4May2011

On excessive intellectualism in the church

Written By robfaircloth

We are cautioned in Scripture to avoid two extremes regarding knowledge: thinking too much of thinking that is not done with the purpose of God’s glory in mind (this knowledge “puffs up” with pride), and thinking too little of thinking and spending more mental effort on sports (or the soaps) than on Scripture.

Regarding the first, Douglas Wilson says the pomposity of believers in academia gets a “raspberry” from him, and deserves the “horse-laugh of Christendom.” Even better:

“I mentioned earlier that proud flesh bonds to many strange things indeed, and I forgot to mention scholarship and footnotes. To steal a thought from Kierkegaard, ‘Many scholars line their britches with journal articles festooned with footnootes in order to keep the Scriptures from spanking their academically-respectable pink, little bottoms.'”

Indeed.

4May2011

Must God make “good” from “bad”?

Written By robfaircloth

The destruction of natural disasters and the exceeding malevolence of human behavior that cause loss of life inevitably raise questions regarding the role of God in them. The outbreak of tornadoes in Alabama and other southern states proves no exception.

Unfortunately, a common response is to turn to books such as When Bad Things Happen to Good People. This is unfortunate because while there are certainly bad things, in God’s economy there are no “good people.”

In tornadoes and the destruction they cause we see the stark reality of how powerful the world is, and how powerful the God who created it, and how weak and helpless we are in the face of such power. Scripture teaches that death — and all the sickness, accidents, and disasters that cause it — are the result of the sin of man. The world groans until God relieves it of its agony, and we suffer the consequences of its groaning.

Scripture also teaches that there are none who are good. There are none righteous. All our righteousness — all our “good things” that justify us before God — are as filthy rags to God (picture used women’s menstrual products). In such condition we all are deserving only of the wrath of God.

It should be no surprise, then, that people die. In fact, all of human history supports the conclusion that people die. Whether we die in our 80s in the comfort of our own bed, or in a car crash at the hands of a drunk driver, or in a tornado when the wall of our house falls on us, we can expect that our physical bodies will die. What should be the surprise to us — sinful people who deserve nothing but the wrath of God — is that God hasn’t already killed us.

The surprise is not that some die, but that any live.

Our inclination in response to such disasters is to soften the impact of what they teach by speaking of God “making something good of this.” We suppose that God’s role — whatever it might be — in such death and destruction is somehow made alright if he brings some “good” from it.

But God need not make good from bad. Not in the normal sense of “good.”

Jesus encountered the same question regarding disasters. Some people had been killed by Pilate and some had died when a tower fell on them (Luke 13:1-5). Jesus anticipates the question we all ask: “do you suppose that these…were worse offenders” than others? As we like to put it, Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?, and the underlying assumption that either those who die in disasters are particularly bad or that God is powerless or evil.

Jesus said that those who died in progroms or falling towers were no worse than anyone else. In other words, everyone is equally bad. All people are equally sinful and equally deserving of “bad things.” Jesus did not explain the role of God, or why the tower fell on these and not others standing ten feet away, or assure his listeners that God would bring “good” from the tragedies.

He did, however, issue a warning.

He used the occasion of natural disasters and human tragedy to say “unless you repent, you will likewise perish.” Death is always at your door. You do not know when your life will be required of you. All men are equally deserving of death, so turn from sin and put your trust in God who alone gives eternal life in Christ. The surprise is that God permits repentance, and that he accepts those who do, in Christ.

Human tragedy is the cause of real human grief. Disasters give rise to the human duty to help restore people and alleviate suffering.

Yet still, repent, and believe the gospel.

2May2011

Preaching KJV to “avoid stumbling”?

Written By robfaircloth

A preacher was recently discussing with a radio personality the application of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians about not causing others to stumble.

The preacher explained that he much prefers, both for his own use and for preaching preparation, the ESV or (gasp!) even The Message, which he is always quick to explain is merely “commentary” (you may anticipate another post about that later).

The preacher also explained that many people in his congregation have grown up with the KJV, memorized verses in KJV, and enjoy the literary vibrancy and meter of the KJV. Therefore, due to Paul’s admonition not to cause others to stumble, the preacher uses the KJV whenever he is in the pulpit.

Several questions come to mind.

1. Is this proper interpretation? That is, is a congregant’s dislike of a version of Scripture equate to the “weaker brother” in Paul’s admonition, such that using an unpopular version from the pulpit equates to “causing them to stumble”?

2. Similarly, who is to be kept from stumbling? That is, in any given congregation there will be more than one favored version of Scripture. If the preacher uses KJV to keep KJV-lovers from stumbling, what about those who prefer the NIV, the NLT, the RSV? Do we presume that they do not stumble, or that their stumbling is less problematic than that of the KJVers?

3. Is this appropriate pulpit stewardship? That is, even if the preacher’s use of a particular version of Scripture does not call into play issues of stumbling, should he use a version that he does not like in order to satisfy some who like it?

Comments and insights (and insightful comments) are welcome.

28April2011

Wildlife and 70s disco

Written By robfaircloth

[WARNING: what you are about to read is satire…]

Recently a man became drunk as a skunk, and in his inebriated state stumbled over the local constable, who was lying down on the job because he was like a sloth, and moving at a snail’s pace. When asked what his problem was, the man responded “Well, I had been eating like a pig, so I thought I could handle my liquor. But I wasn’t quite as sly as a fox.”

Before we assess that the overeating imbiber was as dumb as an ox, we should consider whether he is, in fact, as deaf as a post, because earlier he had been asked “where are you going?” to which he responded “I’ve got fleas, and you know they multiply like rabbits.”

Police are investigating whether the man is actually as blind as a bat. Only feet away from the speed-challenged constable was a sign which read “Caution: slow law enforcement at rest.” In addition to being sight-challenged, the man was apparently as strong as an ox, because he walked right through the caution sign.

After being placed under arrest, the man ran around like a chicken with its head cut off, though reports suggest he is normally as quiet as a mouse. Witnesses who know the man were bewildered. One reported “After the sloth — I mean constable — put the cuffs on him, he ran off like a wounded duck. He swims like a fish though, and made a bee-line for the pond.”

Arrest records indicate the man sports a tattoo on his left arm which reads “Mean As A Snake,” and which is apparently home-made and self-administered. This means he will be as busy as a bee in lockup, where tat skills draw inmates like moths to a flame.

Neighbors told investigators that the suspect owns several pets, and are concerned for their welfare while he is incarcerated. “They love him like a bear loves honey,” they said.

[This article was written to the soporific sounds of Kung Foo Fighting.]

27April2011

How easy is idolatry? That easy

Written By robfaircloth

We must think sometimes that idolatry is difficult. That we would immediately recognize it and run. That we — as good Christ-followers — have other problems to deal with than idolatry.

After all, idolatry is so, well, Old Testament.

We don’t sit around carving totems, or carry talismans, or genuflect before paintings or statutes. Do we?

Paul tells the believers at Corinth that their ancestors had plenty of spiritual priveleges as they wandered in the desert, yet still managed to commit idolatry at every turn. We have even more in the way of gospel privilege, but Paul warns us to avoid idolatry: “Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters…” and he concludes the passage with the command “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (1 Corinthians 10:6-7, 14).

Paul gives four examples from Old Testament Israel (yes, Old Testament):

1. the golden calf. Just as soon as Israel was delivered by God from Egypt, they grew impatient with Moses’ delay on the mountain and built a calf of gold. They even described the calf as the god who led them from Egypt. They were impatient, not with Moses, but the true God, and preferred a god that they could control. In effect, they did not want a God at all, certainly not one that would make them wait and not serve their pleasure.

2. sexual immorality. In this episode a soldier runs a fornicating couple through with a spear. God had accused Israel of “yoking himself to Baal of Peor,” blatant idolatry comprised of worshiping a false god. But later we are told that an Israelite took a Midianite woman into his family, and the plague on Israel stopped when the soldier killed them both.

3. testing Christ. The Israelites complained of the food they had in the desert (manna) and that they had no water. God sent serpents to bite them, and had Moses put a bronze serpent on a pole for the people’s healing.

4. grumbling. On the doorstep of the promised land, Israel complained that it would have been better for them to die in Egypt, to die in the desert, anything but die at the hands of the ‘giants’ in the land.

What, then, does Paul admonish his readers (us) to flee from?

Impatience (is idolatry). Really? If we think our time so valuable that we cannot wait — whether for God, for God’s servant, or anything requiring us to stand in line — then there might be an idol in our heart.

Dissatisfaction with God’s provision (is idolatry). Huh? Rejecting the good things God has provided — because it isn’t what we want, or what someone else has — is setting up other gods.

Grumbling (is idolatry). Wait a minute, now… Just grumbling? When we long for the “good ol’ days” rather than what God proposes for us, revising our history and imagining that a task is too difficult, too dangerous, or too hard, we are setting up an idol.

It is no coincidence that most of these incidents mentioned by Paul related to personal comfort and security…pleasing the self over serving God.

How easy is idolatry? That easy.

25April2011

Easter with no eggs? Who knew it was possible

Written By robfaircloth

I’ll probably take some heat for this.

But then, my wife and I have taken heat for our stance regarding the holiday icons since the birth of our first child (we have four), so what’s new?

Before we had children, we discussed what we would do regarding Santa Claus, the “Easter Bunny,” Halloween, and even the Tooth Fairy. None of our children have ever thought that Santa Claus delivered Christmas presents, none have ever received an Easter basket or eggs, and none have ever been paid for losing a tooth under the guise that the Tooth Fairy has some macabre enamel fetish.

They are, for the most part, normal children. (I say “for the most part” because the eight-year-old actually likes salad).

I am not, with this revelation, attempting to convert avid icon-officianados to our way of thinking. I do, however, wish to demonstrate that it is actually possible to celebrate Christian holy days such as Christmas and Easter without all the unrelated accoutrements. And contrary to the dire pronouncements by all your family and friends, doing so will not cause your children to be weird.

Yesterday we went the entire day without speaking of the “Easter Bunny.” We did not paint eggs. We did not hunt eggs. We had no need to explain the biological and philosophical problems caused by the imagery of a bunny laying eggs. Yet there was not wailing, there was no crying, there was no “egg envy” for which we had to offer sanctified substitutes.

(However, contraband chocolate eggs were discovered in the picnic ice chest, but were eaten by the kids as simply chocolate. An investigation is pending.)

What we did yesterday was go as a family to worship services with the rest of our faith family. We had an open-air Easter service under a tent, celebrated resurrection with the ordinance of baptism, and fellowshiped with the faith family during a picnic on the grounds.

We sang songs about the glory of the cross, the greatness of the Messiah, and the redemption of God. We heard preaching about the curse of death, about the glories won for believers in the cross and Christ’s resurrection, and about the new life believers have because Jesus rose from the dead.

I don’t contend that participating in holiday icons will make your children weird (growing up, I did all of them…ok, not the best argument).

What I do contend is that they are not necessary. Putting them aside helps us to focus on the birth, on the death, on the resurrection of the Lord we follow.

14April2011

“new-Calvinism” and Patriotism

Written By robfaircloth3 Comments on “new-Calvinism” and Patriotism

They go together like salt and cinammon. Like sugar and herbs. Like death and weeds.

The role of patriotic expressions in Christian worship services is a serious matter, and involves real and significant pitfalls that any bible-believing congregation should consider. In our Sunday worship should we recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Sing the “Battle Hymn”? The Star-Spangled Banner? Recognize those who have served in the U.S. military? Yet frequently the intramural discussion of these matters is acrimonious, to say the least, and in that infamous description, it tends to “generate more heat than light.”

Recent dust-ups about patriotism in worship demonstrate this trend. After reading three articles (if you dare) that address patriotic ‘worship’, ‘new-Calvinism’, and ostensibly improper use of company letterhead, you will be no clearer on what the connection is between the ‘new-Calvinism’ and patriotic ‘worship.’

Baptist 21 apparently re-published a letter sent by Chip Stam, Professor and Director of the Institute for Christian Worship at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS). The letter advocated against the use of patriotic music and imagery in Christian worship. In response, Howell Scott published a two-part post. In Part 1 Scott lays a ‘foundation’ from which to address Stam’s argument, which he claims to do in Part 2.

Scott is apparently bothered by the ethics of Stam being identified both as a church music minister and as an official of SBTS. In Part 1 Scott spills much ink addressing letterhead and then concludes with the dramatic question of whether Stam’s letter (or the position he espouses in it) is “indication of the theological/ecclesiological divide within the greater SBC?”

Scott then spends the greater part of his article repeating the tired canard that Calvinism splits churches. In so doing, Scott makes snide and sarcastic comments and repeats unfounded claims against the “new/agressive” Calvinism in such a way that deprives his targets of the grace he claims that they, themselves, lack. Scott’s summary warning to churches seems to be thus: 1. Calvinism is anti-patriotic; 2. Christian worship should be patriotic; 3. you should therefore beware of music ministers coming from Southern. Oh, and because Scott is not “mad about my Calvinistic theology” nor “consistent enough…to be described as truly Reformed” he can cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention (as if others cannot).

The gratuitous condescension looms large.

In Part 2, Scott addresses Stam’s various contentions regarding patriotism in worship. In general, I contend that Scott’s response seems to pass far afield of the point of Stam’s letter, despite the stated intent to meet it head-on. The careful reader can discern that for himself. My concern is for some of Scott’s assumptions, and it is those that I will address here.

First, Scott asserts that patriotism in worship is permissible because we should “show respect” and he cites Romans 12:10, 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 as biblical proof. But those passages speak of “honor” and “respect” in ways that relate to patriotism only remotely, if at all. And they certainly do not suggest that the honor to be shown should actually occur in our worship services, and consist of songs and flags and processions befitting the occasion.

Second, Scott says this: “Just because something can be easily confused in a worship setting [referring to patriotism in worship] does not mean that we automatically discard it. I’m quite sure that for many, the cross can be confusing.” I have no doubt that Scott does not mean to say that honoring military men in Sunday worship is as important to the faith as the cross of Christ. But this is the sort of muddled thinking and sloppy writing that characterize many of our discussions with each other, and that the confusion inherent in Stam’s statement itself would not be patently obvious and studiously avoided is incomprehensible.

Third, Scott seems unwilling to discuss the issue of whether Christian believers should incorporate expressions of patriotism in worship without alluding to some nefarious connection with “new-Calvinism.” In his “Final Word” on the matter, Scott infers that the only believers who could possible have concern about patriotism in worship are Calvinist. And, in the course of three posts, he broadened the scope of his disdain from the “new-Calvinist” or “agressive-Calvinist” to the wider “SBC’s Calvinist wing”, and to the wider still “Reformed theology.” Given a bit more blog space, Scott might have gone on to impugn the entire Western church (save Southern Baptist congregations which reject Calvinism and sing “America, the Beautiful” in a flag-studded sanctuary on July 4, ostensibly).

Yet over these three posts Scott utterly fails to show even the slightest connection between Calvinism and anti-patriotism. I am still left wondering why Calvinism was brought into the discussion.

Whether believers should express patriotism in corporate worship is a serious matter, and should be sincerely considered. If other believers raise a concern about the implications of such practice, the simple fact that those who raise it might be “Calvinist” should be of no consequence (whatever “Calvinist” now means — Scott refers to himself as an “inconsistent Calvinist” and others as “more Calvinist”, among other things).

Our inability to hear the valid concerns raised by other believers, and see past whatever soteriological badge we think they wear, does not serve the church well.