col. Nathan R. Jessup. In that exchange, Lt. Kaffee attempts to elicit a confession from the tough old Colonel. Kaffee pleads that he simply wants the truth, to which the Colonel famously replies, "You can't handle the truth." I'm not certain if Lt. Kaffee could handle the truth or not, but I am certain that God spares us from the full brunt of the truth to keep from overwhelming us with sorrow or to keep us from exceeding pride.

Consider this statement of Jesus, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). Why would Jesus hold back the truth from His disciples? Why couldn't they handle the truth?

The context of this saying is on the brink of Jesus' arrest and crucifixion. The reality that Jesus is about to 'go away' is sinking in on the disicples, and their hearts are nearly overcome with sorrow (John 16:6). Jesus knew that they were fragile, He knew their grief, and He knew that their faith was not strong enough to handle everything at that moment.

Can you imagine the patience of Jesus? Do you not think that He longed to share with them the glory that was to come? Do you suppose that He was tempted (as we know that He was tempted in every way) to rebuke them for their unbelief and sluggish hearts? Did they not trust Him to do what was right? In my mind, I can see them downcast and grieving as the truth of the loss of their friend and master dawned on them. The Lord saw their grief and thought, "It is enough on them. They can bear no more."

It is gracious of God to bring us along by degrees. Slowly conformed us to the pattern of holiness displayed so wonderfully in the Son of God. He will never lay more on a burdened soul than it can bear, nor will He allow us to see so much of our future glory or our current progress to sabotage our humility.

Consider Paul in this regard. He bears witness that he himself was caught up into paradise and heard things that cannot be told, which man may even speak about (2 Cor. 12:2-3). Because of these exceedingly glorious revelations, Paul was given a thorn in the flesh "to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations" (2 Cor. 12:7). Why did Paul receive and thorn in the flesh, and why did God refuse to remove it? Because Paul could not handle the truth.

The Lord handles us so tenderly, neither allowing too much or too little revelation to crush us under the sorrow of sin nor to allow us to become too proud over the progress of the saints. He is like a careful gardener who neither adds too much fertilizer or too little and who gives out water by measure. Too little fertilizer and the plant will lack nutrition, too much and it will wither. Too little water and it will dry up, too much and it will drown. He manages us carefully, each according to his own need.

As we grow in faith and are strengthened by the grace of God, the Lord brings us along into the truth. Jesus said, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13). He will not withhold the greater things from us forever, but He will bring us along as we are able to follow.

We must take care then, those of us who believe ourselves mature, not to outpace God in the lives of others. Be discerning and wise and patient with others, knowing that God has worked patiently in you. Have you ever struggled with the truth of God's revelation? Did God reveal all your sin at once or did He bring you along by degree? If we will be merciful as God is merciful, we will see the fruit that the Lord, the greatest Gardener, entends.

So Still and So Restful

So still and so restful she lays,
Cold against mother’s breast
The warmth that was hers fading
Even as hot tears come to mother’s cheek.

Her life was brilliant and short
Like a shooting star streaking and burning~
Mother saw and wished and hoped
But could not keep her here

So mother holds her and remembers
The kicks and rolls and sickness
And joy and wonders why she went
So quickly and could not stay

So still and so restful she lays,
Mother’s shooting star that
Seared the joy of life into her heart
And has left her mark there forever

Update: My wife and our baby are doing well. I wrote this poem from going through this experience with others and not my own.

Calling out the Called

Last week, I sent an 'open letter' to the members of our church with the sole intent of calling out the men of our congregation who are interested in pastoral ministry. It is my sincere hope that several men of sound confession and character will join this fellowship. I'm going to post the contents of that letter here, and I'd love your thoughts and feedback concerning it. So far, I've had six men who have come forward with an interest in being involved in this. Here are the contents:

Looking for a Few Good Men

Unless I am greatly mistaken, this newsletter article will only immediately affect around six to eight men in our fellowship. In a newsletter that is mailed out to around 262 homes that seems like an inefficient use of space, but I do not believe that this is the case. Indeed, while this article may only immediately affect six to eight men, the impact, I hope, will influence the entire church for years to come. This article is dedicated to the men in our congregation whom God has called or will call out to do pastoral ministry in this body. I will talk briefly about the individual call to this great task, the responsibility of the church in this task, my personal mission in this task, and finally why I believe this is very important for our church.

First, I want to ‘demystify’ the call to pastoral ministry. Men, you are not looking for a burning bush or an angelic messenger from heaven in order to know that God is calling you to pastoral ministry. All you have to have is a good testimony, a blameless lifestyle, and a strong to desire to learn the Word of God and to teach it to others (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Unfortunately, many ‘pastors’ testify that when God called them to preach that they ran away, only to be forced in some sort of wrestling match of God to finally surrender to the ministry. While that makes for a great story, and while it may be true of some, the fact is that the man called by God will actually want to do pastoral ministry. If you have a desire to learn and to grow in order to teach others to learn and to grow, see me for further details.

Secondly, I want to let the church know what her responsibility is in this ‘calling out’ process. First, we are to be on the lookout for the type of man described in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Have you noticed a man who is blameless (not perfect) in his conduct? Is he able and eager to teach? Does he demonstrate loving affection toward his wife and children? Does he have a good reputation amongst those outside the church? Keep an eye on that man and encourage him to pursue the desire that God has placed in his heart. In Acts 13:2 we learn that the Holy Spirit spoke through the church to set Paul and Barnabas aside for their special work to which He called them. God still does that to men today in our midst. Look for them, encourage them, pray for them, and when one presents himself for service that you have had your eye on, rejoice! We are not to be pushy, simply encouraging. If you know someone like that, encourage them to come to the class I am about to talk about, and if you have questions or thoughts come and talk to me.

Thirdly, I want you to know that this desire I have is not just a ‘good idea’ I had while brainstorming in my office. It is, I believe, my direct responsibility to train men in this church for pastoral ministry. Paul wrote this to Timothy, and I believe that it applies to every pastor, “The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). If a men desires to do the work of ministry, if the church affirms that this man displays the characteristics described in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, then it will be my sacred duty to help such a man grow and learn and to be the best that he can be. To that end, we will meet every other Thursday evening. We will study the Bible, books by God gifted teachers, discuss, give reports, learn to teach, and generally hold one another accountable. It will require serious thought, personal cost to buy the books, time spent in study and prayer, and a sincere devotion to this body of Christ that is called “Mount Calvary Baptist Church.” In the period between each meeting, I will personally meet with any man willing one on one at least once to discuss any questions and for general fellowship.

Finally, I want everyone to think about why this is so important for our church. Wisdom should inform us that the more mature our leadership the better our church will weather future storms. Further, it is not God’s intention for this church to be built around the cult of personality of one man. The early church did not have the convenience of heading down to the local association and picking up resumes when their pastor was martyred, died, or called to missions. They had to rely on God to raise up leadership from amongst themselves, and because they sought out this leadership, when one man was removed from the picture the church could function without a hitch. While the oversight of the ministries of this church will be my responsibility as long as it pleases this church andthe Lord, I am more than happy to share the burden and rewards of ministry with others.

The immediate effects of this ministry will, perhaps, be minimal. In the long term, I believe the impact will be great. We will have men who will be better Sunday School teachers, men who will begin new ministries in this church, and hopefully, God will raise up men from inside our own fellowship to come on staff and serve in ministry. That may be years down the road, but it is a future that I am hoping for. I am praying for God to call out young men from our number to serve in ministry, and I am praying that he will call out older ones as well. Man, are you excited about this? Then join me, I need your help. Church, do you believe that God can do great things through the men of our church? Pray that He will call them out. The nations are waiting, the fields are ripe for harvesting; pray that God will send laborers into His fields from our number.

If you are interested, talk to me after church, call me in the office, or stop by and see me there. We will begin the first Thursday of March. I look forward to growing with you.

Calling out the Called,

Bro. Brad

Searching for Help

Currently, I have the great pleasure of being the Senior Pastor of a church with two full-time vacancies. The bad side of that is that I am quite busy. The good side, which is far better, is that I get to be here for the hiring of the staff, and I have the opportunity to "tweek" the job descriptions. One of the positions that I am tweaking is going to be called "The Pastor to Families."

Originally, this position was called the "Minister to Children and Youth." I wanted to move away from the language of "minister" because I think that the word "pastor" more clearly defines the role. I changed the latter part from "Children and Youth" to "Families" because I want to send the clear message that this individual is a pastor for everyone. Our goal in this ministry will be to instruct children and students in godliness and doctrine, and to incorporate their parents into that process.

I have admonished both the committee and the church to consider someone that they would feel comfortable calling as their own pastor. He may be younger, and perhaps less experienced, but his character should be such that they would trust themselves to his model of maturity and to his knowledge of the Scriptures. If you cannot do that, then why on earth would you allow this individual to instruct and set the example for your children? Hopefully, we will find such a person...soon.

By the way, did I mention that we are looking for a Worship Pastor as well?

Musical Mayhem?

If you are interested in an analysis of Church Music, I highly recommend reading this article by Greg Gilbert.

HT: Joe Carter

Providential Irony: A Puritan Reader Update

I'm supposed to be reading John Flavel's The Mystery of Providence this month. Oddly enough, I've misplaced the book, which could be a providence in itself. I don't know what to do now except begin the next book in the series and hope that it turns up. Bummer...I guess. Maybe I was supposed to be reading that other book now anyway....hmmm...

Training Pastors

I heard from a reliable source that Al Mohler was recently asked a question along the lines of, "Dr. Mohler, when do you think that seminaries should stop training young men for the ministry and the local church start doing the job." His response was, "Tomorrow morning." (Dr. Al Mohler is the president of Southern Seminary.) In saying this, I don't believe that Dr. Mohler meant that seminaries are unnecessary, but rather that the churches should not abdicate their role in the training of men for the ministry.

To that end, I have been struggling over a curriculm to begin at my church in order to train men for the ministry. I believe and know that there are men in this church who are gifted for that service. The studies will consist of Systematic Theology, preaching/teaching help, and studies in Biblical exegesis. All of these things go hand-in-hand. My problem is that there is so much to learn that I am having trouble breaking it down into mouthfuls. Should I go with a Systematic Theologies for teaching Systematic Theology, should I write something on my own? Should I look up particular articles considering subjects : i.e., atonement, Divinity of Christ, etc., and pass these out for study and discussion? How long should I spend on each, and where should we start?

I want to do this well, and so I would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.

Burning Our Noodle Part 4

Two nights ago, I was awakened at 4:30am by the sound of sirens that heralded the coming of devastation. While I tried to go back to sleep, my wife watched and listened intently to the news to see where the tornado was headed. By the grace of God, the storm passed us by unscathed, and yet not everyone was spared. As of today, the casualty count from that storm registers 55 persons, some entire families being wiped out by the dreadful storm.

I propose that there are generally two ways to view such catastrophes. One, we can believe that God was unable to stop the tornado from wreaking havoc and claiming lives, or two, we can believe that God was able to stop the tornado but did not choose to do so. Any Christian worthy of the name will believe the latter.

I want to take it a step further and ask this question: Is it possible that God ordains such disaster for the glory of His name and for the good of His people? I believe that it is not only possible, but that this is precisely the reason that things occur the way that they do. I truly believe that "for those who love God all things work together for good" (Rom. 8:28:). This may be hardest to swallow in the face of tragedy, but I believe that it is precisely then that these words are most precious. Consider this quote from one of my mentors, John Piper:

It's worth asking as a parenthesis here how a good God can be happy when the world is shot through with suffering and evil. It's a huge and hard question. Two things help me. One is that it doesn't help much to save God's reputation by saying that he is not really in charge. If someone had tried to comfort me in December 1974 when my mother was killed in a bus accident, by saying, "God didn't will this to happen; you can still trust him; he's good," I would have answered by saying, "My consolation does not come from thinking that God is so weak he can't divert the lumber on top a VW van." My God is sovereign. He took her in his appointed time; and I believe now and someday I will see that it was good. For I have learned in Jesus Christ that God is good. The biblical solution to the problem of evil is not to rob God of his sovereignty.

John Piper's mother died instantly when a piece of lumber came through the windshield of the bus and struck her. Could God not control the trajectory of the lumber? Could he not have altered the course of the bus? Certainly He could have, but He did not. Would you rather have a God who allows such things to purposely take place, or would you rather have the solace of knowing that even in the darkest night of tragedy that God is good, that He is close, and that He is working even this circumstance for your good and for His glory. Do you trust Him enough for that?

I sleep comfortably at night knowing that God holds the wind in His hand, that He commands the waves and the water, that not one sparrow falls to the ground outside of His sovereign notice, and that He has numbered my days and the days of my family. I trust Him with every detail, and I know that each has been sovereignly ordained to bring me into conformity to the likeness of His son and that all things are working together for my good and for His glory. I may not understand all things, but I know why all things happen. So the proper question for me in the face of tragedy is not, "Why did God let this happen?" Rather, it is, "Do you trust the Lord, even now, even when the pain is great and the grief a burden?" Joachim Neander, who died at only 30 years of age, expressed this truth aptly in the late 1600's in his great hymn, "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty." He wrote:

Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wonderously reigneth,
Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth!
Hast thou not seen How they desires e'er have been
Granted in what He ordaineth?

May God grant us the wisdom to see this truth in the difficulties of our past, and may He give us the wisdom to believe He will do the same in the future.

Burning our Noodle Part 3

I want to ramp things up again for the sake of our sanctification and return to our discussion of God's ordination of all things that come to pass. This is a most frightening thing for us humans, and it can make us feel insignificant and even "robotish" if not handled with care. After all, if God has already predetermined all things, what becomes of human responsibility and free will? While good and natural questions, such thoughts must be answered after we have established whether or not God has ordained things. If He hasn't, then the point is moot.

I want to further suggest that, upon reflection, we will all be much happier and the universe will make far better sense, and that we can have tremendous peace knowing that God is in control and does indeed ordain all things that come to pass. Consider the alternative! That God is not in control of all things, that certain things happen for no reason, and that terrible evil may be propagated without consequence or from which no good arises. That, beloved, is a horrid thought.

So let us examine a few passages that indicate that God has indeed ordained things, even evil things, so that He may receive the glory and that He might triumph over sin and the very evil that was committed. (I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Why would He ordain an evil simply to overcome it?" We'll deal with that in a later noodle burner dealing with human responsibility.) Here are some verses to consider, and do yourself a favor, actually read them and think about the implications before we move on:

Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. (Gen. 15:13-16).

For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. (Acts 4:27-28)

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

Studied over those few examples yet? If you are skimming and trying to get the gist of this, go back and read them! Now you're done? Good.

In the first example, we see that the time of Israel's captivity in Egypt was ordained of God. It would last exactly 400 years, and at the end of that 400 years, God would set them free. Their freedom would come at precisely the right time as well because that would mark the time when their inquity would be complete. We further see that Abraham was promised to have a full life and die in old age, which he did. Every day was numbered and determined by God, and although God does not will that His people be hated and abused, He ordained that very thing by the hand of the Egyptians.

In the second example, we see that it was determined before that Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Gentiles would mock and crucify the Son of God. Bar none, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated by man, yet we see that it was predetermined that this would take place, and that Herod and Pilate would play a part.

Finally, we see in the Acts passage that everyone who was "appointed" to eternal life believed the gospel. If we cannot discern the sovereignty of God in Acts 13:48, I am at a loss as to where we will find it! To these examples we could add many more, and if your curiousity is aroused over this I heartily recommend you avail yourself to this article by John Piper entitled, "Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?". Let me quote from that article some examples he gives:

God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

Tomorrow, God willing, I will continue this by drawing out why this truth of God's Sovereignty is a precious doctrine will bring peace into the suffering of life, especially in the face of unexpected tragedy. After that, we will deal with human responsibility in the face of Divine Sovereignty. I conclude this section with the quote from the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689:

God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass. Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Puritan Reading Challenge Continues!

For those of you who are keeping up, it is now February. I hope that you've finished Richard Sibbes' The Bruised Reed. I confess that I am a few pages short, but I will finish it within the week. It is my second time through the book, and I confess that it has blessed me more the second time through than the first.

The next book we'll read is John Flavel's The Mystery of Providence. I am stoked about it. Hopefully, it will help answer a couple of the "noodle burner" questions about God's orchestration of all things. Hang in there! Keep reading! And if you have a favorite quote from your reading of Sibbes, why don't you share it in the comment section?

Setting it Back to 'Simmer'

I'm working through a few thoughts before I finish my "Burn Your Noodle" provocations. Specifically, I'm thinking about Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism. I know that those words might put you on the edge of your seat with anticipation, but they have brought me to the edge of madness with the implications. I believe that John Calvin was right when he said, "The predestination of God is truly a labyrinth from which the mind of man is wholly incapable of extricating itself. But the curiousity of man is so insistent that the more dangerous it is to inquire into a subject, the more boldly he rushes to do so. Thus when predestiantion is being discussed, because he cannot keep himself within the proper limits, he immediately plunges into the depths of the sea by his impetuosity" (Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and the Thessalonians.) More on that sort of thing in "noodle burning 3".

In the meantime I have another fun problem for everyone, myself included, from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians chapter 7 verse 14. I will quote the passage here, the context concerns Paul's teaching on marriage and why a believer should stay with an unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever is content to stay:

The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Here's are some thoughts to ponder: How can an unbelieving spouse be said to be "holy"? What are the implications of how faith and grace work through a believer in the marriage union? How can it be said that children are "unclean" if they belong to an unbelieving couple, and how does having a believing parent make them holy? I'll anxiously await your thoughts in the comment section.

Burning our Noodle Part 2

It is nearly universally accepted by Christians that God knows everything. We call that God's "omniscience." We have no problem grasping the idea that God knows every person on earth, the atomic structure of an atom, how many stars there are in the galaxy, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop. However, our meditation on God's foreknowledge rarely goes beyond such basic thoughts. The problem comes in when we realize that God's knowledge of the facts may actually create the facts themselves. Let me elaborate a bit.

We tend to make God like us, and so when we think of God knowing something, we think that He knows it like we do. That is, we tend to think of God knowing geometry like we do. He simply has a set of truths and facts memorized and He uses those facts to build things. The problems is that those geometric facts and truths cannot exist outside of God. God does not memorize a set of facts, the facts come into being by His will. Without God willing it, there is no geometry.

This trouble is part of the problem we have with God's foreknowledge of human events. We have the idea that God, somewhere back in "time", started this thing called "creation." After He created things, He sort of looked down the corridor of time into the future to see what would happen. The problem with that is that God did not simply create "Creation" and let it go. He actively ordained whatever comes to pass. Indeed, things cannot come to pass apart from His will because it is by His will that all things consist and hold together (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; 2:10). God is actively sustaining the universe at this very moment, and it cannot exist independently of His will. So God's foreknowledge of something cannot simply mean that God is simply seeing how things will "play out." He has decreed everything that comes to pass.

Another thing that Christians ought to agree on is that everything comes to pass precisely the way God means for them to, and that the end result of the universe is assured. Think on the implications of the Book of Revelation. John saw, over a thousand years ago, what will certainly come to pass at some unknown time in the future. He saw all of the future redeemed, indeed, he saw the full number of them. Each individual that John saw must certainly be there, and every tongue and tribe and nation will certainly be there. The end is assured. Every redeemed soul that John saw will certainly be redeemed, and every condemned soul will certainly be condemned.

The natural question that arises is to wonder, if God has indeed scripted the history of the universe and everything turns out precisely as He means them to, then how can man be said to be free in any real way? And how does our involvement affect the outcome? And where, if God has ordained all things, does evil come from?

While confusing at first, God's sovereignty in all things will turn out to be a great source of hope if understood correctly. Today we have not answered any questions, we've just made the questions a little clearer. Soon, we'll take a look at some evil things that God predetermined to take place and how that harmonizes with human responsibility.

This Will Burn Your Noodle

I want to submit a quote from the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689. I happen to agree, but that does not make the concept any easier to grasp:

God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass. Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Let's break this down since we don't all speak the good English of 1689. First, God decreed all things from eternity, and His decision on how things would be were of His own will and without coercion or being dependant on any creaturely input or action. That's pretty easy to grasp I think. God has decided everything that has happened and will happen and everything will happen just as He meant for it to. The next section makes this clear: Although God knows everything which may or can come to pass under all imaginable conditions, yet He has not decreed anything because He foresaw it in the gurture, or because it would come to pass under certain conditions.

Here's where it gets difficult: if God planned everything, then that include the Fall, sin, famine, hurricanes, tornados, murder, mayhem, and everything else. How can we say that God has planned for, indeed that He decreed all these things, and still come away with a good God? And if that is not enough to burn your noodle, try and imagine the alternative, which is particularly awful: God did not ordain all things that come to pass, and some certain events are random and even gratuitous! That is, some events, particularly tragic ones, serve no redemptive purpose at all.

Think on these things and we'll come back to look a little more into second causes and man's volition. Hope you've got your coffee/tea in hand for this!

Onward, Thinking Baptist

Yesterday, I paid a visit to a retired Southwestern Baptist Seminary professor. During his tenure, he saw around 25,000 students come through his classes and oversaw well over 50 Ph.D's. His name is Dr. Leon Marsh, and he is quite the character at a spry 87.

I enjoy Dr. Marsh's wit, and one then that he said made me laugh and it made me sad. He said, "Son, if you'll be a thinking Baptist you'll find that you don't have any competition." I hate it, but I am afraid he's pretty on target there, at he has been. I hope that things are changing.

Dr. Marsh and I do not agree on many things. He claims to be a 3 point Calvinist with a laugh. His idea of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures are not the same. I did not argue with him but I let him have say his mind. I enjoyed his banter and candidness if not his theology. His love of Christ was evident, and his joy at our visit was apparent. I was thankful to have gone and hope to go back.

His comment on being a thinking Baptist stuck in my head. Thinking, after all, is no easy task. Even though many Baptists have grown up under "Bible teaching," I find that few have been forced to think through Scripture. Few have dealt with Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 concerning election. Few want to deal with the warnings against apostasy in Hebrews. We have no idea, in general, of what to do with the Old Testament and the law and grace relationship. I believe that the greatest struggle that many have endured revolves around church music, and that is sad. A good debate over theology and coffee is a about the best thing in the world. After all, how will we be conformed to truth if our errors are never confronted, and conversely, won't we be more grounded in the truth and confident of it after it survives a hearty challenge?

So I hope that the Church I pastor will be a thinking church. And I hope that we will trust one another enough to allow our assumptions about things to be questioned Scripturally.

Woody Allen and the Meaning of Life

I have a strange sort of appreciation for Woody Allen, though I can't say that I've ever seen a single one of his many films. My entire sympathy for Allen rests in the interviews and comments that I read about him from time to time. Some day, I may have a Woody Allen film fest to get to know him a little better.

Today I read another interview/excerpt about Woody Allen, and it did a good job of expressing his hopeless world view. Here is a quote for you to get the feel of his philosophy, "The fact that there is no god and that we're alone in the universe makes it more important than ever to act decently, but people don't, very frequently." Allen believes that there is no God at all, and yet he persistently and stubbornly insists that people ought to "act decently." The natural response to that is, "Why, Woody, should we act decently then?" It seems that it is precisely this sort of question that has driven his most recent films.

His latest film, "Cassandra's Dream," demonstrates Allen's struggle with this very question. He says, "I've always felt that the worst kind of crimes and sometimes not the worst crimes often go unpunished. Everyday, from genocide in the political spectrum to street crime, people do terrible things and get away with it." If there is no God, then Allen is precisely right, which again begs the question of why people ought to "act decently." Allen has no good answer for that.

Eventually, this sort of reasoning must lead one to ponder why to live at all, which is another thing that Allen ponders. What, exactly, is the point of life. Here's Allen again, "I feel the trick is to try and find, not meaning, because there is no meaning, but to try and find some enjoyment in that context and know that it's meaningless, short, nasty, brutal, and still, you know, find a modicum of enjoyment, get what you can get out of it, which is not a lot." Can you see the connection between believing that there is no God to the inevitable conclusion that there is no meaning to life? Once God is erased from the equation, one is left with a meaningless existence in which the best one can hope for is to scratch a "modicum of enjoyment" out of life.

This leads to the final Allen quote in the article. His philosophy of life eventually cause people to ask him the ultimate question. Here he answers in his own words, "People say, `Well, why go on at all?' Camus' question, why choose life? And the only answer I can ever give to that is we seem to be hard-wired to. The brain asks the questions, but the blood says live. So if a guy comes in here with a gun, you do everything you can to get it away from him. You do whatever you can to live. You bargain, you lie, you jump on top of him.

"You're hard-wired for self-preservation, but when you think about it cerebrally, why, to what end, what am I savoring here? And you can't really think of a good answer, so you give up and say, `I can't think of an answer, but my body fights to live, so I'm not going to resist that. I'm going to go along and trust the impulse toward life."

I find Woody Allen interesting because his reasoning is sound. He is right to say that if there is no God, then art and life and love and everything here is meaningless. I like reading about him because he is clearly uncomfortable, or so it seems, with this dismal outlook. His philosophy forces him to admit that horrible crimes will ultimately go unpunished, and that truly, there is no reason to go on living because life is both meaningless and without purpose. In his films, he struggles with this Godless reality. I grieve for him and for others like him who can have no hope for any meaning beyond fleeting, worldly pleasures.

Perhaps you wonder why I find this interesting at all and not simply morbid. I find it interesting because Woody Allen displays the inherent hopelessness of a godless universe and the bleak truth that without God, there truly is no purpose in the anything. That explanation will never satisfy one made in the image of God. Fallen as we are, we still long for something more than that. I hope that Woody Allen can find mercy in Jesus Christ, in whom we find purpose and justice and meaning for life.

Quote of the Day

I may put up a quote each day from the current Puritan Paperback I'm reading. The next several should come from Richad Sibbes' The Bruised Reed. Here is today's quote:

It would be a good contest amongst Christians, one to labour to give no offence, and the other to labour to take none.

An Exciting Project

One of the first things I desire to do here at Mt. Calvary is to take the church through the church covenant. It is my goal, and I believe my duty as a minister, to have oversight of the membership of the church. Technically, that means I am currently responsible for some 1,200 souls. Of that number, we have had in the 250's present on Sunday mornings for worship. That makes for quite a large number being unaccounted for!

I believe that these absentee members, to the best of our ability, need to be contacted. First, we need to find out why they aren't attending, as is their duty (and joy!) in the Lord. Then we may be able to seek reconciliation for them to the body, or else we may remove them from the membership role. This sounds harsh in modern ears, but it is a necessary part of serious, loving church ministry.

In order for the body of Christ here to understand this, it will be important to understand the obligation and responsibility of every member who joins this covenant fellowship. To that end, I plan on teaching through the church covenant this Sunday night, beginning with the Baptist Faith and Message.

As I am certain is fairly typical across the Baptist landscape, Mt. Calvary has never made the transition from the 1963 BFM to the 2000 BFM. I doubt this is due to any opposition, but rather it is most likely attributable to the lack of zeal in amending constitutions and by-laws. This gives me, as a pastor, a great opportunity to teach through the BFM, to highlight the revisions and the reasons behind them, and to point out those things which remain the same. The BFM is foundational for our covenant since has been adopted as our statement of faith.

It will be an ambitious project. We have suspended all other classes on Sunday nights until this is finished. It is my goal to be finished in eight weeks. From these classes, I will endeavor to create a prospective members class that will be a pre-requisite to membership. It is only fair that someone seeking to join with this fellowship knows what their obligations and responsibilities are before they actually join.

I am looking forward to this time of learning. I believe that if other churches would do something similar, we may find our associations to be strengthened and many problems addressed.

The Puritan Reading Challenge

Timmy Brister has issued a challenge this year to read one Puritan paperback per month. The books he has listed are quite excellent, and they are by no means impossible to get through. In fact, the first one is a personal favorite which I have blogged on here: Richard Sibbes' "The Bruised Reed." I encourage you to take up the challenge with me. The total reading will be about 7 pages a day. I think you can handle it! (Of course, the Puritans are sometimes a little harder to digest than modern fluff, but they are worth the effort.)

Here is the list:

January: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes (128 pp)
February: The Mystery of Providence by John Flavel (221 pp)
March: The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson (252 pp)
April: Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices by Thomas Brooks (253 pp)
May: Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ by John Bunyan (225 pp)
June: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen (130 pp)
July: A Lifting Up for the Downcast by William Bridge (287 pp)
August: The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs (228 pp)
September: The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton (224 pp)
October: The Christian’s Great Interest by William Guthrie (207 pp)
November: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (256 pp)
December: A Sure Guide to Heaven by Joseph Alleine (148 pp)

Go to Timmy's website and encourage him in this if you will. Also, there are some package deals being offered through his site for the books. Here's the link: The 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge

Family and God's Glory

Last night at the student service I spoke on the 5th Commandment and highlighted its importance. It is, as Paul notes, the first commandment with a promise attached. "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you" (Exodus 20:12). My first point to show, in general, why honoring of parents is critical to society for it to function. This, I said, should be self-evident even to those who are not believer's.

The second and third points revovled around the idea that parent-child relationships mirror God's love for us and even serve as a parable for God's love relationship within Himself. That is, we are told by Jesus to call God "Father" as we pray, and Jesus is called God's beloved "Son." When God expresses His affection toward us and His Son, He most often employs the language of family.

This lesson reminded me of the horrors of divorce and the chaos we may reap as a society due to the breakdown of the family. It further drove home the challenge of communicating God's love and relationship to a generation that has never known a father or mother in a healthy relationship. Unless God does a great work, the problem will only get worse.

Francis Schaeffer was told a parable involving parking lot stripes. He said that the reason we can park without chaos is because we have a striped parking lot so we know where to put our cars. He likened a rebellious generation as a generation who removes the stripes. They, despite their rebellion, are still able to park with some semblance of order because they still have a memory of the order the stripes brought. However, the next generation will devolve into chaos piled up at the front door of the supermarket because they have never seen parking lot stripes and have no idea how to maintain order. The divorce of the last generation was terrible, but at least the parents knew how a marriage was supposed to look and how parents should relate to their children. The next generation has no such luxury.

So I am grieved this morning that words like "father", especially father, are nearly a semantic blank for many of our country's youth. Instead of instilling feelings of peace, love, protection, and safety, "father" brings up memories of abandon, anger, and neglect. How very sad for such children, and what a stumbling block to faith that is. This is yet another way in which the image of God has grown dim in us.

The only hope I have, and this is the only hope I ever have, is that in His grace, God will be a father to the fatherless. I know that He is able to rebuild that which is fallen and to repair that which is broken. That is my prayer this morning for those who have no idea the great joy that is ours when we say "Our Father."

Textual Variance at Its Aggravating Finest

For the second time in my life, I am endeavoring to preach through the book of Genesis on Sunday Morning. I believe that if God ever calls me to another work, I will do so again. I believe that Genesis, and actually the Torah in general (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), is the foundation upon which the rest of Scripture rests. Indeed, if you read the prophets, especially John's Revelation, you will find that the prophets are speaking "Torah."

Nevertheless, I am now faced for the second time with a very difficult textual variant in Genesis. Here is how the New King James translates the text:
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it" (Gen. 2:15). This makes it seem as if the first duty of man in the garden is to work and cultivate the garden paradise. There's only one problem: the pronouns don't agree in the Hebrew. In the Hebrew, there are pronouns attached to the words translated "tend" and "keep". Literally, it would be to "tend it" and to "keep it." In Hebrew, these pronouns are feminine. The thing which they seem to refer to later in the verse, "garden", is actually a masculine noun. The problem is that the pronouns should agree in gender with the antecedent, or the noun they are representing, which they don't.

Now the OT Hebrew did not origninally have vowels. These vowel points were added by a group called the Masoretes who worked on the text between the 7th and 11th century A.D. If you take away the vowel points and search have a translation which would correspond with gender agreement, the text becomes, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to worship and obey." The only commentary that I know of that directly addresses this gender-bender problem is Dr. John Sailhamer's The Pentateuch as Narrative. Even the usually super-scholarly Keil and Delitzsch pass over it without comment. The only one who even seems to notice is Victor Hamilton in his commentary in the New International Commentary of the Old Testament series. He writes in a footnote:

The pronominal suffix "it" on "dress" and "keep" is feminine. "Garden" is masculine. Does this indicate thtat the reference is to the ground/earth (fem.) in the garden that man is to till and tend? Or is it the case that many nouns deoting places have a variable gender (GKC 1221)? I am inclined to prefer the former explanation, if only for the fact that nowhere else is gan treated as feminine.

Now, you aren't already asleep, I want to pose to you a question. If you knew about this, would you bring it up in your lesson? Does it change how you view this verse? How would you address it in a sermon? Would you? Just some food for thought. Comments appreciated.

Hiatus Over?

Wow. I haven't posted a thing since December 20th. I've been a little busy moving, getting started at a new church, and trying to get my books in some recognizable and findable order on my new book shelves. Books are like dear friends. I like to be surrounded by them at all times. My philosophy in life is to buy books, and if I have any money left, I buy food.

So I suppose this little post means that I am back in the blogworld, even if it means I have to come in a little earlier to post my thoughts. I need to write. It helps me think.

Packing and Moving

There is only one thing in the world worse than packing and moving I'm told, and that's helping someone pack and move. I have no time for creativity, and my paltry posting demonstrates. As soon as I get settled on the mountain, I'm sure I'll have something erudite and exhortative to say.