Postmode

I didn’t know until today that Abraham Piper (son of John Piper) has his own personal blog. I’m reading through the archives (not a long task, as every post is only 22 words long, I think - given the name “Twenty-Two Words”; see here). I’m very interested in the concise manner in which Abraham makes his points.

His thoughts from his post on March 27th (”Jargon is a whip to beat away the masses.”) brought to mind something that William Zinsser says in his book On Writing Well:

During the 1960s the president of my university wrote a letter to mollify the alumni after a spell of campus unrest. “You are probably aware,” he began, “that we have been experiencing very considerable potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction on issues only partially related.” He meant that the students had been hassling them about different things. I was far more upset by the president’s English than by the students’ potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction. I would have preferred the presidential approach taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried to convert into English his own government’s memos, such as this blackout order of 1942:

“Such preparations shall be made as will completely obscure all Federal and non-Federal buildings occupied by the Federal government during an air raid for any period of time from visibility by reason of internal or external illumination.”

“Tell them,” Roosevelt said, “that in buildings where they have to keep the work going to put something across the windows.”

On Writing Well, p. 7

Abraham also found this excellent video (couldn’t embed, so you’ll have to visit the link to watch). He wasn’t sure whether this was satire or legit; I will make no claims to enlightenment on this matter either. In either case, watch and laugh.

I would not figure that “soda… disgusting to my palate” would be one of them. HT: John Barach

Barfield had to go to a theatrical garden party of all things, and Harwood to his work. I dawdled about for a bit, got my suitcase … and then, driven by thirst and curiosity, went for the first time in my life to a soda fountain — and the last. A more disgusting drink I never tasted (All My Road Before Me, p. 340).

Well fancy that…

I went to Together For The Gospel this year and as I expected, the experience was highly rewarding and did much to encourage, strengthen, and educate me in regards to the whole pastorin’ thang.

The neat thing that I loved about the conference was that, as part of their attempt to benefit other pastors in their work, the conference crew (C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Dever) gave evey conference attendee a litany of carefully selected books. I bypassed reading these books immediately after I got them so that I could focus on one of the books I bought from the publishers selling books at the conference (Handbook of Church Discipline by Jay Adams), but I finished that and am now moving on to The Faithful Preacher by Thabiti Anyabwile.*

In The Faithful Preacher, Anyabwile gives a short history of the lives and preaching of three prominent African-American preachers, and includes sermons preached by these men that are relevant to the task of serving as undershepherds of Jesus for the benefit of his people. The preaching and lifetimes of these men span from the 1790s to the 1930s, meaning that in reading about these men we are crossing two cultural gaps: one consisting of time, the other consisting of differences in our experiences owing to ethnic and cultural differences. John Piper says this same thing in his foreword to the book:

In this book we who are not African-American receive the double profit of reading not only across a culture but across the centuries - and thus across another culture. And of course, that implies that the African-American reader will read across another culture as well. My guess and my prayer is that these unusual crossings will weave our lives and ministries together in ways we have not foreseen. (p. 9)

I have begun reading, and I love what I have been seeing so far. As I go through the book I will be posting summaries of the sermons in the book, as well as information about the preachers themselves (mostly from what Anyabwile has to say, but also from research I do elsewhere, providing information is available). I’m also going to see if I can find online copies of these sermons so others can benefit from these sermons as well.

*If you haven’t read any of Thabiti Anyabwile’s writings, he is an incredible author and preacher (he spoke at T4G; his sermon on Christian identity and the idea of race can be found here). Check out his blog. I recommend starting with his series on the requirements for church elders, entitled “Finding Reliable Men”: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I’ve kind of gotten to a point in studying theology where all of the general concepts make sense to me, and I have a general understanding of what is orthodox and what is unorthodox. But I also have a horrible memory and have done nothing to link my beliefs to scripture; essentially, if called upon to defend my theological persuasions, for a great number of them I could not (at least if my own knowledge is the key factor; I’ve actually had several experiences where God totally brought random pieces of Scripture to my mind, out of the blue, when talking with some people). I was talking with my friend Sean about this about a week or two ago, and I’ve decided that I really want to be studying these issues and at least be writing down a defense of orthodox beliefs that I would hold to but could not defend on the spot. This may not be the end goal I seek for, but it gets me a step closer and I would certainly be more likely to remember this stuff.

I’m starting with discipline because it’s a topic I’ve been meaning to get a better grasp on for a while now. But it should be obvious that this isn’t necessarily a large issue of orthodox doctrine, as justification or penal substitutionary atonement is. Thus, accept that these are about orthodox doctrines even when it comes to the loosest of things. In this new category of posts on this blog, I want to consider anything that is true and has a bearing on or basis in Scripture or the Church.

I begin with discipline. I have begun studying the topic, and the first full resource (aside from articles and blog posts) that I’ve turned to is Jay Adams’ Handbook of Church Discipline. I don’t have the time or space to do a full outline of where all of this comes from in Scripture, but it’s all basically drawn out as an implication of a few select passages, mainly Jesus’ words on discipline in Matthew 18.

Discipline is a mark of the true church, commanded by Jesus (Matthew 18:15-20). It is a right of every professing believer, who receives the right by virtue of being in the church catholic, but by means of the church local. Furthermore, discipline is fundamentally a matter of educating believers. As Adams says, in Hebrews 12:11 the word discipline in Greek is paideia, which refers to the Greek way of educating children. Therefore, this context suggests that the author is saying that the goal in discipline is to teach. Teach who? Those who are either 1) unlearned (preventive discipline) or 2) sinning (punitive discipline).

Preventive discipline consists primarily of teaching believers the Word of God; secondarily it consists of administering the sacraments of water baptism by either immersion or sprinkling (as an infant if the parents are in agreement, or else as adults) and holy communion. In essence, our attempt is to equip members to hopefully be at a point where they will know what is sin, and not do those things that are sinful.

Punitive discipline consists of four stages. In all of these, the chief goal is that the person listen and repent. If at any point the person does repent (even if it is after having been removed from the church body) they are to be welcomed back, accepted, forgiven, loved, and most importantly assisted with the sin and effects of the sin they were struggling with. When calling a member to repentance, the member should be confronted as much as is necessary at one stage to confirm that the person has not listened to the call to repentance. This is not a once-a-step deal. This does not apply in all places, though; for example, see Titus 3:10-11. In such cases, discipline can be executed much more quickly so as to be in line with Paul’s commandment to Titus.

The first two stages of punitive discipline can be described as informal because it does not require the elders or congregation as a whole to have any part at all. In fact, from the “widening” scope of the number of people who find out about the sin in the system that Jesus has established for us, it is clear that keeping the issue confined to as few people as possible is a priority, which would mean that the elders or congregation not only are not required to know, but in fact should not know. The person’s reputation is to be protected unless it is necessary to discipline them within a wider group of people.

Informal discipline is done by calling the sinning member or group to repentance first on a one-on-one basis (e.g., one person calls a person or group to repentance), and if it is clear that the person or group has not listened to the call to repentance, this is escalated to include two or three witnesses going with the original confronter for yet another series of calls to repentance given to the sinning member or group. It is not necessary that these people have witnessed the person or group’s sin themselves; they are there to confirm that the member was confronted and called to repentance and did not in fact do so. This is evident from Jesus saying in Matthew 18:16, “that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” The word that I believe to be used for “charge” here, rhema refers to the words spoken or the subject matter discussed. So they are to be there to witness what is said to the person.

The third and fourth steps of punitive discipline can be described as formal, meaning that the leaders and entire church are involved. In these stages, the entire local church exercises discipline towards an errant individual or group. The third step of discipline consists of calling to repentance, in the presence of the entire gathered congregation (and them only) the member or group who is/are in sin. If they do not repent, the second stage of formal discipline is to cast the person out into the world and treat them as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matthew 18:17).

David Hoos has posted some excellent thoughts on documentaries and Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, on his blog, The Waterspout. Do recommend the read. [Link]

excerpt

While I think it’s neat that some I.D. sympathizers have gone and made themselves a movie, and one that is getting a decent exposure and release, I can’t help but wonder why they chose the style they did. Ben Stein is acting like Michael Moore in Expelled. He’s playing David against an academic Goliath. No doubt that is the idea behind it but frankly that worries me. If we truly believe we have the stronger case as I.D. folks, then why resort to a pathos heavy documentary?

- David Hoos, “No Moore, No Less” on The Waterspout Blog

Read the rest here.

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.

- John Newton (coincidentally quoted in a book by the author below named, Reformed Is Not Enough)

Are you children of Abraham? Don’t show us the papers of your family tree — do the works of Abraham. Are you Lutherans? Then preach like Luther did. Are you children of Calvin? Then do the works of Calvin. Don’t read us the words of Calvin in a monotone; don’t read them off the marble monument you set up in the lobby of the Reformed museum. And if you try to read them in that monotone, and I object, don’t try to make it appear that I have problem with his words. Preach them to the world in the open air; preach them in such a way that people start accusing you of being a madman, or drunk, or evil, or something. Preach them in such a way that people set up anonymous websites to destroy your reputation. Don’t pin his words to a poster board like a row of dead but orthodox butterflies.

- Doug Wilson, “Orders of Magnitude” on Blog and Mablog

I think that one misunderstanding of what I said yesterday about Isaiah 5:13 could arise, mostly just from the sort of example I used to typify the problem that I see with a lot of the people I know. I said, “It frightens me that we lack knowledge and that some even adopt an attitude of rejecting (at least they think they reject) systematic studies of the character and nature of God and his works.” This seems to suggest that the problem I get distressed over is the fact that not all of the people I know want to break open Wayne Grudem’s (excellent, I might add) Systematic Theology and read through the section on penal substitutionary atonement, careful to memorize every jot and tittle. I want to make it clear that my problem is not that people do not do this. It’s not that people sometimes reject the idea of a system of studies on the character and works of God. This happens, and I think it is a problem to be addressed for some individuals who are explicitly against this, but it is only a symptom (not common among those whom I know) of the underlying attitude; my problem is with the willful ignorance that underlies this problem. So this is a very bad example because this does not typify the sort of willful ignorance I see in a lot of the people that I know; it is only one example, which is on the far end of the spectrum of this problem. This underlying problem of willful ignorance shows itself in much more common attitudes.

Since this misunderstanding could result, I want to provide a better example of the sort of problem I see. In order to do this, it will be helpful to consider how Psalm 1 characterizes the “blessed man”:

Psalm 1
¹Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
²but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

³He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers. ⁴The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

⁵Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
⁶for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

Psalm 1, ESV

In this passage, we are shown that there are two kinds of people: the wicked and the righteous. Some might be inclined to say that this passage only shows that it is far better to do the things that it talks about here because it begins with, “Blessed is the man”. They are inclined to believe that this means that this is not a characterization of the righteous, but that it instead is addressing the super-righteous people who are most blessed, or something along those lines. However, the entire conclusion of this Psalm, in verses 5 and 6, is aimed at contrasting the lives and fruit of the righteous with the lives and fruit (or lack thereof) of the wicked. It is said of the blessed man that all these things are true, and then it concludes with “So the LORD knows the way of the righteous”. In other words, the blessed man is being described as doing these things particularly because this is the way of the righteous. Yes, there are those who live in a way that is more righteous and there are those who live in a way that is less righteous, but what is being talked about here is a characterization of the righteous life - not people who are somehow the “most righteous”. So because of the conclusion, we can say that it is the righteous who do not walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of scoffers; the righteous who delight in the law of the Lord and meditate on it day and night; the righteous who are like a tree planted by streams of water, yield fruit in season, and do not wither; the righteous who prosper in all they do; the righteous who are not like chaff that the wind drives away.

Now, if this speaks of all the righteous, then it follows that what is said in verse 2 is true of those who are part of the “congregation of the righteous”. The righteous delight in the law of the Lord and meditate on it day and night. “Meditate” here means something along the lines of “ponder” (MacArthur) or “muse” (Strongs). In other words, the righteous have a fascination with the law of God and delight in thinking on these things day and night.

Now, when it comes to the people I know, this is much closer to what I’m talking about. The rejection of the the systems of studies of God and such is only a symptom of this deeper problem of willful ignorance. Willful ignorance shows itself much more often in not making it a priority to meditate and delight in the law of God. I hope that clarifies what it is that distresses me.

On his blog, Peter Leithart posted an article from Biblical Horizons (not available on the Biblical Horizons website) on what is going on in Jude 9. I very much enjoyed it, and he did a great job of tying Jude 9 into the context of the rest of scripture.

From the post…
Jude 9 raises several difficulties (though not insuperable difficulties) for conservative commentators. The event that Jude recounts does not seem to be drawn from the Old Testament, and most scholars claim, based on statements of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, that Jude borrowed this story from the Assumption of Moses, an apocryphal work. If true, this raises the question of the status of apocryphal literature in general. We can, of course, defend the inerrancy of the canonical Scriptures even if this is the case. The Spirit, after all, might have led Jude to refer to this story, even though it came from a noncanonical book. But questions continue to nag at us. Is the story historical? Or, does Jude quote from a popular legend simply to support his theological point?

Link: http://www.leithart.com/2008/04/07/michaels-dispute/

Therefore my people go into exile
for lack of knowledge;
their honored men go hungry,
and their multitude is parched with thirst.

Isaiah 5:13

One of the biggest things that I pray for the church in general, and in particular for my friends and family in the church, is that God would give them a heart to drink deeply from his word, not only for the emotional impact it has on them, but more importantly to our own culture, for their own benefit in hard study. Calvin says in his commentary on this verse, “…he charges them with gross and voluntary ignorance, as if he had said that, by their madness, they brought down destruction on themselves. The meaning therefore is, that the people perished because they despised instruction; whereas they might have been preserved if they had listened to good counsels…” (here). It frightens me that we lack knowledge and that some even adopt an attitude of rejecting (at least they think they reject) systematic studies of the character and nature of God and his works. I say that they think they have rejected this because they actually haven’t; everyone has a system of theology. What differs is what that theology consists of. In this case, they have a theology of ignorance and are content to leave everything at a simple level; all belief and no understanding. But belief without understanding is belief without substance. Belief without understanding is an attempt to have unintegrated belief, which ultimately doesn’t hold up to anything.

If one is truly intellectually honest, I think that they will see that this strikes absolutely at the heart of Aminianism. Arminianism insidiously destroys any of the basis provided in scripture for trust in God and his goodness. How can we pray to God when all evil is the result of individual motivation and not the sovereignty of God? One might argue that God’s sovereignty means that it is useless to pray; this is not true, for we find that while God is sovereign this doesn’t mean he doesn’t use means, and we are commanded to pray not only to show his glory as provider, but also because it is commanded and is a means in his sovereign plan. Arminianism can’t even do that. It is truly a despicable portrayal of God. Why ask God for what he can’t do? Why have hope that he will do anything?

So why do religious believers pray for God’s help or healing? They ask for God’s action to come in to a situation and change it, yes; but if they are honest, they don’t see prayer as a plea for magical solutions that will make the world totally safe for them and others.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in response to the tsunami in Asian waters