As you can tell from my blog, I’m of the opinion that Christians undervalue the importance of celebration, feasting and holidays – not the least of which is Christian holidays (formerly thought of as holy-days). Along with the proper concern and criticism of “commercialism,” Christians need to embrace the good that in Christian Christmas celebrations, including the purchasing and giving of gifts.

Stev Wilkins has written a delightful piece on Christmas giving that I am pleased to pass on: Shopping and the true meaning of Christmas

Doug Wilson posted his recent sermon on the subject of the Theology of Christmas Gifts, and I have included the video and the text (for those that do not have the time or patience to watch or listen to it, although there is more material in the actual sermon).

Doug Wilson’s INTRODUCTION:
One of the most obvious features of our Christmas celebrations is the gift-giving. How are we to understand this as Christians? What are the pitfalls? Are all the pitfalls obvious? Because our lives are to be lives of grace, and because charis means grace or gift, this is something we have to understand throughout the course of our lives, and not just at Christmas. But it has to be said that the machinery of our consumer racket does throw the question into high relief for us at this time of year.

THE TEXT:
“And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Mt 2:11).

SUMMARY OF THE TEXT:
The first Christmas gifts were given by the magi to the young child Jesus. This happened sometime within the Lord’s first two years of life. Because three kinds of treasures are mentioned—gold, frankincense, and myrrh—it is often inferred that there were three wise men. There may have been, but we don’t know. What we do know is that the gifts were very costly. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Christmas, Doug Wilson, Gifts

Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll (Part II) | Spiritual Gifts & Cessationism

This interview was filmed in the context of the Grace Agenda, hosted by Credenda/Agenda and Canon Press, ministries of Christ Church, in Moscow, Idaho. You may purchase DVD and CD of all the talks at Canon Press.

In this video Doug Wilson interviewed Mark Driscoll with questions of the spiritual gifts and whether the Holy Spirit continues to provide revelation to people today. Driscoll holds to a non-cessationist reading of the Bible. It is an interesting discussion and worth some attention for “Reformed” Christians that take seriously the Bible and how we are to minister in the world.

Driscoll gave several examples of how God spoke to him, and the Holy Spirit provided occasional insights while working with people. Driscoll also talked about having visions (i.e. seeing in his mind something that he happened without being present). Wilson’s qualifying questions about these experiences are very helpful, and provided Driscoll with an opportunity explain himself.

Whether Driscoll is a “cessationist” in the sense that most Reformed folks think of it I am still not sure – but I doubt it. He does not think that God is still adding to the Bible. And yet, the Holy Spirit has not gone away, and, in fact, actively works in our lives to illumine the scriptures to us, and provide insight into things – somethings inexplicably.

If this is what Driscoll means by talking about his being a “non-cessationalist” – It would describe my belief as well! Maybe I’m a Mars Hill/Driscoll type charismatic?

What the video, if for no other reason that it is fun to watch these godly men banter back and forth!

Tags: Cessationism, Doug Wilson, Mark Driscoll, Spiritual Gifts

 Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll: Men & Masculinity

This interview was filmed in the context of the Grace Agenda, hosted by Credenda/Agenda and Canon Press, ministries of Christ Church, in Moscow, Idaho.

In this fun and fascinating discussion between two of the most effective, controversial and interesting Christian leaders of our time, Doug asked a number of compelling questions about Mark’s ministry at Mars Hill over the years. What most appealed to me about this dialogue was Mark’s thoughts about the importance of the Church in the life of young men – and – the importance o f young men to the church.

I really appreciated Driscoll’s perspective on the need to have young men mentored by older men. He said (paraphrasing here) ‘Young men do not want to be controlled, but are glad to be influenced by men who love them and are for them and want to help them. If you hold a young man back for too long you run the risk of the fire going out of them. They need to be trained to do something.’

Mars Hill has done wonderful work, not only in their communities where they have planted churches, but also in the way they have motivated and mobilized young men to take hold of the Kingdom of God and get busy. There may be a good many things to quibble about with the Mars Hill ministries – but we also have important things to learn from them as well.

Enjoy the fellowship of two co-laborers in the Kingdom of God!

“I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.

I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one.

I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father.

I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.” (1 John 2:12–14, NKJV)

Tags: Church, Church Planting, Doug Wilson, Mark Driscoll, masculinity

Sheep Calmly Awaiting the Slaughter

I’ve had enough conversations now about the recent news about the policy changes in the TSA that I think it’s time for me to weigh in just a little.  When it first was reported that the TSA would be increasing its security checks at airports I didn’t think much of it. But as the reports became more voluminous and clear about what these changes entailed I became a bit more alarmed. Finally, as it became clear that women and children were being searched bodily in some very inappropriate ways (which are illegal in most other contexts) – I asked myself how I would feel if my wife and daughter were forced into the situations described. My answer to my own question caused me to be moved from alarm to indignation. How is it that it makes sense to people that they should have freedom over other people’s lives like this – and even worse, we have become so fearful of boogie-men that we willingly give over our rights and freedoms without so much as a whimper. We have become so dependent on our Large Male Sibling that we will do whatever he thinks is in our own best interests. We have, as a people, become so accustom to the bureaucratic intrusions of the State that we could find someday that we have been led as sheep to the slaughter.

I now offer the following for your consideration – Since these guys have said it so much better than I ever could.

Doug Wilson

Doug Wilson recently blogged about the issue: Touching Sensitive Areas, or TSA For Short

He says: “Here are some points to keep in mind as the controversy about the TSA wends it way through our various news cycles and perhaps, let us hope, into a bill in the new Congress.

1. It does the old heart good to see people get riled up with government incompetence and . . . what’s the word I am looking for? Nincompoopery, I believe that’s it…”and so forth!

Steve Schlissel

Steve Schlissel also commented on the …. in his online article: America’s Terminal Case
He wrote, in part:

“Brothers, there has not been a more important issue smooshed in our faces in our adult lifetimes. Our government is claiming the RIGHT to feel up our women and daughters (not to mention our selves and sons). It alleges that this is necessary for national security. The first thing to understand-as in deeply, so it is completely absorbed: If this is our means of preserving the republic, it means THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD. It means the enemy has won, has triumphed. For here we behold an America which has fully turned us against ourselves, has turned us into something we never were, which we fought and bled vowing we’d never become, into something we stood with all our being against.”

Gary North

Even Gary North has something to say about the situation (surprised?). He begins his article this way:

As a 40-year student of bureaucracy, beginning with Ludwig von Mises’s great little book, Bureaucracy (1944), I have come to recognize a series of near laws governing bureaucracy. This one is, as far as I can see, unbreakable, comparable to the law of gravity.

Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both.

There is no way to write the rules so that some bonehead in the system will not find a way to become a thorn in someone’s side – a thorn that cries out for removal.

There are corollaries to this iron law of bureaucracy.

1. The bureaucrat in question will not back down unless forced to from above.
2. His superiors will regard any public resistance to the interpretation as an attack on the bureaucracy’s legitimate turf.
3. The bureaucracy’s senior spokesman will defend the policy as both legitimate and necessary.
4. Politicians will be pressured by voters to have the policy changed.
5. The bureaucracy will tell the politicians that disaster will follow any such modification of the policy.
6. The public will finally get used to it.
7. The politicians will switch to some other national crisis.
8. The internal manual will then be rewritten by the senior bureaucrats to make the goof-ball application mandatory.
9. Senior management will increase the budget so as to enforce the new policy.
10. Politicians will acquiesce to this increased budget.

This leads me to North’s law of bureaucratic expansion:

Any outrageous interpretation of a bureaucratic rule, if widely resisted by the public, will lead to an increased appropriation for the bureaucracy within two fiscal years.

There is an exception.

If the enforcement of the interpretation requires major expenditures for new equipment, the process will take only one fiscal year.

“All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.”

Isaiah 53: 6-7 tells us that the Lord Jesus was led as a lamb to the slaughter when He willingly laid down His life for us (1 Peter 2:21-25; Acts 8:32-33). We too are called upon to suffer wrong at times for His sake, and for sake of the Kingdom of God. And yet, we are given the privilege of living in a country that assures us the freedom to object to wrongs done against us by our leaders. We do not have to act like sheep to the slaughter because we have a Shepherd that has gone before us, and now sits at the Father’s right hand ruling all things for our sakes. We are not sheep without a Shepherd – we are the sheep of His pasture. And we are given the responsibility to do all in our power to make disciples of the nations. We don’t make disciples by willingly being herded by false shepherds and wicked rulers. We live and speak the words of Christ, who conquers His and our enemies with the sword that comes out of His mouth (Rev. 19). Let us not be silent suffers who have no voice – Let us boldly declare the good news that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, has come to make free to serve Him!

Tags: bureaucracy, Doug Wilson, freedom, Gary North, oppression, Politics, Steve Schlissel, TSA

Back in the early 1990′s I had the opportunity to review a book by Doug Wilson (which I did not like in any way) called, Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists, (Moscow, Idaho: Ransom Press, n.d.) A short booklet which makes three objections to Reconstructionist writings, i.e. in regard to tone, humility, and exegetical method (namely – The Interpretive Maximalism of James Jordan), and offers Biblical counsel in each of these areas. From what I remember of the book, and subsequent conversations I had with Doug about the issue not long after it was published – he had grave concerns about Jordan’s biblical hermeneutic. From his perspective, at the time, he didn’t see how Jordan’s interpretations of various passages and the connections he was making between passages were limited by any meaningful rules of interpretation. Thus, a maximal approach, as he called it, could potentially make a text say whatever the interpreter decided, without regard to what the biblical author intended to communicate.

Doug has obviously changed his perspective on Jordan’s works, especially, Through New Eyes.

Through New Eyes

by James B. Jordan

Jordan wrote an article for the Biblical Horizons Newsletter that explain some of what he understood  Interpretive Minimalism to be: No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”?

I understand the value of Doug’s analysis of Interpretive Maximalism and Interpretive Minimalism, but it is certainly true that those who would advocate Interpretive Minimalism also find things in the text that simply are not there – usually “religious” stuff as moderns understand “religion” or psychological lessons. Interpretive Minimalism interpretations of the OT text, for example, can be quite fantastic and imaginative when it comes to pulling out psychological lessons from stories.

The Minimum and Maximum labels are only marginally helpful because it makes them even, like both have an equal amount of usefulness and problems. It also implies some kind of middle ground that’s to be preferred. We should want to get it all, even if it means grabbing some weeds with the fruit, because the difference between the two methods of interpretation is that Minimalism doesn’t want to get it all, but the “too far” of Maximalism will only grow for a time before it withers away. Interpretive Maximalism solves its own problems.

Once person interacting with Doug’s video said: “If were changed the terms to One Eyed Interpretation and Two Eyes (two new eyes) Interpretation there’d be a different response.”

Tags: Doug Wilson, hermeneutics, Interpretive Maximallism, James B. Jordan