This just in from the Onion News Network (a favorite news organization of mine)

Musical Instruments in Worship – James B Jordan

From our Reformation Covenant Church Family Camp

Here is another talk that Jim gave at camp that provides some of his general thoughts about music in the church.

The Confusing World of Modern Sexuality

When Rich  Bledsoe was with us at Family Camp he mentioned a paper he wrote: Sex and the City, which we have now placed on the RCC website.  It is an interesting piece of  biblical social commentary worth thinking about.

Bledsoe contrasts the great ancient cities with the great city of God, the New Jerusalem and their respective sexual commitments and activities. At the base of his comments is the presupposition that it is important for us to think about cities because “the entire planet is “metropolizing. Everywhere, human  beings are leaving their rural roots and are moving into the city.”

He says that, biblically, cities are portrayed as and symbolized as women. “Both of the cities at the Bible’s end are feminine, and  both are symbolized by women…The first city [in Revelation] is Babylon the Great who becomes the Whore of  Babylon [metaphorically, Jerusalem]. The second is the new Jerusalem who becomes the Bride of Christ…The power of sexual relationship, and the fact of metropolis belong together. The city is the great trysting place, the place of renewal or destruction of relationship, the place where souls and bodies are  bought and sold, or where truth and fidelity create new life.”

What is so helpful in this article is the assertion that “the sexualization and exclusiveness of marriage was the gift of the Torah and  of Judaism…the model for both parenting and for marriage as found in the Old Testament is found in Jehovah’s relationship to Israel and Jerusalem as Father and finally as Husband. All peoples model themselves on their gods, and Israel likewise modeled herself on he God she belonged to.”

As post-Christian society has emerged in the West, corresponding Christian sexual morality has been receding as a foundation for cultural morality. Christian ethics is being replace by pagan “polymorphous sexuality” that is reflective of ancient worldviews and practices. And just as Christianity has always been intolerant of other religious and ethical systems, so too, modern society is increasingly hostile toward both Christ and Christian morality. Just as most ancient pagan cultures used sex as an expression of their religious commitments and cultus, so too, modern cultures use sex as an expression of liberation from Christianity.  Again,  Bledsoe:

Both of these cities (in Revelation: Babylon the Great and the New Jerusalem) are now active historical powers…Real cities in the real world partake of the reality of both of these cities right now…A city that worships like Babylon the Great, will be a city that models its sexual relationships after the harlot and the beast and the kinds. A city that worships as a part of the new Jerusalem will model its marital covenant after the Bride and her Husband.  The question is which city will dominate in any given city in the world in which we live. One city is corrupt..and is under judgment…given to destruction. The other city is the city of the glory of God and the glorified humanity…where ultimately all human potentialities are fulfilled…The first city is marked by sexual debauchery…the second is marked by fidelity and love in the bonds of marriage.

He goes on to demonstrate that any culture that lacks sexual discipline and commitment to monogamous marriage will be unable to sustain their cultural energy and creativity, resulting in weakness and decline. True cultural greatness requires moral and intellectual discipline and focus that is undissipated by meaningless and distracting sexuality. Without a committed and future oriented sexuality – no culture has any meaningful  future to anticipate.

Creation of Adam

Ostensible [Neo-Evangelical] Conservatives Temper Longman & Peter Enns both have a difficult time with the biblical record of creation  – and while wanting to be faithful to the Bible (we should seldom try to read motives into other peoples’ statements – but I do so with a judgment of charity) they are in effect more faithful to the world’s conception of reality than Paul or Luke or Jude.

Open questions about whether the Bible actually means to teach that Adam was a literal father to all mankind (a highly “literalistic way of reading Genesis ,” oh, my – not that!), or whether there is possibly an evolutionary process, and the word Adam just stands for “mankind” in general? Hmmmmmmm. What else could be an open question?

Does God Talk to Us Through Fiction? Unpacking a Non-Literal Interpretation of the Bible

If there is real reason to doubt that God created a literal Adam from whom all mankind descended isn’t there also reason to doubt the Bible’s claims about the second Adam – Jesus the Christ, the God- man? Perennially, this has been the crux of the matter. Is Jesus who He claims to be? Is Jesus who the Apostles and the NT claims Him to be? If not, we remain in our sins for He could never be the biblical sacrifice for our sins, nor could He forgive sins. If Jesus is not God in human flesh – we have no hope in this world or in eternity. But if He is the God-man He is the Lord of all as the Creator-God, and the Lord and sustainer of all things. As J. Gresham Machen said in “On the Deity of Christ”:

But now is Christ our Saviour, the one who says, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” revealed as very God. And we believe. Such a faith is a mystery to us who possess it; it seems folly to those who have it not. But if possessed it delivers us forever from fear. The world to us is all unknown; it is engulfed in an ocean of infinity. But it contains no mysteries to our Saviour. He is on the throne. He pervades the remotest bounds. He inhabits infinity. With such a Saviour we are safe.

Baalism says the Sun married the Mud and the world came up. Egypt said so to. So does modern “science.” The difference is that what were personal forces back then are now impersonal forces. And that ain’t a dime’s worth of difference.

Not Reformed Enough

WARNING: I know this post will be controversial – Which I seldom am here.

I have, for the last few years, become exceedingly concerned about how important it is for some people to be “Reformed” and “Confessional” and “Traditional.” I have seen, read and heard people express this commitment in ways that are sectarian beyond description, blind to the history of both the Reformation and Confessional development, and subordinate the scriptures to systematic theology (which is necessary and inescapable), confessionalism, and modern expressions Calvinism that little resembles Calvin or the 16th century Reformers. Brothers are wiling to discard, discipline and destroy brothers for the sake of what they consider matters of such great importance that the gospel is at stake.

Without agreeing with every point below (which I clearly do not), I offer the following thoughtful satire to illustrate the way this goes from”The Institute”:

This poor schmuck just ain’t Reformed enough for “The Gospel”

The poor schmuck in the photo doesn’t believe “the Gospel” because he struggles with some combination of the following (like me, Doug Hayes). He:

(1) Does not believe that any Reformed confession is divinely inspired and understands a confession to be a consensus document to provide theological space for differences so people can get along and get to work. Subscription to a Confession is the floor not the ceiling.
(2) Believes that the Hebrew word for “day” does not limit the days of creation to a literal 24 hour-day cycle.
(3) Actually thought that “Reformed and always Reforming” was true (what an idiot, what a schmuck).
(4) Believes that Christianity started before 1517.
(5) Does not find evidence in the Bible that drums, guitars, etc. are prohibited in Scripture or that the Bible prescribes everything in worship
(5.5) Does not believe the liturgies of the Geneva and other Reformation churches provide the closed canon for liturgical style in worship.
(6) Reads N.T. Wright (even if he doesn’t agree with Wright on key issues). The poor schmuck didn’t know that reading Wright defiles you and requires priestly purification. Wright reading will land you outside the city gate. (Personal note: this is why I haven’t really read much Wright, and probably won’t, but I do read Thomas Sowell).
(7) Believes that baptized covenant children should be treated as such throughout the liturgical life of the church and not quarantined to “youth and children’s” ministries for outsourced spiritual nurture.
(7.5) Wonders why the Lord’s Supper has such a low sacramental role in “Gospel-centered,” “Christ-centered” Reformed churches that Christ’s people only partake of it monthly (maybe) following the Methodist practice of using grape juice instead of wine like Jesus said? Seriously, grape juice? Why not grape soda or grape kool-aid?
(8) Believes that the tradition of adopting Sunday as “The Lord’s Day” allows him to watch football on Sunday, or even play the game if he’s in shape enough for physical activity (warning: please see a doctor before beginning strenuous physical activity).
(9) Has come to learn that church judicial courts actually play out on the internet (blogs) instead of following denominational procedures developed in accordance with Matt 18 and other conflict resolution passages. Oops! Did you know that blogs are credible and authoritative?
(10) Is willing to say when Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and others Christian communions “get it right” theologically or otherwise (esp. social issues).
(11) Does not conflate “The Church” of Jesus Christ with his denomination.
(12) Believes the 1973 publication of Rousas J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law and in 1977 of Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics both missed the mark (theologically) in key areas.
(13) Remembers the Norman Shepherd controversy on the relationship between justification and the covenant and understands that this new N.T. Wright controversy may just be a variation on theme regarding the level of Lutheran centrality of that doctrine for all Protestants.
(14) Is not a Republican or, even more worse, confesses to be a Democrat–even though libertarianism is more consistent with Althusius!! (haha–fodder for another discussion).
(15) Is more concerned about what women can do in the life of the church than what women cannot do. Rejects the notion that women exist primarily for managing the Kingdom’s hospitality, teaching children, making crafts, baking for church functions and knitting.
(16) Wonders why it is that when conservative Baptist folk join Presbyterian churches those churches tend to become Bapto-Presbyterian with the only distinction between 1st Prez and 1st Baptist being the baptizing of children (maybe) and the occasional consumption cheap beer and bottom-shelf alcohol (maybe). Everything else is the same (Lord’s supper, “youth” ministry, etc.).
(17) Knows that SEC is the best college football conference in America!!

At any rate, the schmuck deserves the stones to hit him right in the head. He should have known better? What a schmuck? Idiot.

I thought I was being provocative with my list and then I saw a similar list here so I added a couple. I hate not being original!!!

by Anthony Bradley

Cranach law and grace woodcut

John Frame

John Frame is Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, and author of numerous important works (the bolded titles below I have read and recommend – the others I have either not read or cannot recommend):

Van Til , the Theologian (1976)

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (1987)
Medical Ethics (1988)

Perspectives on the Word of God (1990)

Evangelical Reunion (1991)

Apologetics to the Glory of God (1994)
Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought (1995)

Worship in Spirit and Truth (1996)

Contemporary Music: a Biblical Defense (1997)

The Doctrine of God (2002)
Salvation Belongs to the Lord (2006)

Frame has admirably battled what has become a popular theology in Reformed circles known as “Two Kingdoms” theology. Here is a link to a recent article that deals with both Natural Law theory of ethics and epistemology and the “Two Kingdoms” theology.

Here is another article by Frame taking on Michael Horton, another popularizer of the “Two Kingdoms” theology.

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.”

Although I have never personally encountered it, Open Theism is something that has been growing over the last several years. Some of the college students at church have been taught it at their “Christian” universities.

Books, articles and blog posts have been written to address the errors of Open Theism – A couple of which I can highly recommend:   No Other God: No Other God: A Response to Open Theism

No Other God: A Response to Open Theism by John M. Frame

Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism (Paperback) by Douglas Wilson

Doug Hayes’ goodreads reviews >

Here is an three part audio series that I received from Uri Brito, Pastor of Providence Church, who is also one of the hosts of Trinity Talk, a live internet radio show on BlogTalkRadio. In the two part series below Joel Garver gives his interesting perspective on Open Theism.

Answering Open Theism, Part 1

Answering Open Theism, Part 2

Answering Open Theism, Part 3

The issue of Open Theism is one of those pesky problems in the church that first requires grounding the family of God firmly in a deeply Biblical, Confessional and orthodox understanding of who God is – so that they can readily see and reject it. When I first read about Open Theism I was astonished to hear that Evangelicals would be in any way tempted to believe such claims. It is an indication to how ignorant many of the Children of God are about God and His Word.

I received information from Dennis Tuuri about “Q”, a group founded by a fella named Gabe Lyons to “reintroduce Christians to what had seemed missing in recent decades from an American expression of Christian faithfulness; valuing both personal and cultural renewal, not one over the other.”

The Mission of Q:

“Q” educates church and cultural leaders on their role and opportunity to embody the Gospel in public life.

We believe that exposure to old and new ideas is the best way to stimulate imagination for ways the Gospel can be expressed within our cultural context.

Q has annual conferences in major cities throughout the United States to promote Christian Cultural Awareness and to encourage Christians to effectively serve in their cities. Q 2011 will be in Portland, Oregon. A promotional video, Getting the Portland Vibe, can be viewed on their website. According to these guys, “Portland is Jesus’ favorite city!”

By making this post I am not endorsing this organization or event. Rather, I’m hoping to stimulate conversation about what it means for us to minister to cities. These guys are interested in creatively engaging with the culture of our cities in non-threatening ways. This may, indeed, be something we need to learn. However, it may also be, as one person I know said of it, “It’s just good old fashioned social gospel liberalism in a new dress. Gasp!”

We need to be wise to understand our times and preach the gospel into the culture God has placed us AND we need to be sure that we are actually confronting and renewing the culture for Christ. A good question to always be asking in enterprises like this is: Who is converting who?

I plan to spend some time reading some of their blog posts, essays, watching some of the videos to not only learn what they are about, but also to see if they have any creative ideas that we should be considering. Not only so, I’m interested in some of their styles, methods and approaches to things.

Maybe you would care to comment on some of the content of the site?

This is a debate that included someone that I know of, Steve Jeffery, from one the email news groups I am a member of. This debate is between Jacques More (non-Calvinist) and Dr. Steve Jeffery (Calvinist). Jacques More is on You Tube and his channel name is GraceTruthGuy: http://www.youtube.com/gracetruthguy Also, here is the link to Jacques personal website: http://www.jarom.net Dr. Steve Jeffery is a minister at Emmanuel Evangelical Church- http://www.northlondonchurch.org There is more information about each debater at the beginning of the debate.

From the the Refuting Calvinism YouTube Channel: RefutingCalvinism – June 02, 2010 |

In a provocative blog post, Anthony Bradley, raises penetrating questions that I wanted to pass on. He writes:

The secret to the PCA’s multi-year decline may be primarily external to a denomination that is losing its ability to connect and lead an American culture that is increasingly multi-ethnic and non-white, as many are now arguing. The internal issues of new generations, missional emphasis vs. traditionalists, and so on may, in fact, be more tangential to a larger external reality: the PCA primarily appeals to a dying demographic and is, therefore, being left behind by global Christianity. Is the PCA’s cultural captivity to white, Western culture (including Southern white culture) going to make it increasingly irrelevant to a global Christian world that is primarily African, Asian, and Latin American?

Unfortunately, his questions are directed to his denomination, the PCA – a focus I would like to expand to all of North American Protestant Christians. It would seem to me that we, at Reformation Covenant Church, and in our denomination, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and most of the churches in our land need to be asking themselves similar questions.

The Next Evangelicalism

Bradley uses Soong-Chan Rah’s book, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity as a basis for his comments, and to to answer this question, “Is the PCA being held hostage by white, Western (and Southern) cultural captivity?”

As the gospel goes out into the world over time – Christ, by His Spirit, transforms people, institutions, social structures and whole cultures in ways generally unanticipated by those preaching the Word. Christ confronts our biases, misapprehensions of the truth, prejudices and hard-heartedness as we clash with new problems and new opportunities.

While I like Bradley’s desire to sensitize us to the need to see the world differently than we often do, like so many other helpful missional/missions tends books, he tends to reduce the problem to a power struggle between the establishment and the disenfranchised, between the rich and poor, between white people and all the other races, between the West and East, etc. As if it’s possible, by sheer force of will, the reforming of minds and social structures, to just move into an age without such cultural divides in the church.

The Next Christendom

It seems to me that the problems raised by Bradley (and others) are not going to be solved by the benevolence of the leaders of the existing Christian social structures, and just stepping aside or placing non-white, non-western and non-traditional men into leadership in our churches and denominations. The real transformation that we all hope for will happen when these non-white, non-western and non-traditional men become recognized as such good leaders and so important to the life of Christ’s Body that we all desire them lead the Church into new and important directions. What the church needs to pray for is the day when God raises up men of such inspiration and influence that everyone looses all interest in an ecclesiastical affirmative action program.

Historically, the leadership of the Church passed from the Jerusalem Jewish-Christians to the more prominent leadership of Gentile Christians. God raised up, over time, more competent men from other cultures to succeed the initial Jewish leadership. It did not happen because the Gentiles sought to have the Jews relinquish leadership – It happened because God provided the Body of Christ with the men that were needed to move the church forward at that time in history.

For the same thing to happen in our time, it seems to me that what needs to happen is several things:

• We need to labor to have a more global perspective.
  • We need to learn progressively more about what God is doing in various parts of the world (there are many books and resources now available to help with this)
  • We need to meet and fellowship with international believers locally
  • We need to discover meaningful ways to provide help to Christians around the world
  • We need to discover who the prominent people God is using in various parts of the world and learn about what they are teaching and doing for the Lord. These may be the futures leaders God will give us.
• We need to be more prayerful, both privately and in corporate worship, about the world.
  • Pray for Christians in various parts of the world
  • Pray for persecuted Christians
  • Pray for Churches by city, nation, region and people groups
• We need to build relationships with people different than those we normally associate
  • Associate with, and learn to love and appreciate those of different races, classes and social standing
  • Associate with, and learn to love and appreciate those outside of our own narrow Christian traditions and circumstances
  • Work cooperatively with other local churches to produce more of a “city church” or “regional church” that is inclusive of various orthodox traditions, denominations and theological perspectives.
  • Be willing to learn from those who are bringing challenging insights to us, even if it is not done in the most edifying way, or with the best theological or philosophical reasoning.
    • Sometimes we just need to hear people, letting them speak freely, so that we can learn what their concerns are so that we can consider how to best minister and serve them.
    • We need to avoid, when we disagree with folks like Bradley and others, reacting badly (one person’s reaction to Bradley was: “Personally, I think the guy is a racist pig!  It’s reverse racism.” Not, in my opinion either humble or helpful!). This kind of reaction closes off further discussion and the sharing of ideas and visions, and actually perpetuates existing problems thoughtlessly and tragically.

The word “evangelism” comes from the Greek word euangelion, which means “good news.” Evangelism has been defined as the conscious attempt, through word and deed, to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with others, so that they can become disciples of Christ. It is the proclamation of the good news that Jesus, the Son of God, has come not only to save us by His sacrificial death on the cross, but also that we are raised with Him to newness of life, and that by the power of the Holy Spirit we are assured that we will be fully transformed into the image of Christ in the world and throughout eternity. Christ is ruling all things so that the curse of sin will be rolled back through the course of history, and that He will bring all things into submission to the Father.

Too often evangelism is reduced to formulas and techniques that will bring the unbeliever to faith. It is thought of as something that we do to bring sinner to repentance. The reality is that sinners are only brought to faith by the grace of God and His enablement to believe. We, in our work of evangelism, are only the instruments by which God does His work of saving people. Salvation, first to last, is a work of God.

Some people are especially gifted at evangelism – the rest of us stumble about trying to communicate the good news. But what a blessing it is for us to see that, even with our imperfect and awkward presentations of the gospel, God uses us in ways that we could never imagine. People come to faith by the work of the Spirit in their lives – even when we stutter and bumble our way through our presentations of the gospel.

All praise to God for His marvelous grace!

Faith is the evidence that someone has come to salvation. Not the “sinners prayer” (not that there is anything wrong with that). Not necessarily seeing a tearful repentance (although that will sometimes be the way of it). Not walking the aisle or raising your hand in an evangelist service. Not saying just the right words. It is by grace, through faith, that anyone is saved – Grace and faith given by God.

When a person believes the gospel and turns from their former life to live for Jesus – that person has been brought to saving faith. When they are baptized Christ marks them as His special, chosen, holy-one; a child of God.

May God increase our faith to pray for the lost, to proclaim the gospel and to trust Him to use us in the lives of those whom we come into contact with.

On May 14th I made a post about the coming of the documentary movie about the Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens debate about atheism.  Here is an interview of Doug Wilson by John Piper that wonderfully summarizes Doug’s goals, desires and thoughts about the movie “Collision.”

I received notice of this interview from American Vision

When Doug Wilson debated the famed and articulate atheist Christopher Hitchens he had it filmed in order to make it widely available. Here is a promotional clip in which he reflects on his purposes and how he believes the movie turned out.

Wilson Review from Collision Movie on Vimeo.
I look forward to seeing this service Doug has done the Church and her Lord.