Have You Studied the Issue of Baptism?

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Pearson Johnson

Adoniram Judson, pioneer missionary to Burma, was not afraid to, and it changed his view and cost him dearly.  I encourage, yes, challenge you—do not think you hold to a biblical mode of baptism that is not believer’s baptism by immersion, unless you can read this missionary’s reasoned study and refute it by God’s Word. If you do hold to believer’s baptism by immersion, do not think that the mode and timing of baptism is a matter of non-importance if Christ commanded us to do it! Judson’s story and sermon will strengthen your understanding.

Judson, originally a Congregational missionary holding to paedobaptism (infant baptism), took time to study the issue on his and Ann’s sea voyage to India. One account follows:

On the five months’ sea voyage Adoniram gave himself to an in-depth study of baptism. He was prompted by the question of what procedure he would employ with converts.  He was also concerned as to how he would defend paedobaptism when he was with the British Baptist missionaries at Serampore [William Carey and others].  Adoniram read everything he could find on both sides of the subject. Ann [his wife] resolutely declared that nothing would change her views. She used every argument she could to dissuade Adoniram from changing his position. But eventually she came to the Baptist position herself. This was seismic in its outcome. It spelled the end of all their support…. In a letter to a friend, William Carey wrote, “since their arrival in Bengal brother and sister Judson have been baptized. Judson preached the best sermon upon baptism that I have ever heard on the subject, which we intend to print.” (in Adoniram Judson and the Missionary Call by Erroll Hulse, p. 14)

That sermon was published as “A Sermon on Christian Baptism.” A version is available to read on Google Books here and it will take you less than an hour to read it. If my challenge to you to read it above was not enough, I leave you with the words of Judson himself from his sermon’s conclusion:

To believe in Christ is necessary to salvation ; and to be baptized [as a believer by immersion as he has argued] is the instituted method of professing our belief. It is, therefore, not only an infinitely important question to all men, whether they believe in Christ; but it is also a very important question to all Christians, whether they have been baptized. If you love Christ, you cannot consider this question unimportant. You will be desirous of discovering the will of him whom you love, and of testifying your love, by joyfully obeying. (93)

If, when your mind adverts to this question, you fear the consequences of an examination, and dread those sacrifices, which a discovery that you have been mistaken may enforce on your conscience; or if you feel the influence of long established sentiments, and imagine, that the subject is too dark and intricate for your investigation; look to the Son of God, who hesitated not to make the greatest sacrifices, and to endure the most painful sufferings for you; and look up to the Father of lights, to send the Holy Spirit according to the promise of his Son, to guide you into all truth. Especially, my brethren, diligently use the means of discovering the truth. Put yourselves in the way of evidence. Indulge free examination. Though the sun shines with perfect clearness, you will never see that light which others enjoy, if you confine yourselves in a cavern, which the beams of the sun cannot penetrate. Be assured that there is sufficient evidence on this subject, if you seek to discover it. But if your love for truth is not sufficiently strong to make you willing to labor for the discovery of evidence, God will probably leave you to be contented with error. (93-94)

Email
Posted in Pastoral Theology, Theology | Tagged | 9 Comments

Another Good Book

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Mark Snoeberger

I just finished a helpful book by Thomas E. Bergler, The Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2012). Those of you who know me know that books on youth ministry are not my typical cuisine, but this was no typical book on youth ministry. Instead, it was a history of how excessive Christian catering to youth has comprehensively transformed how Americans “do” church. In the first chapter the author shocks the reader with the observation that “we’re all adolescents now,” and in the balance of the book he explains how this happened. Contemporary society tells us that this development is good. The author demurs.

It’s not that adolescence is bad. Adolescents play a vital role in infusing the church with fresh optimism, zeal, innovation, and attention to cultural change. For these reasons, the author (a 12-year professor of youth ministry and senior associate editor for The Journal of Youth Ministry) assures us that he is not planning to bash youth in this book. He is concerned, though, that the adolescents are refusing to become adults; instead, they are assuming leadership roles in the church as chronic adolescents rather than as adults. So pervasive is this problem that the American church has completely inverted its first-century tendency to “despise youth” to instead despise mature people—people who temper youthful optimism with experimental realism, youthful zeal with knowledge, and youthful innovation with caution. Indeed, as Carl Trueman recently observed, Paul’s advice in 1 Timothy 4:12 seems “at best unnecessary, at worst incomprehensible today.” A more apt warning for the contemporary church, he muses, might be “Let no one despise you because of your great age.”

By youth, Bergler does not restrict his discussion to “teenagers.” The rise of this age-segregated, non-employed high school demographic in the wake of the Great Depression was an important step in creating youth culture, but teenagers today are being slowly marginalized as an “amusing” or even “irritating” prequel to youth (p. 46). The nexus of youth has shifted instead to a brand new demographic that extends from high school graduation to the arrival of adulthood, with its three cardinal features of marriage, children, and a stable career. Unfortunately, society’s fawning cultivation of this new demographic has been so complete, Bergler observes, that today’s youth have lost all interest in moving on. Marriage is now viewed as boring or as a laboratory for social experimentation. Children are a bother. And the ideal of stability that once was an object of aspiration has been recast as the dark vestibule of expiration. It’s no longer the “in thing” to grow up. One cannot help getting older, of course, but that does not mean we must succumb to adulthood. Everyone can be a youth! Almost all secular advertising is directed to that very end. Even advertising directed toward those poor people infected with adulthood has as its goal the reawaking of adolescence. Adulthood can be temporary, they tell us: grown-ups can recover from their misery and enjoy a second adolescence in retirement. This is a troubling trend in secular society. It’s a serious problem in the church of God.

The earliest elements of the juvenilization of the Church took place outside churches. Organizations like Young Life and Youth for Christ focused on “keeping” youth by catering to their tastes and offering romantic, amusing thrills that rivaled and exceeded those found in secular life. In time, however, the youths began to return to their churches and demand similar thrills there. The result was churches fixated on keeping the attention of the expanding youth demographic: we’ve got to “keep” the youth, we hear, by adapting to their expectations. And the youth are more than willing to tell us about their expectations. Since the youth generation prizes technological innovation, churches must make upgrades as frequently and ambitiously as the Apple iPhone (of course the youth won’t pay for this, but they want it just the same). Since youth culture prizes tolerance, equality of opinion, and “belonging,” dialogue must replace dogma. Since the youth culture is skeptical of commitment and authority, churches must scrap their covenants, ignore their creeds, and instead celebrate involvement: the “what to expect” and “ministry opportunities” links have far outstripped the “what we believe” link in importance. Since youth culture prizes celebrity, the church must supply a steady stream of fresh preaching and musical icons (humble ones, of course). Since youth culture prizes simplicity, informality, and authenticity, the church must allow the youth to decide what the church will wear and what it will sing: after all, we surely would not want wise, stable, and mature believers stagnant and tradition-bound believers (much less dead ones) to contribute to these all-important aspects of worship. None of this is to say that all adolescent concern is bad; in fact, Bergler at times borders on the annoying in reminding his readers how important adolescents can be to the church. Still, he summarizes, “By assuming that teen tastes in music and spirituality were essentially neutral, [evangelicals] allowed the youth culture the power to reshape the Christian faith. While some of these changes were beneficial, others would create a chronic immaturity among American Christians” (p. 207).

Bergler traces the development of juvenilization along several lines, mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, African-American, and even “delinquent” perspectives—but mostly he concentrates on the white evangelical middle class. Readers looking for a history strictly of the latter might want to skip chapters 3–5, but should be aware that these chapters offer important contrasts in the way these groups invested in youth ministry together with theories about why these disparate groups have rarely succeeded in connecting meaningfully. This in turn exposes one of the greatest problems of adolescent churches—they tend to function as isolated and homogenous cliques that cannot appeal to anyone outside their own narrow demographic—the heterogeneous unions anticipated in the New Testament Scriptures have been forgotten.

Bergler does not believe a comprehensive reversal of juvenilization is possible or even advisable. Any church that tries to buck the trend, he cautions, will “pay a price” (p. 8). That does not mean, though, that Bergler is resigned to juvenilization: it must instead be managed, “tamed,” and only gently reversed. But how? Bergler’s admits that his purpose is more descriptive than prescriptive, but he offers at least one major corrective, viz., striving for biblically heterogeneous church involvement. Rich with poor. Black with white. Refined with raw. But most of all, Bergler suggests in the book’s thesis, young with old: “Only intergenerational communities of people devoted to mature Christianity can build seawalls high enough to hold back the tide of juvenilization that has now risen high enough to threaten all of us” (p. 18). He returns to this theme in his conclusion on pp. 226–29. Veteran believers must pray and serve side-by-side with unrefined new converts. Elderly and conventional Christians must intersect with young and progressive believers. Older and wiser, but sometimes pessimistic Christians must rub shoulders with younger, more naïve, and idealistic Christians. In short, instead of allowing generations of church members to stand at a distance from other generations and hold them in contempt, the church must return to the biblical ideal of facilitating adults to model reasons for adolescents to grow up (Titus 2:1–15; Eph 5:21–6:4; Col 3:18–4:1; 1 John 2:12–14).

Tolle Lege.

Email
Posted in Current Issues, Pastoral Theology | Tagged | Comments Off

Why the Silence?

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Dave Doran

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph 5:11). We live in a world where too often we hear about the unfruitful works of darkness—the nightly news seems to thrive on ghastly stories of murders, rapes, and violence. Frankly, it is why I don’t watch very much news. I’m not into ratings wars propelled by human suffering.

Yet, there is a place for the proper exposure of dark deeds so that the evil may be seen to be evil and our consciences and culture may be guarded against the numbness that comes along with moral decline. One would like to think that a news media which thrives on bringing to light every weird and wicked peccadillo would jump at the opportunity afforded them with the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering babies who survived late-term abortions. The details are genuinely disgusting, but that’s not my concern in this post.

My concern is over the virtual media blackout. Thankfully, it may be breaking due in large part to an editorial by Kirsten Powers that closes with these words, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” She is spot on with the main point of her statement—”The deafening silence…is a disgrace.” Tucked inside of her words, though, is a key which may explain the silence.

Viewing the media as a force for justice may be where the problem lies, since justice cannot be conceived of apart from moral values. There is no doubt that the media have been on the side of just causes in the past, but it seems equally clear that they have also been on the side of unjust causes. Like all people, those in media make their assessments of what is justice based on their own morals. In times where there has been a moral consensus about an issue, then the media has often been a vocal and important tool in pursuing justice (e.g., civil rights). It seems pretty clear that we don’t live in a time where there is a moral consensus about much, especially abortion.

If the predominant forces within the media world do not believe that abortion is a moral ill, then they face a genuine conflict in reporting the gruesome details of the Gosnell murders. They might find themselves stirring up opposition to a practice which they have defended. It is quite possible that their morals put them on the opposite side of justice in this case. Well, not as persons–I’m sure they are disgusted by the butchering and barbarism–but as advocates for social justice. Collectively, they might not want to give aid to their moral enemies in the abortion fight. Their “pursuit of justice” still pushes them to protect the “right” to kill babies.

This is the challenge of our day, a day where the culture is split on large, important moral issues. The media does view itself as a force for justice, but it often defines justice very differently from significant numbers of Americans, especially those who look to the Bible for ethical and moral instruction. The justice the media pursues, just like the rest of us, is one which is based on moral values. It appears that the media’s moral values in this case are being exposed.

What Gosnell has done is evil and the lack of media coverage, given its normal propensity to exploit and explore evil, is a disgrace. People whose moral values are offended by both the barbarity and the silence should raise their voices, not only to stop such barbaric acts, but to fight against having a culture shaped by the morals of the media. Our consciences and culture need to be stung by the moral tragedy that Gosnell’s murders represent.

Let us speak up, but do so graciously, pointing people to the real answer for the moral mess that comes when life is treated as disposable. Humans are made in God’s image, and Jesus Christ died and rose again so that we could have real, spiritual life. Let’s pray for another Great Awakening and let’s pursue it with a gospel focus that doesn’t reduce the Church to the level of a political action group. The ugliness of the Gosnell murders has exposed the ugliness in the human heart and there is only one remedy for that–the new birth. Let’s express our outrage, but let’s not get fooled into thinking that getting the media or legislators on our side is the real answer to our problems. We need an outpouring of God’s grace that produces a genuine revival among His people and awakening in our land. SDG.

Email
Posted in Current Issues | Tagged | Comments Off

The Importance of Being Important

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Ben Edwards

Christianity consists of beliefs and practices. There are certain ways one must view God, himself, and the world at large, and there are certain ways one must think, feel, and act as a result of those views. Throughout church history, Christians have debated what beliefs and practices are proper for the believer. That debate continues today.

Another debate has also occurred throughout church history—what should be done with those who disagree on the proper beliefs and practices for a believer? While it is not possible to answer either of those questions in this post, I would like to address three errors relevant to this debate that are common in conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism today and see two ways in which they manifest themselves.

Inversionism

Over time, it became clear to the church that some beliefs and practices were so central to Christianity that denying them meant denying Christianity itself. The items on this list have expanded as controversies have necessitated Christians to clarify their doctrine, but it includes things like the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection, and the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

However, some act as if these essential truths are less important than other truths. Though one might be wrong on a fundamental doctrine, if he agrees with someone on other issues, then the fundamental error will be overlooked. Thus, lesser truths and matters are treated as more important than essential truths and matters.

Everythingism

Those in this category do not minimize the central truths per se. Rather, they maximize every truth. It is not enough to agree on a host of issues—including all essential truths. One must agree on every matter of doctrine and practice. Disagreement on essential truths are treated the same as disagreement on lesser truths. Everything is fundamental, which ultimately means nothing is truly fundamental.

Onlyism

In response to both of the errors above, many today have fallen into a kind of “onlyism.” They recoil at the error of the inversionists and insist that certain matters are essential and must be defended. They reject the everythingists and point out that some matters are central and others are not. Where they fail, however, is in dealing with those non-essential matters. Their emphasis on the central issues and the minimal unity they provide for believers is commendable, but it often leads to treating everything else as inconsequential. Thus, baptism, church polity, eschatology, philosophy and approach to culture, creation, role of women in ministry, covenant theology/dispensationalism, continuationism/cessationism, and other matters practically have no bearing on anything.

The Missing Category of Important

What is missing in the above three errors is a proper understanding of importance. The inversionists fail because they raise matters of less importance above matters of greater importance. The everythingists fail because they deny that there are levels of importance and, thus, make nothing truly important. The onlyists fail because they act as if less important means not important.

It is crucial to keep the main thing the main thing. But other matters, though not vital, are still important. Jesus rightly condemns the Pharisees for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law” but also affirms their need to do all of the law (Matt 23:23). The non-essential matters may have varying levels of importance, but they are still important and, therefore, consequential.

Manifestations of these Errors

These three errors are evident in discussions of evangelism and social work, and in discussions of ministry evaluation and cooperation. (NOTE: those who fall into a particular category in one instance may not fall into it in the other).

Evangelism and Social Work

The relationship between evangelism and “doing good” has been controversial for the last several decades. (NOTE: I’m not going to defend the priority of evangelism over doing good here. You can see a bit of my defense here). Inversionists elevate social work above the gospel, leading them to partner with deniers of the gospel in supposedly “Christian” work. This partnership may be evidenced through “Christian” political organizations and manifestos, rescue missions, disaster relief, etc., but it inverts the importance of the gospel and social work. Everythingists make social work equal with evangelism. They  see the role of the church as equally concerned with making disciples and doing good. They fear that giving evangelism priority will mean neglecting social work. Onlyists fulfill that fear by acting as if evangelism is all that matters for the believer since it is central.

What is missing is a proper understanding of importance. Since the gospel is central, believers cannot work with unbelievers in supposedly Christian venues in order to accomplish a goal in society, even if that goal is important. However, the importance of that goal means believers should work towards it, while maintaining the priority of evangelism.

Ministry Evaluation and Cooperation

Properly evaluating a ministry to determine what kind of cooperation is valid is where these errors are displayed most prominently. Inversionists excuse central error by highlighting lesser things. One can be at best unclear on the matter of the Trinity but can still be utilized as a Christian leader if he can discuss having a large church or provide entertaining music. One can be at best confused on the issue of inspiration but can still be held up as a teacher of the Word if he agrees on cultural matters.

Everythingists find little to commend in other ministries and have almost no cooperation with them. Since they alone have the truth, almost every other believer is wrong. Further, since all truths are equal, the error of others nearly always amounts to heresy and apostasy.

Onlyists always point the conversation back to gospel issues. When someone begins evaluating a ministry based on other matters, the onlyists sound the cry of factionalism and judgmentalism. A ministry cannot be critiqued as long as they get the gospel right. Nothing else matters.

Again, the concept of importance is helpful. Inversionists are wrong in what they do because they overlook the most important issues while emphasizing lesser ones. The everythingists are wrong because they treat every error as equally important. The onlyists are wrong because they treat non-essential matters as unimportant.

It is certainly right to begin an evaluation of a ministry or Christian leader on the proper understanding of the gospel. Being right on other truths does not excuse endorsing or cooperating with those who are wrong on essential matters. Acting as if all matters are equally important wrongly impugns the ministry of others and hinders proper Christian fellowship. But stopping at gospel truth also fails to allow a proper evaluation. Though not essential, many truths are important. And whether or not a ministry or leader gets those important truths right should affect our evaluation of them and our cooperation with them. We must keep the main thing the main thing, but we must also keep important things important.

Email
Posted in Current Issues, Practical Theology | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Refresh Your Greek

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Jared Compton

I’ve never met a Bible teacher who wished they had not learned Greek. It’s only the guys who have let it slip and no longer use it for their sermon preparation who try to tell me that Greek doesn’t enhance their teaching—Con Campbell in Keep Your Greek: Strategies for Busy People

If you’ve let your Greek slide a wee bit over the last year (or more!), don’t despair. You’re in luck. DBTS will once more be offering a Greek refresher course this summer. The course, which I’ll be leading, is open to anyone interested, though I suspect you’ll not find it very helpful if you’ve not had at least a year or two of Greek. The course, moreover, will be pretty informal: once again there’s no cost, credit, attendance requirements or grades. We’ll meet for 1 hr. every Friday at 7 a.m. for 6 weeks, beginning May 24. This should be just enough time to refresh your Greek, without wearing you—or me—out. (Last year’s 15 weeks were fun, but a bit much!) We’ll be reading the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, so the Greek won’t be too terribly complex and the material should give us a lot to talk about beyond grammar and morphology. If you’re interested in joining us, you can find the schedule here. If you have any questions, just post a comment or send me an email at jcompton@dbts.edu. Hope to see you there—and feel free to bring a friend!

Note: If you’re itching for a little pre-game strategy, I’d recommend getting your hands on the book I cited above by Campbell. It’s full of useful advice for reinvigorating your Greek and it’s SHORT (90 small pp.).

Email
Posted in Announcements, Biblical Greek | 3 Comments

Things to Do in Detroit: The Detroit Historical Museum

Posted on April 7, 2013 by John Aloisi

Most people probably don’t have Detroit near the top of their list of possible vacation destinations, but there actually are quite a few interesting places to visit in and around the city of Detroit.

The Detroit Historical Museum is located downtown in the museum district between Cass and Woodward Ave (about 15 minutes from the seminary). The DHM was closed for renovations much of last year and just reopened this past November. I recently took my family there for the first time, and they really enjoyed it.

The museum features signature exhibits such as the “Streets of Detroit” and “America’s Motor City” as well as rotating exhibits like the current one on the history of Ukraine and Ukrainian immigration to Michigan. The museum also includes some exhibits that are probably as much fun as they are educational such as the Glancy Model Train display and many items highlighting the history of Detroit’s sports teams.

If you live in the area or are planning to visit Detroit in the near future, the DHM is definitely worth a few hours of your time. Admission is currently free, and parking is inexpensive. Whoever said Detroit isn’t a vacation hotspot?

Email
Posted in History | Tagged | Comments Off

Gay Marriage

Posted on April 5, 2013 by Bill Combs

A couple of months ago I posted a rather somber assessment of what is coming for the evangelical church as it confronts the push towards gay marriage under the guise of “marriage equality.” I see that Professor Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College, who is also a Roman Catholic, has come to a similar conclusion:

If things keep drifting in the direction in which they are rapidly drifting now, Catholics and other Christians and Jews who adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian moral teaching are going to be marginalized, then persecuted. I foresee a day when the tax-exempt status of the Roman Catholic Church will be yanked because it resolutely refuses to ordain women, because it condemns abortion as murder, and because it refuses to condone sex outside a marriage open to procreation. I foresee a day when priests will be fined or imprisoned for articulating in sermons and counseling sessions the teaching of the Church. I foresee a day when similar punishment will be visited on Protestants and Jews who assert the traditional teaching of their faiths. This is, after all, the sort of thing that happens in Canada now. How can one tolerate those who deny others’ rights?

It is also hard not to notice the number of Republican politicians who have now changed their mind in favor of gay marriage (e.g., Senator Rod Portman of Ohio and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois).

Denny Burk links to a clip of an interview with the British actor Jeremy Irons that is worth watching simply for the reaction of the interviewer. Irons is concerned about some of the implications of “marriage equality.” For example, Irons muses, would not this mean that a father could marry his son? What is amazing is the reaction of the interviewer to Irons’s seemingly irrefutable logic. The said interviewer rather astoundingly announces that gay marriage could never lead to a father marrying his son since everyone agrees such an arrangement would be immoral. But, of course, if morality is determined by what society considers moral, there is no reason to believe that any “moral” opposition against father-son marriage will be allowed to stand in face of the superior morality of “marriage equality.”

Email
Posted in Current Issues | Tagged | 2 Comments

A Critical Review of the Bible (the miniseries, that is)

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Mark Snoeberger

I wasn’t one of the privileged few who got to pre-screen the History Channel’s miniseries, The Bible, but I thought a retrospective word about the series might be useful for those who didn’t get a chance to watch. Here are a few of my observations, first positive, then negative, in no particular order:

Positively,

  • I appreciated that the producers depicted the biblical events as true historie, and not as geschichte: there was no fawning nod to evolutionary process and we began with an unequivocally historical Adam, a universal flood, and a believable ark. This was refreshing.
  • I appreciated that the miracles of the Bible were depicted as, well, miracles. Seeing the waters “standing up like a wall” in the crossing of the Red Sea was not only stunning in its graphic effect, but faith-strengthening for the contemporary viewer. Likewise, the special effects connected with the healing of the leper set it apart from the chicanery of modern-day faith-healing charlatans.
  • Despite the necessary conflation of events to squeeze everything into ten hours, I was also pleasantly surprised by the attention to dialogue and detail in many of the stories (but see below).
  • This one might be more controversial, but I actually appreciated that the producers went with the ipsissima vox (the message of Scripture) rather than the ipsissima verba (the exact words of Scripture). I know this sometimes resulted in interpretive obfuscation of textual details, but by eliminating the “Bible-ese,” the figures came across as more historical and their dialogue as more natural.
  • I appreciated that the producers realized that literary descriptions of sexual content do not have to be graphically dramatized to have their intended effect: some things that are represented legitimately in books should not appear on the screen (contra, e.g., the recent cinematic release of Les Miserables).
  • I appreciated the inclusion of most of the nodal points of the story line, including a clear emphasis on the origin and results of sin in the human race (but see below).
  • I especially appreciated that The Bible didn’t stop with the Resurrection. It included a sturdy overview of Acts (but, unfortunately, nothing from Revelation except the last couple of verses).

Negatively,

  • I wish that the producers had given more attention to narrative order. I know that narrative conflation and condensation was a necessary problem in this production, and I am prepared to allow for some license here. The rearranging of historical events, though, could have been avoided. For example, Isaiah’s presence in Babylon was not only wrong, it also stripped his Cyrus prophecy of all of its force. And the three-year ministry of Christ was hopelessly jumbled up, as though there was no sequence at all—just three years of random teaching and miracles.
  • I didn’t always understand the narrative selection. For instance, Samson was a huge star, but virtually no time was given to Solomon, the divided monarchy with all of its kings and prophets, or the return from exile—parts of the Bible that are (1) much longer and (2) more critical to the biblical story line (not to mention really, really interesting—Elijah on Mt. Carmel could have been a stunning addition).
  • I missed the Bible’s prophetic emphasis on kingdom, judgement, and the new creation. I know that abstract threads are not easy to include, but the producers had no trouble including a thick redemptive thread (sheep are sacrificed all over the place). I longed for specifics about eschatological recapitulation.
  • I wished also for more references to personal and individual sin and to the substitutionary intent of Christ’s atonement. Again, I know this was a descriptive series, but it really would have been nice to have included something that makes unbelieving viewers uneasy about their culpability before God (but then again, with Joel Osteen as a consultant, maybe we should have foreseen this).
  • I didn’t like the celebrity feel of all the characters. It was refreshing to see that the most of the male characters (and even Jesus) were not prototypically effeminate, but was everyone in the Bible a showman?
  • I didn’t appreciate the repeated emphasis on the mission of Jesus and the Apostles as “changing the world.” I know, a charitable hearing could be invoked to justify this rendering, but the idea of “changing the world” is not the best way of describing the Christian mission, and is susceptible to serious misinterpretation.
  • I didn’t like the fact that on three occasions after the Resurrection the disciples said, “He didn’t die!” Again, a charitable interpretation might hear something like “He didn’t stay dead,” but the fact is, he did die, and precision on this point is really, really important.

I could say more about minor issues (both good and bad), but I thought that these might offer a good overview of the broad strengths and weaknesses of the miniseries. Because of the desire to appeal broadly to everyone who uses the Bible (as evidenced in the advertising), The Bible will need to be supplemented with historical and theological details before it can serve as a comprehensive teaching and evangelistic tool, but the story line is largely intact. I had a generally warm and happy feeling after watching it. Whatever you do, don’t just watch The Bible, read the Bible.

Email
Posted in Biblical Theology, Current Issues, Theology | 7 Comments

Rice Lectures Available on Audio

Posted on March 31, 2013 by Bill Combs

The William R. Rice Lectures were held on March 20, given by Professor Brent Belford of Northland International University. The theme for 2013 was “Paul’s Pastoral Use of the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians.” The audio recordings from the sessions are now posted to the DBTS website. You can also download a pdf handout.

Email
Posted in Rice Lectures | Comments Off

When Silence is Consent

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Dave Doran

The tragic happenings associated with the arrest, guilty plea, and sentencing of Jack Schaap, former pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond are a sad spectacle. Well before any of this blew up, I’d expressed my opposition to Schaap’s ministry and toward ministerial fellowship and cooperation with him. I’ll not rehash that here, but will note that the outcome, sadly, really isn’t shocking given the perverse way in which he handled God’s Word.

I recently read a letter from one Jack Hyles’s daughters that was painful, in many ways, to read. In it, she expresses regret for not speaking out against her father’s excesses, especially in light of the ultimate tragedy connected to her brother-in-law, Jack Schaap. You can read it for yourself here.

I don’t know Linda Murphrey, and I am pretty sure I wouldn’t agree with her on many things. What I do know, though, is that this is an incredible letter. And I know that there should be many men serving as pastors and leaders within the various Fundamentalist orbits that should be ashamed of themselves. The sins of Jack Hyles were not hidden, and I am not just referring to the ones brought forward by Robert Sumner and others. Hyles was a liar and people around him knew it. I figured it out when I was a college student because I made the mistake of believing and repeating one of his stories only to find out that it was completely false. I simply cannot believe that the people around him did not see these things. I also can’t believe that the leaders of other organizations and institutions didn’t see the problems.

Linda Murphrey’s regret about not speaking out sooner should be felt by those who didn’t speak up. And a new generation should be warned by this mess, leading to a fresh, firm resolve to not let it happen again. The “it” to which I refer is not that a pastor will fall or some abusive leader will emerge. The “it” is the silence of men who know better and should have acted. Nobody is above accountability to God’s Word. Nobody.

That men like Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap can keep their places of influence is the fault of their followers and those along side of them who refuse to do what God says. That certain segments, perhaps most, of the old Fundamentalist coalitions allowed such ungodliness to go unchallenged is one of its worst blemishes. I wish I were sure that those days are gone, but I’m not. They need to be, but they won’t unless there is a higher commitment to God and His Word than our “circles” and institutions.

God wrote Mene Mene Tekel Parsin on the walls of Jack’s office long before the piled up garbage spilled out. Braggadocios claims about numbers or pulpit bravado about being God’s man shouldn’t cause people to ignore biblical qualifications. It is well past time to put to death the false idea that apparent blessings serve as some kind of divine endorsement. It is also well past time to recognize that the ministries of men like the two Jacks have given God’s enemies cause to blaspheme, and that people who are genuinely concerned about the Faith once to the saints delivered will separate themselves from those who continue to promote and perpetuate their unbiblical beliefs and practices.

Email
Posted in Current Issues | Tagged | Comments Off

One More Reason the Resurrection is Good News

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Jared Compton

In preparation for worship this Sunday, I’d like to follow up on a piece posted this time last year on TGC’s blog titled “The Neglected Resurrection” and suggest one more reason why the resurrection must not be neglected—one more reason why the resurrection is the sort of news we must reflect on beyond this Sunday and throughout the year. The resurrection must not be neglected not only because it gives us new, spiritual life, secures our justification, and empowers our fight against indwelling sin. (This is all fantastic news, of course—so do read TGC’s piece, if you’ve not already.) The resurrection also holds out a promise for us. With it, God declared that death would not have the final word over us. God declared that we will rise again, just as Jesus did. I suspect that for some, this may actually be just the sort of news you need to hear at the moment, especially if this last year’s calendar included a funeral for someone you loved. The best news you could hear this Sunday might just be this line Paul wrote to his Thessalonian friends, who were themselves grieving a loss of their own: “[I]f we believe that Jesus died and rose again,  . . . so we believe that God will [take] with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1 Thess 4:14).

Paul, as you’ll remember, only spent a short time with the Thessalonians. His missionary enterprise in the city was cut short by persecution. In the few weeks following his departure, something had gone wrong in Thessalonica—not so wrong that Paul couldn’t offer the community a remarkable word of praise (1:2–10), but wrong enough to send some into a season of despair. It looks as if one of their own had died unexpectedly, perhaps as a result of the same persecution that had caused Paul’s departure—though of this we really can’t be certain. In any case, the loss raised the question: what happens to Christians who die before Jesus’ return—before the parousia? The Thessalonians’ grief implies they feared the worst. I just don’t see any other way of explaining their complete lack of hope (v. 13). (You don’t hopelessly grieve at the funeral of a friend if you’re certain they’ll rise again.) In a letter, then, Paul spends some time addressing this situation, offering a word of hope firmly grounded in Jesus’ resurrection.

Paul’s response goes something like this: if we believe that Jesus died and rose, then we should also believe that those who die in Jesus will be taken or raised as well (v. 14; cf. v. 16; see also, e.g., 1 Cor 15:20–28). They’ll be taken from their graves just as Jesus was. Like a shrewd theologian, Paul shows the Thessalonians that they already had the resources to address their current crisis of faith. Comfort, after all, was simply a short and necessary inference away from their union with Christ (“asleep in him,” v. 14). Like any good pastor, however, Paul realizes that their grief may need something more; perhaps he feared their despair might cloud their theological judgment. So, he gives his claim a pretty solid footnote (vv. 15–17), saying, in effect, that if you want proof of what I’m saying, how would you feel about a promise from Jesus himself? Jesus’ words corroborate Paul’s point, promising that not only will the dead in Christ not be left in their graves—as the Thessalonians feared—but they’d be given the honor of meeting Jesus first. Then, to make sure his friends didn’t miss it, Paul adds a little coda to the citation, drawing their attention once more to his main point: they’ll not be without their loved ones; rather, they’ll be together with them and with the Lord . . . forever! Paul’s next and final line is, therefore, beautifully appropriate: “[E]ncourage one another with these words” (v. 18).

What this all means is that the resurrection is something we simply cannot afford to neglect or to reflect on only when  resurrection Sunday rolls around each year. After all, trouble and despair won’t be taking the year off. We must preach this good word to ourselves and to our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the year: Take courage. Your sleeping loved ones—who loved Jesus—will rise again just as he did. One day—one glorious day—the earth will shake with our Savior’s shout, it will resonate with the archangel’s booming voice, evil will cower at God’s mighty trumpet blast . . . and your loved ones will hear it and live.

This is a slightly edited version of an earlier post. For the earlier ed., see here.

Email
Posted in Exposition, Theology | Tagged | Comments Off

Calvin the Preacher

Posted on March 25, 2013 by John Aloisi

John Calvin (1509–1564) is remembered for many things—some good, some bad, some real, some imagined. If Calvin’s legacy is misunderstood today, the reason for that misunderstanding generally cannot be traced to lack of access to his thought. Although the exact location of Calvin’s grave may be a mystery, he left behind a sizeable legacy in terms of literary output.

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion was first published in Latin in 1536. He was only twenty-six at the time. A few years later Calvin produced a French edition of the same work. And in the years to follow, revised and expanded editions appeared in both languages. Over the years, the Institutes grew from a relatively short apologetic tract to a massive summary of Christian doctrine.

In addition to the Institutes, Calvin also wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible. Although Calvin aimed to produce commentaries that would reflect “lucid brevity,” the common English translation of his commentaries fills about three feet of shelf space. These commentaries remain among the few exegetical works published prior to 1900 that are still cited with some regularity.

As a theologian Calvin stood without peer in his day, and as an exegete Calvin was arguably ahead of his time. But above all else, Calvin was a pastor, and therefore, he was a preacher. For more than twenty years (1536–1538; 1541–1564) Calvin preached in Geneva, generally twice on Sundays and then once a day during alternating weeks. His exegetical and theological works impacted readers throughout Europe, but it was primarily his sermons that influenced the people of Geneva. His preaching and teaching ministry shaped the city into a bastion of Reformed thought and a launching pad for many who would bring the gospel to places where the message of the Scriptures had been largely overshadowed by tradition and superstition.

Calvin apparently did not bring notes into the pulpit, but many of his sermons were recorded by stenographers. Somewhere around 1,700 of Calvin’s sermons have survived, most of them in the original French but some only in Latin translation. In recent decades, a good number of these have been translated into English. Calvin preached sequentially through books of the Bible, and so a number of his sermons on a certain books of the Bible have been published as individual volumes.

If you want to understand Calvin’s theology, by all means read his Institutes. If you want to see how Calvin interpreted the Scriptures, his commentaries are a good place to start. But if you want to hear Calvin exhorting God’s people to obey the Scriptures, you may want to spend some time reading in one or more of these collections of Calvin’s sermons: Genesis 1–11, Micah, the Beatitudes, Acts, Galatians, Ephesians.

Email
Posted in Church History, Pastoral Theology, Preaching | Comments Off