Whilin' Away the Hours

Visit
Dale & Jackie Peacock and their youngest son, of Monroe LA, were in town visiting their son Matthew who is a member of our church. I loved having a little reminder of the legendary hymn singing of Auburn Avenue in the form of 4 Peacock voices two rows behind me. We were able to share a table with them at our fellowship meal after church today. It was fun catching up. I was really touched by their thoughtfulness when they presented me with a hard copy of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision! I've read part of it in .pdf but it's much easier on the eyes to read in book form. Thank you, Dale & Jackie, for your generosity. I also heard some tentative, tantalizing news (at least for me) about the 2005 Pastor's Conference but my lips are sealed for now.

Another highlight today was hearing one of our pianists, Amanda Roberts (strangely, also an immigrant from Auburn Avenue), play a Psalm set to an original composition. It was really beautiful! As far as I could see, Amanda managed to set the Psalm to music without reordering or contorting the words. It had chant-like elements while remaining a metrical tune. She has others in the works and I commented to my husband on our way home that I could see Amanda becoming for the Reformed and metrical Psalmody what Fanny Crosby was for 19th century revival music. Um, Amanda, that really was meant to be a compliment...honest.

Ever wonder where all this madness originates?
Here it is:
Scarecrow's World, unadulterated.

Yep, this is my little cubbyhole, my little window on the world.
Truth be told, I'm still playing with Photobucket.com So far, I'm very impressed with this service. For one thing, it's free (accepting donations)! It's totally intuitive, it provides URLs for and permits direct linking. It resizes for blogs & other limited space formats. I'll soon be transferring all my graphics over.

Jane, if you see this, that means that Alrighty Then will be losing it's Ent gif. Let me know if you'd like a new url for the template... to which I relinquished all access many months ago. I'll be happy to continue hosting the image for you but it will be up to you to fix the template.

The further musing of an amateur theology wonk
Funny how things work (gee, I've said that before on my blog). I linked Peter Leithart discussing whom Paul addressed in Ephesians on Wednesday with good discussion following on my blog and then migrating to Joel's blog. That Sunday, my pastor spoke on Ephesians 1: 13-14.

13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of [God's] own possession, unto the praise of his glory. ASV

He beautifully seguewayed into our weekly observance of the Lord's Supper with the seal of the Holy Spirit motif reminding us that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit in the Supper. It was awesome! But it left me wondering...

My pastor speaks to us as those to whom the blessings of Ephesians apply. He never says "if" to us, in fact, he says that would be silly (that's my paraphrase but he used a similar phrase). So after church I asked him (not a good time for heavy questions) if everyone, head for head, who had taken the Supper today had been sealed. Hmmm, he said. Good question. He said everyone placed themselves under the authority of Christ in participating...they were sealed in that sense.

I'm not satisfied to stop there yet I don't know how to answer my question. A seal is a mark of authority but it is also a mark of protection and authenticity. In Ephesians 1 the seal of the Holy Spirit is a guarantee of inheritance. In short, it sounds as though the seal of the Spirit guarantees our final salvation. If Paul is speaking to the entire baptized membership, how do I resolve the fact that some of those professing sealed members will apostatize?

I believe the seal is the Holy Spirit as He is in relationship to the individual.
2Co 1:21 Now he that establisheth us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God;
2Co 1:22 who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. ASV

The Holy Spirit effects our union with Christ but that union is not a one time past event, it is a relationship. Even those who are not decreed to final salvation are brought into relationship with Christ by the ministry of the Holy Spirit when they are baptized into the body of Christ, the Church. It is a relationship that needs to be maintained and nurtured throughout life. Will the Holy Spirit withdraw from someone who persists in resistance to Him? Scripture seems to indicate as much. I believe my answer regarding the sealing of the Spirit lies somewhere within a Biblically sound understanding of apostasy...

My husband saw the strangest sign today...

Actually, this is just a test. I'm trying out a new image hosting site called Photobucket.com

Helpful hint
"A little lemon and seltzer will remove those pesky ink stains after you've been fingerprinted. "
-
Martha Stewart

Whom does Paul address
in the greetings of his general epistles? Once he greets "the beloved", three times he greets "the saints", and five times he greets "the church." It has been argued in comments on my blog that Paul doesn't equate "saint" with the whole church and that his blessings, assurances, exhortations, & benedictions are only for members of the "invisible church." Because Paul asks that his letters be shared from church to church (e.g. Col. 4:16), I don't think it can be argued that there is a differentiating significance in the various greetings between epistles addressed "to the church" and "to the saints", just as there may be no significant difference between saying "Dear family" and "Dear Mom, Dad, and Junior". Even though the latter sounds as though it is singling out individuals, it isn't necessarily doing so therefore, I think it's reasonable to conclude that "to the saints" and "to the church" are interchangeable greetings. So, who did Paul have in mind?

Q. 62. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion,[272] and of their children.[273]

[272]Corinthians 12:13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Matthew 28:19-20. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[273] 1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Acts 2:39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Romans 11:16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. Genesis 17:7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

According to the proof texts, the visible church is comprised of those who, professing true religion, are baptized into one body and drink into one Spirit, and their children.

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God?s special care and government;[274] of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies;[275] and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,[276] and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,[277] and excluding none that will come unto him.[278]

Some of the proof texts for Q 63 make it nearly impossible - at least for an OPCer* - to argue that the content of Paul's epistles was not directed to the whole professing, baptized membership of the church and their children. Listen:

[274]Ephesians 4:11-13. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
[276] Acts 2:39, 42. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.... And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ICorinthians 12:12-13. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

If the visible church is comprised of professing, baptized believers and their children, who else would Paul be addressing if not these?

[277]Romans 10:17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

*Proof texts approved by the 68th OPC GA

Cruise on over to Tim's
He's on a roll today!

And while you're at it, pduggie's been telling funny stories.

From the March questions
posted on the N.T. Wright Page:

"To put it very briefly and at the risk, therefore, of starting more hares: 'Justification' speaks of how God declares that people are in the right; this will take place in the future when he raises them from the dead, saving them from eternal death and giving them the same kind of glorious body that Jesus already has; this announcement, and this event, is anticipated in the present when someone believes, as a result of the preaching of the gospel, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead; 'justification by faith' is thus God's declaration in the present time that all who believe this message are already forgiven their sins and delivered from death, and that they are thereby constituted as the single worldwide eschatological family of God, transcending the former Jew/Greek distinction. But this justification, too, is already anticipated when God raised Jesus himself from the dead and declared that he was truly his son (Romans 1.3f. etc), so that the basis of justification is God's covenant-faithful action in and through the death and resurrection of Jesus BOTH as Israel's Messiah AND as the incarnation of the one true God. Since what is true of the Messiah is true of his people (see above), all those who are 'in the Messiah' by baptism and faith have his death and resurrection reckoned to them so that when God looks at them he sees Calvary and Easter -- and so that when they look at themselves they must learn to see those events as well, and to live accordingly. This being-in-Christ, indwelt by the Spirit, is the means by which the PRESENT declaration of 'in the right' truly anticipates the future one (Romans 8 etc).

I have to say, to anyone out there who may be interested, that since (a) I think this is basically good protestant theology, albeit not necessarily in the traditional terms (but certainly in scriptural ones), and (b) since I have never consciously taught anything else, I am genuinely puzzled as to why the fuss about my views on justification has become as huge (in some quarters!) as apparently it has. May we, those of us concerned about learning from Paul and from one another, agree at least to pray for one another as we genuinely go about this task seeking God's wisdom and the guidance of the Spirit on the text which that same Spirit inspired?"

I can hear the protestations already as a result of this brief statement. Wright doesn't mention the need for repentance, he doesn't stress "faith alone," he makes justification a benefit of union rather than the mode of salvation itself, the message is too simple, all one must believe is "Jesus is Lord" and that God raised him from the dead, etc. I understand the need to carefully analyze statements such as this one but without the benefit of a much broader context, in this case, Wright's many books describing in detail what he means by some of the phrases he uses such as "Jesus is Lord," it's all too easy for critics to gin up accusations of deficient or false doctrine.

So, when Wright says "Jesus is Lord" what does he mean? It's true that Wright often applies the proclamation that Jesus is Lord to the socio-political sphere but that does not minimize the central meaning of the phrase. For Wright, 'Jesus is Lord' is first and foremost the declaration that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel in all the richness and completeness of the Biblical witness. "Jesus the Messiah is the one in whom God's people find their identity and salvation; he has come where they are in order to rescue them... His human, 'fleshly' ...identity is the place where he does for Adamic humanity that which Adamic humanity could not do for itself. ... Jesus is Israel's Messiah according to the flesh and is also (now at last explicitly) 'God over all, blessed forever.'"

An enjoyable evening
As my home was invaded by 10 pizza eating, beer drinking, baseball fantasy league fanatics Saturday night, I bailed and headed for Columbus to have dinner with Dawn, Jason, Jennifer, Mark, and children. We had a lovely evening. Dawn & Jason, thank you for good food, good drink, and good fellowship. And Mark, thanks for signing my book!

Dawn was the only person I'd met (twice before) so it was fun getting to know Jason, Jennifer & Mark. M&J's kids are a gregarious, happy gang but great big Zeke (the 4-legged Garrett) was a little intimidating to all but little Charis who was certain Zeke was the biggest teddy bear she'd ever seen. And Zeke was only too happy to fulfill that role! Just look at him ogling Charis in this picture!

That Luther...
I've been listening to Peter Lillback's lecture series Covenant Theology and I just can't recommend it highly enough. In a section dealing with the growing divide between Luther's view of "monolateral testament" and the Reformed "bilateral covenant," I was amused to learn that Luther considered Zwingli to be apostate because he said law was gospel and the Reformed movement was Satanic because the Reformed denied passive righteousness. For the Reformed, justification takes place in the context of dipleurically administered covenant. Luther, on the other hand, believed naked passive faith justified. This series seems very relevant to some of our contemporary discussions!

Funny little aside: Peter Lillback did his undergrad studies at nearby Cedarville College, a Baptist fundamentalist college, and drove the school bus my sister-in-law rode to school. Cedarville recently became a university and under the influence of men such as Dr. James McGoldrick, now retired professor of history, it is somewhat more sympathetic to Reformed doctrines.

More Shenanigans
on the Warfield list.

NTW speaks to No. 1: "Second, it is simply not true, as people have said again and again, that I deny or downplay the place of the individual in favour of a corporate ecclesiology. True, I have reacted against the rampant individualism of western culture, and have tried to insist on a biblically rooted corporate solidarity in the body of Christ as an antidote to it. But this in no way reduces the importance of every person being confronted with the powerful gospel, and the need for each one to be turned around by it from idols to God, from sin to holiness, and from death to life." (10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25-28 August 2003, pg 11)

NTW speaks to No. 2: "For Paul, 'justification' is something that follows on from the 'call' through which a sinner is summoned to turn from idols and serve the living God, to turn from sin and follow Christ, to turn from death and believe in the God who raised Jesus from the dead." (ibid. pg. 11)

NTW speaks to No. 3:"The underlying point here is crucial: the reason God established the covenant with Abraham, according to scripture in general and Paul in particular, was to undo the sin of Adam and its effects and thereby to complete the project of the good creation itself. Thus God's declaration of forgiveness and his declaration of covenant membership are not ultimately two different things. I freely grant that some of those who have highlighted the importance of the Jew-plus-Gentile point in Paul have used it as a way of saying that Paul is therefore not after all interested in God's dealing with sins and putting sinners in a right relation to himself. But just because people draw false inferences one way, that is no reason why we should draw them the other way." (ibid. pg. 13)

"Second, this reading of Paul allows fully for the challenge to each person to hear and believe the gospel and live by it, while at the same time allowing fully also for three other contexts, each of which is vitally important to Paul, to have their place. These three other contexts are the cosmic, as in Romans 8; the ecclesiological, as in his constant emphasis on the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ; and the political, as mentioned earlier. Many have tried to play these off against each other; I believe they are instead mutually reinforcing. The united multi-ethnic church is a sign of God's healing and remaking of the cosmos and also thereby a sign to Caesar and his followers that his attempted unification of the world is a blasphemous parody. This is part of what Ephesians and Colossians are all about, though that is another story. It is also, I believe, a point in urgent need of emphasis today." (ibid. pg. 15)

Thoughts on Auburn
From Peter Leithart.

What took him so long?
Andrew Sandlin's The Chicago Law-Gospel Symposium: Personal Observations

Oh Ho Ho
That's vernacular for Ohio. As Dawn, Sora, and Matt have all reported, we woke this morning to about 6" of wet spring snow.

All right...*
(*I've tweaked what I've written several times as I recover from the melt-down)
The pressure is on to say something substantive about the Conference. The trouble is, I don't know where to start! At a point late in the ordo speakeris, one of the speakers asked if our brains were mush yet. My answer was an unequivocal and emphatic YES.

I started out intending to just listen & enjoy because I knew I'd buy the tapes for further study. But as the speakers delivered their papers, I finally yielded to the irresistible urge to take notes. There was just too much good stuff being said.

Andrew Sandlin spoke first on "The Grace of Law and the Obligation of the Gospel." His talk was similar to the one he delivered to the Southern California Center for Christian Studies conference, Contemporary Perspectives on Covenant Theology. Next was John Armstrong, unscheduled but full of fire & brimstone. He threw down the gauntlet for his friend R. Scott Clark. Together, Sandlin & Armstrong primed the pump for the remainder of the conference.

It was a privilege to hear Norman Shepherd speak next. As always, each sentence was packed with significance as he moved with precision through the steps of establishing his case. I've always been impressed by the way Shepherd makes use of logical progression in arriving at the proof of his thesis. Shepherd made several quips during his lecture that will surely make the Warfield list. My favorite was, "For God so loved the world that he gave us Moses."

Don Garlington was excellent. I'll disappoint a few people at this point as I refrain from commenting until I relisten to his lecture since at that point I was not taking notes. He began his lecture by listing what the NPP is NOT and continued with another list of what it IS. These points were important so I won't say more until I can report them exactly. I will say, he is a very nice gentleman and seemed almost embarrassed when I told him I appreciated his work & asked if I could take his picture. ;-)

Patrick Henry Reardon presented a very interesting paper. I can't wrap my mind around his concept of sin, even after talking to him at the water fountain. But I'll investigate the resources he gave me. Thomas Baima...there was no click for me in his lecture. For one thing, I reject one of his premises...a post A.D. 70 dating for Matthew. His view that Matthew was writing to "correct" antinomian ecclesial error regarding the Pauline epistles seemed a real stretch.

I'll have to skip I. John Hesselink and Robert Benne. I was in melt-down by that point and found myself unable to absorb anything.

Gerald McDermott delivered an eye-opening paper on Jonathan Edwards that is sure to get him excommunicated...Edwards, that is. Who would have guessed that Edwards was a crypto-Catholic who taught that obtainment of eternal life was "suspended on obedience?"

Schlissel...what can I say? He has a really cool black bush hat. He asked if I were offended that he had his hat on in my presence. What a guy. Great Schlisselesk rant/lecture which culminated in ripping out the page that divides the OT from the NT.

I'm running out of steam here...John Frame is an engaging speaker who coined a new phrase: "Communicatio Salutis" to accompany Historia & Ordo Salutis. Good stuff.

Nelson Kloosterman, of Mid-America Seminary did a survey of law & gospel in Protestant Confessions that I found very profitable.

But the highlight of the conference was (and Doug, I'm not kidding) Doug Green's paper, "A Biblical and Theological Perspective on Righteousness." He presented a study of what righteousness means in the OT exploring word groups such as sedeq, emunah, hesed and from the Septuigent, pistos and dikaioo showing that righteousness is Torah shaped relational fidelity. He then brought the concept forward as "Christotelic" in Paul. Of equal interest were the response by Peter Leithart and a question raised by a PhD student from Wheaton, (my husband's alma mater). Maybe I'll blog the Wheatie question tomorrow...it's a tough question about prolepsis.

A few photos
This is Shawn and me at the conclusion of the conference. Peter Leithart's son James took the photo for us...which explains why we are looking down. (Not so with James' dad. Peter Leithart must be close to 7 ft. tall!)

Somehow I missed getting a picture of Keith even though I had lunch with him several times! I also didn't get a chance to say goodbye to him... See ya Keith. It was good to meet you!

I'm very happy to have this photo of Norman Shepherd.

There are a few other photos
here including a photo of all the speakers. Unfortunately, the little camera I was using isn't very well suited for distance shots.

Peter Leithart's
reflections here, here, and here are drawn from the Symposium on Law & Gospel.

Home again, home again...
My wonderful husband is preparing dinner for me as I sip a nice Pinot Noir... ;-)

I need to ruminate on the conference a bit before I say anything at all. At first blush, I'm tempted to say that much of it was academic in nature and that I'm unqualified to comment. But, that's not entirely true because I came away with new insights and a better understanding of both orthodox thought from the early Reformation forward and the views of other traditions.

It was a pleasure to meet online friends, make some new friends, and share a few meals and discussions. It was also a privilege to meet a few respected contemporary theologians...

I'll admit that I am easily intimidated by men I respect. But time & again, as I exchanged greetings & brief conversation with the "big guns," I was touched by their accessibility and their friendliness. I don't know why I think professors of theology are so forbidding... they have consistently proven to be down to earth men who truly have an interest in ordinary lay people.

Hmmm... I guess this is a "girl" post about relationship rather than a report on the facts. I'll try to say something about the content of the conference later...maybe. I'm cruisin' on the hugs right now.

Adios amigos y amigas!
Later today I'll be heading for Chicago to attend TRUST & OBEY, A Symposium on Law and Gospel. I'm not wild about driving to Chicago; I'm a very content passenger on road trips but I have Peter Lillback to keep me company.

I know a few of my visitors think this conference is bad news for various reasons. Norman Shepherd is speaking, John Frame is speaking, there will be an Eastern Orthodox speaker, a Roman Catholic speaker, etc, etc. "Circle the wagons Hoss! Thars a raidin' party ridin' in!"

I'll let John Armstrong explain:
"It must be noted that this event is an “open” forum for ideas,
discussion and free exchange without rancor and/or sharply pointed spears in
tow. What Andrew Sandlin and I had in mind when we planned this
jointly-sponsored event was to gather representatives of the whole Christian
Church in one place and to engage one another as scholars and friends in a
common effort to better understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. We
called it a symposium because it is not a Bible conference. It is an
academic event, open to clergy and laity both. ....

The problem some of my readers have had is with the presence of a
Catholic and Orthodox speaker. Following the usual conservative Reformed
view they see this as a “sell out” to apostasy and error. What they do not
realize is that Calvin and Luther did not hold similar views. The
magisterial Reformers were not separatists. They believed Rome was seriously
errant, but within her were important elements, and members, of the
true Church. This was why they, and most of their heirs, have accepted
Roman Catholic baptism as Christian baptism. (cf. Calvin, The Institutes
of the Christian Religion; Book 4, Chapter 2, Section 11.) Simply put,
the Eastern and Latin churches are not cults or non-Christian gatherings
controlled by the devil. The Reformers freely granted that they had
been shaped by the Roman Church and that she had for centuries been
faithful, to varying degrees, to the essence of Christianity. They accepted
her early creeds, her theologians and her practices, on the whole.
(As one illustration will show, to the surprise of many who have
never seen this, Calvin and Luther both taught the perpetual virginity of
Mary.) The Reformers quarrel was with aberrations that arose in the
centuries prior to 1517. Their passion was to reform the Church by the
gospel. ...

But back to Shepherd and Frame. ....
Dr. Shepherd, now a retired Christian Reformed Church
minister, was once a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia. His views on covenant and justification were criticized by
some, though most clearly not the majority, and the result was that he
left the school in the 1970s. (He was neither fired nor disciplined but
left for the sake of peace.) His hated views will be presented in our
symposium and listeners can respond for themselves. He will be challenged
and discussed for certain. (It is worth noting that I invited several
who openly detest Shepherd’s views and none would come to speak to him
face-to-face though we offered to pay all expenses to do it. This all
too common response demonstrates to my mind that it is easier to use a
man as an opponent than to actually pray with him, treat him with re
spect, and listen and seek consensus and conclusion. Westminster
Seminary in California is conducting a conference a few weeks after our
event to openly attack the views of Norman Shepherd (and others?). I hate
to say it but I see nothing in the publicity or program that suggests
different interpretations of the issues will be offered or heard, unless
brave questioners arise to the challenge. ...

The use of the name of John Frame is even more puzzling to me.
Professor Frame once taught at Westminster in California. It is widely known
that he was treated with a great deal of suspicion toward the end of his
tenure there. John was often attacked, both to his face and behind his
back. (I am not making this up since I heard these attacks for years
and did not know John as a friend, which I now do.) He frustrated his
critics by his views of ecumenism, worship, the proper use of theology,
and the doctrine of the covenant, among others. What I have discovered is
that John Frame is a lovely man, gentle in spirit, willing to keep
learning. He is deeply desirous of seeing love prevail in the Church and in
academia. As a human being, John is very hard to dislike unless you
have a strong agenda that opposes him. Again, his presentation at our
symposium, “Salvation and Theological Pedagogy,” will be open to full
response and an open microphone. If you do not like John’s views come
and question him. What else can I say?"

Anyway, leave the porch light on. I should be home Saturday night.

An answer to Robbins' foolishness
From an editor of Tabletalk re: Robbins' accusations

Daily Office
All Saints Anglican Church has a very cool interactive online Daily Office based on the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It takes only a few seconds to choose translation options, readings options, individual/corporate/clergy options, and Office options. Click and voila! A tailor made Daily office. Check it out!

Recommendation
With a view toward the coming 71st OPC GA and in light of some of the overtures circulating, I'd like to recommend 3 short "open letters" by Rev. Peter Wallace:

An Open Letter on Turretin's View of Justification and Good Works
Open Letter on the Relation of Justification and Sanctification
Open Letter on Good Works and the Final Judgment

These letters briefly outline Reformed orthodoxy and refute the current madness which is "sweeping through Reformed churches."

Quasi-Presbyterianism & "The Hunt"
Here we have it: the Covenant of Grace is made only with the eschatologically elect.

Ligonier Ministries is going to be a little surprised to learn that they are part of "the Antichristian Neolegalism that is sweeping through Reformed churches."

*Update: The plot thickens...

With regard to the pastoral prayer,
Jeff Meyers, in his book The Lord's Service, writes, "It may sometimes be referred to with less than affectionate overtones as "the long prayer." And you know why. First of all, the pastor is often the only one left praying at the end of this prayer. Everyone else has drifted off five minutes before. They may have followed the first minute or so, but, let's face it, participating in a seven to ten minute prayer (with your eyes closed) is tough. It is especially tough when the pastor rambles - as pastors who pray extemporaneously so often do."

[rant]
I wonder when, in the history of Reformed worship, it became standard for the pastoral prayer to be a very long, extemporaneous set of petitions, mostly for Aunt Mabel's lumbago and little Bart's diaper rash? This sort of thing is appropriate to prayer meetings and other informal gatherings but it doesn't seem appropriate for a worship service. I believe our corporate prayer in worship should be Kingdom oriented. As we are gathered as "a royal priesthood" before God, we should, as Meyers suggests, be representing the Church and the world before the Throne as Israel and then Christ did by praying for the Church, those charged with protecting the Church, and the advancement of the Kingdom.

Why is it so ingrained in our thinking that the longer & more detailed a prayer is, the more "spiritual" it is? Why must the already long pastoral prayer be doubled in length by this "felt need" to explain all the details of Aunt Mabel's lumbago and the history of medical treatment for lumbago finally ending with a petition that God would heal Aunt Mabel of her lumbago? God bids us to pray not to 'splain stuff to Him. [/rant]

Our new favorite wine
My husband & I usually enjoy a glass (or two) of wine in the evening. After years of whites, we've been experimenting with reds moving from Merlot to Shiraz as favorites. But we've found a new favorite.

Wines on the Internet

PINOT NOIR
Pinot Noir embodies complexity and delicacy at the same time, outpouring with elaborate flavors that may be simply ravishing. Yet the Pinot Noir grape is well-known for its fickleness and genetic changeability, making it a truly challenging varietal for winemakers to master.

In recent years, Pinot Noir's potential for greatness has been discovered by many California wineries. Although the grape is fragile and difficult to grow, California winemakers have taken up the challenge with passion and creativity.

Pinot Noir grapes grow best in cooler climates with misty breezes. The grapes' lower sugar, higher acids and lower pH's contribute to wines with great aging potential yet relative delicacy. Early harvests, cooler climates and small barrel aging all contribute to a delightful mature Pinot Noir.

Though unpredictable at times, the best Pinot Noirs are seductively enchanting in their intense aromatics, complex flavors and long silky textures. They have a shimmering medium to dark ruby red color. Most Pinot Noirs are drinkable when young.

Pinot Noir is a wonderfully rich, full-bodied but graceful red wine that is especially versatile at the dinner table.

From Ann Coulter
This piece is reminiscent of the last paragraph of Jon Barlow's blog entry... "Someone had to do something." What! Propositions weren't enough?

The Passion Of The Liberal
March 3, 2004

IN THE DOZENS and dozens of panic-stricken articles the New York Times has run on Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the unavoidable conclusion is that liberals haven't the vaguest idea what Christianity is. The Times may have loopy ideas about a lot of things, but at least when they write about gay bathhouses and abortion clinics, you get the sense they know what they're talking about.

But Christianity just doesn't ring a bell. The religion that has transformed Western civilization for two millennia is a blank slate for liberals. Their closest reference point is "conservative Christians," meaning people you're not supposed to hire. And these are the people who carp about George Bush's alleged lack of "intellectual curiosity."

The most amazing complaint, championed by the Times and repeated by all the know-nothing secularists on television, is that Gibson insisted on "rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death." The Times was irked that Gibson "relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours" – at the expense of showing us the Happy Jesus. Yes, Gibson's movie is crying out for a car chase, a sex scene or maybe a wise-cracking orangutan.

The Times ought to send one of its crack investigative reporters to St. Patrick's Cathedral at 3 p.m. on Good Friday before leaping to the conclusion that "The Passion" is Gibson's idiosyncratic take on Christianity. In a standard ritual, Christians routinely eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, aka "the Lamb of God." The really serious Catholics do that blood- and flesh-eating thing every day, the sickos. The Times has just discovered the tip of a 2,000-year-old iceberg.

But the loony-left is testy with Gibson for spending so much time on Jesus' suffering and death while giving "short shrift to Jesus' ministry and ideas" – as another Times reviewer put it. According to liberals, the message of Jesus, which somehow Gibson missed, is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It."

The other complaint from the know-nothing crowd is that "The Passion" will inspire anti-Semitic violence. If nothing else comes out of this movie, at least we finally have liberals on record opposing anti-Semitic violence. Perhaps they should broach that topic with their Muslim friends.

One Times review of "The Passion" said: "To be a Christian is to face the responsibility for one's own most treasured sacred texts being used to justify the deaths of innocents." At best, this is like blaming Jodie Foster for the shooting of Ronald Reagan. But the reviewer somberly warned that a Christian should "not take the risk that one's life or work might contribute to the continuation of a horror." So the only thing Christians can do is shut up about their religion. (And no more Jodie Foster movies!)

By contrast, in the weeks after 9-11, the Times was rushing to assure its readers that "prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions." (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill non-believers whenever possible.) Times columnists repeatedly extolled "the great majority of peaceful Muslims." Only a religion with millions of practitioners trying to kill Americans and Jews is axiomatically described as "peaceful" by liberals.

As I understand it, the dangerous religion is the one whose messiah instructs: "[I]f one strikes thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" and "Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you." The peaceful religion instructs: "Slay the enemy where you find him." (Surah 9:92).

Imitating the ostrich-like posture of certain German Jews who ignored the growing danger during Hitler's rise to power, today's liberals are deliberately blind to the real threats of violence that surround us. Their narcissistic self-image requires absolute solicitude toward angry savages plotting acts of terrorism. The only people who scare them are the ones who worship a Jew.

What are the issues?
Michael Pahls has a few good questions for the Pirates of Escondido.

I'm bummed.
All but one of the people I knew who were planning to attend the Symposium on Law and Gospel have bailed out. Part of the enjoyment of the conference would have been meeting some net friends in real life. But you know what? I was excited about the conference before I knew anyone was going and I'm still really excited about it! It's gonna be good.

Always the last to know...
So, like, everyone knew that Bill De Jong's sermons were available at SermonAudio.com and no one told me? Humph!

;-)

10 of them! I am sooo happy I might work a few extra hours just so I can listen. But, where to start? The Victory of God? Covenantal Conversation? Faithful Prayer? Oh dear, oh dear...

A couple of people have asked so...
I'm somewhat reluctant to review of The Passion of the Christ. Jon Barlow, Jeff Meyers, Peter Leithart, and Andrew Sandlin have all offered excellent reviews. I'll simply note a few very subjective musings.

The "image" left in my mind from the film is the appearance of a scourged and crucified body. Without taking great leaps of artistic exaggeration, it would be impossible for director, Mel Gibson, to visually express the infinite & terrible wrath of God which Jesus endured as our curse-bearer. Instead, Gibson focuses on the brutality of the death of Jesus. In the hours of unimaginable physical agony, God the Father forsook the Son, with whom He had an eternal communion of love. The suffering of that separation can only be hinted at in the metaphor of physical torture. Yes, there is a sea of blood in this film but " In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..."

Gibson did, however, make some use of artistic license in the film, and very effectively. The personification of Satan was brilliant. The androgenous face, mewling voice, and sinister aura of the Satan character set the backdrop for the clash of Kingdoms. Granted, the battle to establish the New Creation, is not well defined but the simple line, "I make all things new" was perhaps the most profound moment in the movie. But, the grinning donkey carcass was pretty amazing too.

I've heard the criticism that the people were, with a few exceptions, gruesome and grotesque but how else are we to visually understand the depravity of humanity in this film covering the space of 12 hours? How else can we see how undeserving we are? We are well summed up in the brutality of the Roman soldiers, the debauchery of Herod, the pragmatism of Pilot, the self-serving of Caiaphas, and the mindless hatred of the mobs. The contrast between Christ and the humanity He came to redeem is quite stark and unless one has an inflated sense of self-worth, the effect of the contrast inspires gratitude to God for His mercy & grace.

And finally, all the hysterics about this being a Roman Catholic propaganda film are sickening. Yes, there were two scenes from Roman tradition. But, in the garden, it was Christ who crushed the serpent's head, not Mary as the Douay-Rheims Bible suggests. If all the braying about Roman Catholic conspiracy were true, Mary would have crushed the serpent's head. That simple device would have rendered Mary co-redemptrix but Gibson chose to follow the Protestant reading of Genesis 3:15.

After the movie, a number of people asked, "Was it good?" Well, that's a hard question to answer with an affirmative. It was a difficult film to watch but yes, it was good because it gives a good report of the mercy and graciousness of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.

For those not raised Reformed...
With regard to having "long-held presuppositions challenged" (see Feb 18), I'm curious about the ways many of you were shaken out of your long-held dispensational, Arminian, or baptistic presuppositions. It seems that so many Reformed people have transitioned in from one or all of these traditions. What did it take to shake you loose from your entrenched mindset?

For me, it began with a pinch of providential leading and a pound of hearing one verse of scripture in a new way. I had been taught that Calvinism was heresy and I had learned to read scripture from that perspective. I had a profound fear of being "left behind" and infant baptism was what Roman Catholics did. I stumbled, quite "accidentally," into an OPC church, utterly ignorant of it's doctrines. It didn't take long for me to realize that something was different, that the Word was being preached in a way new to my ears. After several Sunday sermons, in a fit of despair, I asked the pastor, "Is this church Calvinistic?" I was prepared to shake the dust from my feet. He said yes and waited. I opened my mouth to launch my counterstrike. The verse on my lips was Ephesians 2:8 and I began, "For by grace you have been saved through faith..." and I stopped cold. I have no memory of where I was going with my argument. In that moment, the remainder of the verse totally exploded my long-held Arminianism. I had a long road to travel in coming to grips with the sovereignty of God. It was a complete paradigm shift and it took lots of reading and questioning to settle my mind. The sovereignty of God, once accepted, became the domino which began knocking over a long row of dominoes. My discovery of the Covenant God has been one of constantly growing awe.

To grow in understanding of scripture is a command and there is no condemnation in considering the scriptures in new ways - as long as it's done carefully, comparing scripture to scripture. In fact, we are admonished against sitting pat. The Bereans, upon hearing the scriptures in a new way, were commended for searching them to see if "these things were so." It's a fool who looks down his sanctimonious nose at others while declaring himself to have arrived at "the faith once delivered."