| current | >< | archive » | >< | Site Feed | HSC Home Page |
|
Tuesday, December 30, 2003 posted by R.C. 6:01 PM link |
He’s Heavy, He Ain’t My Brother There are few signs that help us distinguish between what matters and what doesn’t. If it appears on the nightly news, it probably doesn’t matter. If it appears on Entertainment Tonight, it definitely doesn’t matter. The higher number of emoticons connected to a thread on a forum, the less likely it is about anything that matters. Anything touted as a sure sign of the cultural power of Christians by the culture crowd is a sure sign of cultural insignificance. But one sign that something is important is the rise in Robert Barnes’ blood pressure. I had the extreme privilege of working with Robert for many years. I consider him both a dear friend, and an upstanding man of God. One of his many gifts is the gift of perspective. As long as I’ve known him he’s always been a practicing Calvinist—he stays calm because he actually believes that God is sovereign, even over those Arminians that freak out other so-called Calvinists. And so when that little nerve on his forehead begins to pulse, I know we got trouble right here in River City, and that starts with NPP. I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances floating around this theological quagmire. I do know, however, that my own list of affirmations and denials relative to some of the issues did not come up on anyone’s radar on either side. That’s a good thing in my book, because from my perspective I’m sitting solidly on the right horse looking down on my left and my right at assorted friends rubbing their bruised shins. At Auburn Avenue II, where I had the privilege of speaking, I managed to find myself marginalized. My comments were reduced down, for general consumption, to a Rodney King whine: Why can’t we all get along? That’s not how I saw what I had to say at all. What I was trying to say was something like this—if you’re not saying anything new, then you are guilty of reckless, immature, inflammatory rhetoric, and of dishonoring your fathers who admittedly could use a course or two of anti-baptist anti-biotics. If you are saying something new, stop hiding behind the anabaptism of the fathers and come out and admit that you are sacerdotalists and Lutherans. Mr. Barnes, I think, may have hit on one way to determine which it is. What say they of Rome? One example of the new rhetoric that troubled me was this notion of defining as a Christian anyone who has been baptized in the Trinitarian formula. There is good and bad here. It is a good rejection of the Puritan skepticism over God’s covenant faithfulness. It is a good thing to recognize baptism as the mark of the one covenant. But it is a bad thing to recognize all Trinitarian baptisms as baptisms. The Mormons, for one, baptize in the Trinitarian formula, all while not being Trinitarian. And Rome does the same, all while not being Christian. So, I presume, would Preterists, Campbellites, and assorted other damned institutions. I recognize that the majority report among the Reformed has been to consider Romish baptism to be baptism. But aren’t my Auburn Avenue friends always calling for semper reformanda? And aren’t the same Reformed folk who wanted to count Romish baptism, at least in the seventeenth century, the ones who called Rome anti-Christ? And yet at Auburn Avenue the Westminster Assembly was deemed not a sufficiently catholic body to have the authority to oust Rome. And so, according to this crowd, we’re stuck with them. Here’s where the rhetoric gets tricky. According to at least one of the Auburn Avenue Four, we are to consider Romanists to be Christians who (a) go to hell when they die, and (b) are disqualified from marrying our daughters. In short, and in a supreme irony, they found themselves right back where they started, with a half-way covenant. Baptism gets you part way in, but not all the way. Or, again—without horns please—does it get you all the way in? Objectively, is the Pope Christian? Is he redeemed? Is he an honorary limb, a Frisbee, or is he sprouting olives? Has he received every grace that the elect have, save for persevering grace? Did Jesus atone for his sins? I too believe in the objectivity of the covenant. Which is why, instead of saying that Catholics are Christians who won’t make it, I say Catholics are non-Christians who might make it. That is, they are objectively in covenant with an institution that denies the gospel. They are wearing the uniform of the serpent. Let the wind blow where it will, but until they repent, until they reject their “baptism,” they are no brother of mine, as far as I can see. [comments] |
|
Monday, December 29, 2003 posted by R.C. 9:37 PM link |
Blog Humbug It is a good thing to not have a duty to write. I have been squibless for a few weeks now, and carrying only a modicum of guilt around for it, far less guilt than I felt for missing a book deadline. This morning I mailed off said manuscript, and so am free to write a squib. It has been interesting to spend these few weeks with no concern over any chatter occasioned by this squib or that. I’ve not been bugging Rick to see if any comments have come in. I haven’t strolled over to Razormouth. And I haven’t been deluged with emails wondering, “What gives?” Which is further evidence that if, in the grace of God, this whole Reformed cyberworld should ever blow up, there you’ll see Mark Horne, Valerie, Jamey Bennett, Andrew Sandlin and Andrew Webb with dazed eyes and black powder all over their faces, wondering what happened. We’re all just preaching to our stuffed animals. There are two poisons that fuel the internet, two delusions that keep it going. The first, and most important is the lie that that pretty, naked girl looking at you really would be nice to you if she only had a chance to know you. Heck, she actually finds it attractive that you have the skill to operate a computer. You’re just the kind of guy a girl like that goes for. The Christian version of this is the delusion that someone is actually listening. We think we’re power players, because we managed to get some other yahoo’s dander up in that Reformation-making debate over Paul’s perspective on Peter, or because we “interacted” with the blog of the guy who got yelled at in the blog of that guy whose comments have appeared in World’s mailblog. Some have had the audacity to call my squibs “blogs.” By no means. My humble little musings on this thing and that, that appear on the web, these are not blogs, they’re squibs. A completely different thing. And, you see, the fact that I know that no one reads this stuff means I’m not pathetic like those other folks. Right? Anybody? Hello? Stay tuned for our next exciting installment. [comments] |
|
Monday, December 15, 2003 posted by R.C. 2:22 PM link |
Panned Obsolescence They say Barbie’s hot—as a toy I mean. Once again this Christmas season toys are going retro, and this without even a Toy Story movie being released. I believe, however, I have already waxed nostalgic for the toys of my generation, SSPs and Skittles (the game, not the candy). It seems that our advances in technology have costs which even those who cheer those advances can’t ignore. While we can’t stop progress, we still want to go home again. Stranger still, however, is the shape of the nostalgia fit that hit me the other day on an airplane. I looked at the gentleman sitting in front of me and wondered, “Whatever happened to those second generation Walkman headphones?” Remember those? They were just little speakers that you stuck in your ear, perpendicular to the ear. Nothing foamy, nothing rubbery. It was so modern. This was supposed to allow you to still hear ambient noise, and to protect your hearing. Still, I think it looked kind of cool, and those dangling mp3 things I don’t care for. The old fashioned clicker had its advantages over the new. Of course it’s great to be able to go from channel 3 to channel 13 in an instant, but I miss that clunky sound of the dial turning. And, speaking of dialing, when was the last time you actually dialed a phone number? (And how much longer will we go one calling it “dialing’?) And where are you supposed to put your candy bar wrapper, now that there are no ash trays in the back seats of cars? Before we can determine whether we are progressing, we have to understand where we are going. You cannot determine whether an innovation is good until you know what the good life is. Nostalgia is nothing more than remembering the good you never noticed before. It’s a signpost that tells us we’re on the wrong road. [comments] |
|
Thursday, December 11, 2003 posted by Rick 11:58 AM link |
Letters. Reader M.T. writes in response to Chad Degenhart's squib:I am always pleased to read comments which expose the folly of unbiblical "ministries" in the church. I think a few words of caution to covenant people who may read Mr. Degenhart's squib could be in order. |
|
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 posted by R.C. 5:14 PM link |
A Warrior Finds His Rest Carl Henry died this past Sunday. It has been my providential privilege to know some of the great minds of our time, the men who might one day be carved on a new Reformation Wall. I knew Dr. Boice. I knew Dr. Gerstner. I knew Dr. Schaeffer. I also knew Dr. Henry. I was honored to take a class taught by him when at seminary. He was a scholar and a gentleman. Every time Dr. Henry would come to mind since that class I would enter into his suffering. Though I admire him enormously, I always felt sorry for him. Though too many evangelicals do not remember him (that’s not his suffering, that’s probably a good thing) he was the driving force behind two institutions that are emblematic of our troubled times. He might rightly be called the Father of Modern American Evangelicalism. The twin sons he brought forth, however, are hardly sons of thunder. He was the power behind Christianity Today and Fuller Theological Seminary. I remain convinced that over the last decade or so, like Eli and Samuel before him, that Dr. Henry’s remembrance of his children did not give rise to joy. Both have brought him shame. Both have broken covenant. And for the same reason. Like various and sundry “evangelical” book publishers, parachurch ministries, colleges and seminaries, these two flagships ran aground precisely because they were guided by the light of men, rather than the light of the world. They made the devil’s bargain with the devil’s denominations, telling the liberals, “We will call you ‘brother,’ if you will call us ‘scholar.’ Dr. Henry was a humble man, a godly man. His sons are arrogant institutions, worldly institutions. He sought the praise of Christ. They seek the praise of men. Eli, for all his failures, gave us Samuel. Samuel, for all his failures, gave us David, a man after God’s own heart. As I have hurt with Dr. Henry, so do I now rejoice with him. For praise be to the King, his commitment wasn’t to Christianity Today or to Fuller. His commitment was to Christ, in whom dwelt the fullness of the godhead. Today Dr. Henry has only joy, for today he is with his one love, confident that the declension of his sons is but a part of the glory of the Son. Rest in peace, man of God. [comments] |
|
Tuesday, December 09, 2003 posted by Rick 10:57 AM link |
New seminary track? A guest squib, from reader Chad Degenhart. Some thoughts on youth ministry Cultural degeneracy has somewhat clouded our perception of "youth ministry". To help put it in perspective, how would we as husbands feel if our church decided that it needed a full-time "wife minister"? You know, someone that really had a heart for sheperding our wives, and was gifted in communicating with women. Someone who would always be available for wives to talk to and who could specifically address their problems. Some might say that this would be a much-needed ministry, that wives are a part of the church and should be ministered to. They might even criticise those opposed by saying that most pastors are shirking their duties to the wives of the church, under the guise of "the husband's authority". May it never be so. God certainly has gifted certain men specifically to minister to their wives—THEIR HUSBANDS . And by an amazing provision of grace, He is so sovereign that He can actually place each wife with the one person that He has especially gifted to minister to her—WOW! Does the absence of a "wife minister" mean that the wives of the church aren't being ministered to? I don't think so. And there is even a special charge for the church to take care of the widows who have no husband. Furthermore, installing a "wife minister" by its nature would hinder rather than help the husbands fulfill their duties. Doing someone's job for them generally doesn't result in the person becoming more responsible, but usually does the exact opposite. When the wives of the church don't like the counsel their husbands have given them, who will they go to? The "wife minister", who will have become a church-sanctioned circumvention of godly authority. Having a "wife minister" would unwisely replicate the model that children of divorced parents are trapped in, and create the good parent/bad parent dilemma. The more you follow these unbiblical ideas to their ultimate implications, the more apparent the utter folly of them is. [comments] |
|
Tuesday, December 02, 2003 posted by Rick 9:29 AM link |
Letters. Reader K.H. offers these comments on the article by Gerry Wisz.The article, "The Business of Motherhood," caused me to think a bit. My thought was: Mothering children doesn't fulfill us as women. The corporate women that have forgone childbearing know they are missing something. The wife that stays home with her children and may even be busy at home, if she doesn't have the Lord, is missing something. Our basic sinful nature says, "If I could just have what Ms. Jones has, then I will be happy." The bottom line problem is that we need the Lord. |
|
Monday, December 01, 2003 posted by Rick 9:42 AM link |
Letters. Some comments on the Feast in a Box squib, and the responses to it. Reader C.D. writes:I really appreciate the Feast In A Box squib.And reader K.M. writes: Regarding Sandlin's article "Are working moms okay?" in response to R.C.'s squib: |