1. He’s for a big government. I was deeply blessed last year to have a class on American government with an excellent professor who actually knew (and was passionate) about the subject. Much of the class consisted of analyzing the Constitution and The Federalist Papers, which were written in order to convince those who did not agree with them of the wisdom in the style of government that the Constitution proposed, by several of the men who supported the Constitution and its radically new style of government. The prominent theme throughout these writings is that the government must be kept small so that the people might maintain their freedoms (read it if you don’t believe me!). McCain has repeatedly made statements about national security and international politics to the effect that he would continue the pattern of government that was established by the Bush administration, including the current security systems that have been established to “protect” us against homeland invasion. In the words of Thomas Jefferson (later reiterated by Gerald Ford), this is insane because “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have”.
2. He is a hothead who would likely lead us into yet another unjust war against other nations. McCain has repeatedly said that we would continue the war in Iraq without definite end in sight, and has made threatening statements to Iran. The wars that we have had so far have been unjust (this is not to downplay the fact that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who oppressed his people, though) because we had no right to do what we did, and this has damaged our reputation with other countries. If we are going to go to war, we must have a justification for it.
3. He self-admittedly doesn’t have much knowledge about economics, which means that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This will perpetuate the same problems we have had with the Bush administration and the current situation that we are in. Governmental finance needs to be held accountable to the people; it is irresponsible for us to allow a man to lead the country when he doesn’t even know how to go about his task.
4. He’s immoral. Of primary interest here are 1) the numerous situations in which he has lied and 2) his sexual immorality with his current wife. For lying, consider what he said about the security situation in Iraq. He said that there are now neighborhoods in Baghdad where individuals can walk around completely safe. But both Western and Middle East journalists alike - who have actually spent extended periods of time there, mind you - have denied that this is true. In addition, McCain has also stated that Baghdad is so safe that General Petraeus even drives around in an unarmored Humvee, which is patently false. (You can see a video catching him in the lie here.) As for his wife, McCain left his first wife for his second because the second caught his fancy. I could understand if this had been for marital infidelity on his first wife’s behalf, in which case McCain would be entirely justified. But this was a move of pure lust, a sin that we should not honor. If McCain isn’t faithful to his wife, wouldn’t he be unfaithful to his country?

Two possible objections arise to this, and they are more likely to arise because the only other viable option seems to be Barack Obama.

1. Socialism or capitalism? I’m not entirely convinced that either socialism or capitalism constitutes a biblical way to do things. Both have their good and bad sides. Capitalism tends to encourage greed and selfishness, but it doesn’t inherently involve stealing money from those who have rightfully earned it to give money to those who have not earned it. Socialism takes care of everyone and enforces fairness in regards to treatment, but it requires that individuals be taxed out of money they have rightfully earned, and again results in a large government - which is unconstitutional. Furthermore, if we have a single-payer health care system (one of the things that naturally comes up in any discussion of socialism) this oversteps the bounds of the constitution because health care is not a responsibility of the federal government. I’m kind of split over this one still, though, because it seems to me that the church is supposed to be doing this job. Should I use my vote to support a person who would take this role out of the hands of the church and put it into the hands of the government? I haven’t been able to determine which is best yet.
2. What about abortion? The few times that I’ve indicated that I might feel obligated to vote for Obama because he ends up being the only viable alternative to McCain, the response I have heard most often is, “But how can you support abortion?” The problem with asking this question is that it assumes that Obama is so much worse than McCain. “Look over McCain’s voting record concerning abortion” is all I can say… I don’t think it is a choice between pro-abortion and pro-life - because both are, to very similar extents, pro-abortion. There simply is no reason to believe that McCain is any better a choice than Obama in this regard. While he has said some things to the effect that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and recognizes that abortion is a social problem and not just a legislative one, this is hardly different from Barack Obama, who has said that although he would like women to have the “right” to choose to have an abortion and “protect their health” if they feel like it, he also would like to see a social change so that women no longer choose to do such a destructive thing. At best, both of them are inconsistent, and I’m not at all convinced that McCain is any good alternative to Obama, especially given the other flaws mentioned above. If you wanted a truly pro-life candidate, you should have voted Ron Paul, who supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, like McCain, but whose record on the issue of abortion is untainted and absolutely consistent.

That having been said, I may still end up voting for a third-party candidate, but I haven’t done enough research yet to determine who would be a suitable alternative.

Distilled essence: Conservatives are more generous with their own money; liberals are more generous with everybody else’s money. Socialism is government-sanctioned thievery, people.

If you don’t want to spend the time reading everything here, it can all be summed up with the following: If you do not know Jesus, his wrath burns against you and you will be destroyed in the last day by that wrath. Why? You are born sinful from the moment of birth, which means that in your very nature, you do not seek to follow, love, honor, or glorify God. But God made all things and all things are for his honor. Therefore, if you are not honoring him with all that you have, you are robbing from him, and God burns hot in his wrath against you for this. Furthermore, you are sinful in such a way that you cannot, by your own will, seek to honor and glorify God. You are literally trapped into a life of sin, apart from God, ending in condemnation and suffering. But God is merciful and kind, and he himself sent his son, the God-man named Jesus, was born in a podunk town called Galilee about two-thousand years ago, lived a perfect life, and then was offered up as a sacrifice to save you from your sins by being unjustly murdered, by crucifixion. But since he was perfect and his murder was entirely undeserved, God raised him to life from death, and honored him. Salvation is only by his grace, and that grace is given to you in his death and coming back to life from the dead. If you don’t know God, please, it is not worth the few cents you could be earning right now to die and never know God. How does one get salvation? You don’t. You cannot earn it, and you cannot ever act in a way that is pleasing enough to God so that he will save you. Salvation is only by his grace. If you repent of your sin and have faith in Jesus to save you from his wrath, you can know with total assurance that Jesus has set you from what the Apostle Paul calls the "law of sin and death", which is basically the fact that you cannot do anything but sin against God. God puts his Spirit in you, in salvation, to make you alive even though were dead, and you are set free to live a life that is pleasing to Him. Anybody who is reading this, I am begging that you would repent of your sin and then follow Jesus. What is required of you, he gives freely to you, the undeserving. And if you do actually do this, please e-mail me (john.nicely@gmail.com) and let me know so that I can give you as much as I can so that you can grow in righteousness and faith in God. Thanks for at least reading this!

In New Jersey we have some wonderful little pizza joints. Any of these, if they were to expand and build more stores, would be instantly successful. But I digress. I was at one such pizza joint (Nellie’s Place in Waldwick, NJ; don’t miss the opportunity to visit it if you’re in northern New Jersey!) last night with my dad and some of the people from the worship team at the church he serves as a pastor of music. One of the guys, Frank, has been leading his family through Psalms and asked me how I would condense Psalm 109. Normally in the mornings I do devotions from the Old Testament (in Deuteronomy right now!) but I took some time out to work through Psalm 109.

That having been said, I will now unfold (hopefully well) what I believe Psalm 109 says, and what this means for daily living on our part. First, the scripture:

Psalm 109

Help Me, O LORD My God
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David.
Be not silent, O God of my praise! For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying tongues.
They encircle me with words of hate,
and attack me without cause.
In return for my love they accuse me,
but I give myself to prayer.
So they reward me evil for good,
and hatred for my love.

Appoint a wicked man against him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is tried, let him come forth guilty;
let his prayer be counted as sin!
May his days be few;
may another take his office!
May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow!
May his children wander about and beg,
seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
May the creditor seize all that he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
nor any to pity his fatherless children!
May his posterity be cut off;
may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
Let them be before the LORD continually,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth!

For he did not remember to show kindness,
but pursued the poor and needy
and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.
He loved to curse; let curses come upon him!
He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him!
He clothed himself with cursing as his coat;
may it soak into his body like water,
like oil into his bones!
May it be like a garment that he wraps around him,
like a belt that he puts on every day!
May this be the reward of my accusers from the LORD,
of those who speak evil against my life!

But you, O GOD my Lord,
deal on my behalf for your name’s sake;
because your steadfast love is good, deliver me!
For I am poor and needy,
and my heart is stricken within me.
I am gone like a shadow at evening;
I am shaken off like a locust.
My knees are weak through fasting;
my body has become gaunt, with no fat.
I am an object of scorn to my accusers;
when they see me, they wag their heads.

Help me, O LORD my God!
Save me according to your steadfast love!
Let them know that this is your hand;
you, O LORD, have done it!
Let them curse, but you will bless!
They arise and are put to shame, but your servant will be glad!
May my accusers be clothed with dishonor;
may they be wrapped in their own shame as in a cloak!

With my mouth I will give great thanks to the LORD;
I will praise him in the midst of the throng.
For he stands at the right hand of the needy one,
to save him from those who condemn his soul to death.

The first thing about this Psalm that is immediately applicable to each and every person is that it seems to contradict a command from Jesus that we have regular opportunity to do: "turn the other cheek". David is grieved for the sin that has been committed against him, and his response seems to be ungodly. He has been lied about (v. 2), spoken to maliciously and attacked without cause (v. 3), and betrayed (v. 4, 5). What is his response? He asks God to "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand at his right hand…" and etcetera. This hardly seems to be the spirit that Jesus told us to have towards enemies. And not only does he pray in this way, but he also gives it to the choirmaster (v. 1). This musician is all sorts of crazy, right?

Wrong. Why does David write this Psalm? "But you, O God my Lord, deal on my behalf for your name’s sake; because your steadfast love is good, deliver me!" (v. 21). The apex of David’s request before God is that God be glorified. This provides us with fertile grounds for showing that David is not out of line with the spirit that Christ tells us to have. In fact, to the contrary, this Psalm and the spirit in which it is written, like so many other actions and words of Old Testament saints, points us to Christ. But we need to be very careful in saying this about Christ. Spurgeon says, "This Psalm refers to Judas, for so Peter quoted it; but to ascribe its bitter denunciations to our Lord in the hour of his sufferings is more than we dare to do" (Treasure of David, 436; see Acts 1:20 where the second passage that Peter quotes is from Psalm 109:8).

I said that this Psalm points us to Christ. What does this mean? It will be useful to offer a brief note on the way in which certain characters in the Old Testament (examples: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David) can be called "types of Christ". To call someone a "type of Christ" is to say that in some way, they represent – they foreshadow - something about the character, nature, actions, and attitudes of God in human flesh. But when we do this we have to be careful, which is why I said that "in some way" they point us forward to Christ; the saints in the Old Testament are an only imperfect analogy to our perfect Savior. For example, Moses points us forward to Christ by showing us how Christ would intercede before God for those he would save, because Moses does the same thing for the rebellious people of Israel in Numbers 14:13-19. Anytime we see this going on (when we see that a certain person in the Old Testament points us forward to Christ) the next question we have should be, "How does this person not point us forward to Christ?" With Moses as an example again, it would be a denial of Jesus’ perfection to say that Moses also points us forward to Christ in Numbers 20:2-13, when Moses and Aaron have little faith that God will provide for Israel. Return to David, just like Moses’ actions, David’s words here in some ways point forward to Christ, but are not in every way a perfect representation of what Christ would pray about those who accused him.

That having been said, in what ways do these words of David point forward to Christ, and how do they not? First, I think that the major thing about David that does not point forward to Christ is his attitude of wanting vengeance now. Christ didn’t exhibit this attitude. Drawing ourselves back to the earlier mentioned command of Jesus, "turn the other cheek", let’s look at this in context:

Matthew 5:38-48
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

First, notice that this passage is not an encouragement to let sin go unpunished. Sin doesn’t go unpunished. Because God is just and sovereign, nobody who has deserved his wrath will escape it; even for those who bear the name of Christ and are his, God’s wrath has still been poured out, only in our case the one who bears the wrath of God is Jesus himself, and not we who justly deserve it. God does punish sin. Spurgeon again says,

"Nay, love, and truth, and pity lift their wounds to heaven, and implore vengeance on the enemies of the innocent and oppressed; those who render goodness itself a crime, and make innocence a motive for hate, deserve to find no mercy from the great Preserver of men. Vengeance is the prerogative of God, and as it would be a boundless calamity if evil were for ever to go unpunished, so it is an unspeakable blessing that the Lord will recompense the wicked and cruel man, and there are times and seasons when a good man ought to pray for that blessing. When the Judge of all threatens to punish tyrannical cruelty and falsehearted treachery, virtue gives her assent and consent. Amen, so let it be, saith every just man in his inmost soul.

Treasury of David, p. 438

God is just and will punish sin. So Jesus is not saying that we just let sinners off the hook. He is not denying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". This command, which appears in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Now, check out each of these passages in context:

Exodus 21:22-25
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Leviticus 24:17-23
"’Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.’ So Moses spoke to the people of Israel, and they brought out of the camp the one who had cursed and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses."

Deuteronomy 19:15-21
"’A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

The landscape changes remarkably when we consider a common feature of all these passages: In all three, there is a presumption that this is not one person informally hunting down the other to take eye for eye, tooth for tooth. It is always before the authorities that this is done (in the passages above, I highlighted the parts that lead to this conclusion). But is Jesus talking about this? Is he saying, "Don’t pursue justice before the authorities?" I don’t believe so. I believe that the reason he says what he does is that the people were committing a perversion of this command. Instead of bringing their issue before the judges and authorities, they were individually seeking vengeance on each other. And Jesus is answering the question, "Well, what about when there is injustice occurring and the authorities do nothing?" as can be seen from his comments on what they should do if they are sued. The implications are twofold: On the one hand, that if they are in the wrong and are being rightfully sued, they should pay back more than they were sued for; and on the other, that if they are in the right and are being wrongfully sued, and (God forbid) they are gypped out of what they rightfully own, they should treat the person with grace.

So when David asks for justice, this is by no means wrong, and moreover it is not a slight against what Jesus says. David is imploring God for justice; he is asking God to give execute justice now. But this is different from Christ, because when Christ says that we should treat those who have wronged us (and gotten away with it) with mercy, we are to keep in mind that "…for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust"; in other words, God is just, and he is provider, and he will work out all of these issues. We are to be patient in waiting for him to execute justice in his own time.

Now, in seeking for justice from God, this is where we see Christ revealed in his excellence. He did not seek for justice in the moment of his defamation and execution, and destroy everything that was made through (Hebrews 1:2) and exists in (Acts 17:28) him.. No, we read that,

Hebrews 10:11-13
"…every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet."

Jesus allowed himself to be put to death "for the joy that was set before him" (Hebrews 12:2, ESV). And the joy that was set before him was the joy of being honored as the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2); this includes all of us, who are co-heirs with him. Furthermore, his joy was being glorified by the Father as he glorified the Father. By dying, the Son could rightfully say to all who are not covered by his blood: "You are condemned because you have not known me". Without his death, we are condemned; and by rejecting him in his death and resurrection, we remain condemned not only by the Father but by the Son and Spirit. The Father glorifies the Son by requiring him of all of us. Some will even come to him, saying, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?", and he will say to them, "I never knew you; depart from me" (Matthew 7:23, ESV). So Jesus is glorified in the judgment of these people because they never knew him. Therefore, Jesus himself seeks a justice that is horrible on those to whom it comes, but he doesn’t seek it now. This justice comes "on that day" (Matthew 7:22, ESV).

To conclude all of this, I want to say something on the tone in which David speaks. I quoted from Spurgeon above; he says, "This Psalm refers to Judas, for so Peter quoted it; but to ascribe its bitter denunciations to our Lord in the hour of his sufferings is more than we dare to do" (Treasury of David, 436). Spurgeon is correct in this, but we should be very careful here. Jesus does not seek for justice in the hour of his sufferings is more than we dare to do. But yet we read that Jesus and the Father are one and have one will and purpose (John 10:30) and that the Father "will swallow them [his enemies, those who hate him – 21:8] up in his wrath, and fire will consume them" (Psalm 21:9, ESV). God is fundamentally just, and every sin has to be paid for. In the moment of laying himself down, Jesus did not pray bitter imprecations towards his enemies, but be assured that his wrath burns hot against all who are dishonoring him by refusing to lay all before him. His wrath burns because only he is worthy to have all things; if we pretend that all things, including our lives, are our own – which is our natural state in our sin – then we rob him of his glory, and Jesus, like the Father, burns with wrath against that sinfulness. His mercy is great on those who love and obey him. For those who have been covered by his blood, he bears all of the punishment for that sin. But for all those who do not submit to him and give him the position of honor in all things, they are trying to rob him of his glory, and he will not allow that. His wrath burns hot; he will judge all things and condemn the treasonous wretches who try to take his glory, even if they think they are not attempting to do this.

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.

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…

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’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).

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

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.