America Ain’t Ready?

“But as someone who grew up in a rural community and who has lived in some fairly red areas, I had a bad feeling in my gut that America wasn’t ready.

It looks like I was right.

Many have argued that such a notion is nonsense, After all, plenty of other countries have had women leaders, so surely it was time for the US to join those ranks.

But America lags in so many things that benefit women…”
Who’s the Next “Viable Woman Presidential Candidate?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger/whos-the-next-viable-woma_b_104920.html

I came across this article/blog today talking about the loss of Hilary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. Now this is one of the issues I was scared of when I heard a woman was running for president (and the issue with an African American running for president)*. The problem is that a disagreement, or non-support, has turned into an issue of sex or race. Americans didn’t back Hilary because she was a woman? Or maybe they didn’t agree with her politics? Maybe? Maybe Democrats thought Obama was a better candidate? These become secondary issue when they should be primary issues. To turn it around, if the Democrats backed Hilary instead of Obama, does that mean Americans are not ready for an African American president? This type of irrational thinking is what the problem is in politics (poor sentence structure?).

To be frank, I seriously question whether or not a woman ought to be president. Noticed that I emphasized the word “ought.” I do not say can, which would be speaking of ability; ought speaks to a moral order. I affirm that there are some women out there that have better leadership skills and decision making that some men ought there. That is not the issue though. I seriously question whether a woman is supposed to be the leader of a nation when she is not to be the leader in her own household (if she is married). The headship/leadership belongs the man/husband, and this is the consistent Biblical teaching from Genesis through Revelation.

What about Deborah, the judge that lead the nation of Israel to victory in Judges 4,5? I think if we look at those passages we see that Deborah was raised up as semi judgment (even though she delivered the Israelites). There was no man to take lead (even Deborah tried to get a man to lead and he would not). Deborah’s case is not optimal, it is not preferred. Did Deborah demonstrate that she had the ability to lead? Yes, I think she showed that she could. Ought Deborah to have led? I don’t think so.

*This is the only issue I have with an African American Candidate/President. I worry that disagreement turns into an issue of race. I fear that those that don’t vote for Obama will be charged with racism for not voting for an African American. What? Are those voting for Obama voting based on the color of his skin (which would be racism also). To be clear, I believe that a “black” man can lead just as well as a “white” man. The color of one’s skin has no bearing on their ability to lead. So I really do hope we Americans can keep the color of one’s skin out of the race and presidency. Will there be racism? Sadly yes. Ought there to be? No, but we do live in a fallen world with the only hope of salvation and unity to be found in the person and work of the Prophet, Priest, and King, Jesus Christ.

Religion vs. Relationship Introduction

Is Christianity a religion or a relationship? How one answers that questions affects how one views Christianity. In popular Christianity, I think you would find most people saying that Christianity is a relationship. In fact, there seems to be a common phrase (especially among facebook religious views) that “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.” It is said that a personal relationship with Christ is what matters. Religion in this sense seems to be associated with a works based, legalistic form of Christianity. Now this desire to distance oneself from works based salvation and the devotion to Christ (as seen in the idea of a personal relationship with Christ) is to be applauded. However, what I have begun to notice is that this idea of Christianity being a relationship to the exclusion of religion, has led to an individualistic and relativistic view of the Christian faith. This is commonly seen in Bible studies where it is often asked, “What does this particular text mean to you?” Christianity and the Scriptures are whatever you make it out to be instead of a unified system of revelation and doctrine that has authority over all. The preached word is downplayed in the modern church. Instead, a church service is given over to a more experiential atmosphere. The preaching of the Word is downsized for more worship or even a drama skit (of which I myself was a part of for a couple of years because I couldn’t play an instrument). Instead of God speaking to us through the un-hindering proclamation of the Word to a covenant community of people united together with one holy catholic doctrine, we turn inward. Even the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is more of an individual thing with our own little cracker and our own little cup.
I believe that this relationship focus on Christianity has led to a shift in many Christian’s understanding of what the Gospel is. The Gospel, instead of being the good news of what God has done for us in Christ (historical facts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ appeasing the righteous wrath of God toward sinners and that Christ’s obedience was earned for us and imputed to us so that we can have right standing before God), is today changed to living a lifestyle like Christ with Christ. I think that we can all agree that when the Gospel is believed, lives are changed; there are new creatures.
It is my hope over the next couple of weeks to bring back a proper balance to the controversy of religion vs. relationship. I want to start off with the need for a Savior. Then I want to go on to explain what I believe true, proper Christian religion is. This includes the need for propositional truth/doctrine, the need for Law, and the importance of the sacraments. I will then talk about Christianity as relationship, which I believe is founded in right doctrine (i.e. right doctrine leads to right living).
Ultimately I think I am writing this for me, since I think only three people will read this. Plus, I have tried to write a “series” or two before, and those ended after the introduction. So we (all four of us) will see how this goes.

Preparing Sons for Courtship-Her Hand in Marriage

Men, pay attention.

“A young man therfore should not approach the married state without a clear concept of what it is in the sight of God.“

“The Bible teaches that in the marriage relationship, the initiative, the headship, is to be with the male.”

“Courtship reveals how necessary this masculinity is. Many modern young men approach a girl, and they are quite serious as far as their intentions go, but they are afraid of interfering with her life. “You know, she is going to graduate soon, but she wants to go to school at Notre Dame, and I don’t really want to go to Notre Dame, and showing interest in her would really disrupt all her plans.” But the whole point of courtship is to disrupt a young ladys plans. A godly young woman is not going to stand around waiting for marriage. Rather, she will be preparing herself for marriage. This means she will be heading in some particular direction, and not just making time. A young man should not be afraid of disrupting, because marriage by its very nature a disruption of her previous way of life. But there are many guys who have an “excuse me for existing” kind of attitude-which is not very masculine.-when it comes to a potentially serious relationship with a young lady.”

“As a godly man approaches a woman, he should assume all the responsibility.”

“When a young man proposes marriage, he does not know if it is the Lord’s will for them to get married-they might both get hit by a truck the week before the wedding. He should simply trust that he is in the will of God as he asks her to marry him, and should also, as a gentleman, not try to strongarm her into an agreement through forceful appeals to the “willof God.”
If, for any reason, she says no, he should never press her for her reasons. She owes him no explanation. Neither should he protect himself by seeking to find out her sentiments first before he expresses his intentions. Of course, protection against unpleasant surprises is one value of going through the father first. But regardless, where there is any pressure to be felt, it should be assumed by the young man.”

Authority of Parents-Her Hand in Marriage

Chapter 2:

“With recreational dating, some degree of sexual activity is expected so long as they don’t “go all the way,” and those responsible for holding the line are the couple themselves-which usually means that the woman is the one who bears the brunt of the responsibility [oh how often I have heard of this]. She is expected to say no if she wants the erotic proceedings to stop, while he is commonly expected to get whatever he can.
With biblical courtship, the courting activity is publicly connected to the life of the family, most likely the family of the young daughter With recreational dating, the privacy of the couple is paramount.”

“If he [husband or father] hears of it and says nothing, we see how the principle of abdication is illustrated in Scripture. If he hears it and says nothing, then by saying he ratifies the vow. According to Scripture, then, a husband or father cannot “not act.”
A husband and a father act by not acting.”

“…in Scripture, sons leave home, daughters are given…A son leaves in order to take a wife, and establish a new home.”

“How many times have we been told, ad nauseam, in songs on the radio, in movies, in books, that a person’s heart can only be given by that person? “Well, she loves him.” Or, “He loves her.” And of course, true love will always overcome all obstacles-and the central obstacle in modern love stories is the blind opposition of parents. The course of true love must overcome all obstacles, chief among which is “father as chowderhead.” Again and again, we see the propaganda for this culture of youth worship, wherein it is assumed that what is innocent and immature has wisdom and that what is old and mature in biblical terms has no wisdom at all.”

“But romance has the same function as the curtains of a house-it cannot serve as the concrete poured for the foundation. What establishes the foundation for any godly marriage is covenantal faithfulness to the God who gives marriage.”

“Now who determines whether or not this [see Exodus 22:16-17] happens? The text is very clear-the father. The father or the daughter-not the daughter, not the seducer, not true love, not Hollywood decides. Mundane old Dad makes the decision. Now obviously the daughter would had seen something in this young man. But the father may not have seen it, or perhaps he did see it, but had a different opinion of it.”

Exodus 22
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

“We think that the essence of marriage is sexual commitment…Marriage is scripturally defined as a sexual relationship within the boundaries of a covenant commitment that has been formally ratified. The sexual relationship by itself does not constitute a marriage.”

“If the covenant is not there, the marriage is not there. If the sexual relationship is not there the marriage is not there.”

“Marriage is a public covenantal act…The father has the authority to refuse to allow the public act of marriage-whatever the couple may have done in private [sexually is the context].”

“But in biblical times, this was far more than an empty tradition. The daughters were really given in marriage.”

“With recreational dating, the authority of the father is treated as a vestige of another era, or as a joke.”

Wilson, Doug. “Her Hand in Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World.” Canon Press. 1997.

Intro Quotes from Her Hand in Marriage

Since I home and I have the book around, I have been rereading Wilson’s book Her Hand In Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World.  This is a more intense version of Joshua Harris’s Boy Meets Girl (in fact Harris draws a lot off this book).  This time around I am actually marking the book up so I hope having all these quotes is legal (?).

“We have provided our children with enough Christianity to ensure their guilt when they fornicate, but not enough to ensure their purity.”

Speaking of sexual purity: “We somehow think a godly Christian is one who can pre-heat the oven without cooking the roast.”

“There is no overall biblical requirement that women be submissive to men in general.  The biblical pattern is what a wife should respond to the initiative and leadership to her husband, and only him.”

“They [young men wanting to date a young woman] want to find out what the woman’s response would be if they initiated – without actually having to take the risk of initiation.  Once the man knows that the woman would respond positively, then he initiates.  This is the coward’s option, leaving the burden of the initiation on her.  When the man abdicates in this way, the woman is being conned into taking the initiative.  Having to deal with the girl’s father prevents all this.  This means that a man who is initiating in a relationship must take quite a risk in talking to her father.  But God has designed it so that the man is the one who is to take such a risk.  He initiates, and, if she has received her father’s blessing, she responds. This is biblical courtship.“

Wilson, Doug. “Her Hand in Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World.” Canon Press.  1997.

—————-
Now playing: <a href=”http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/tristan+prettyman/track/anything+at+all”>Tristan Prettyman – Anything At All</a>
via <a href=”http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/”>FoxyTunes</a>

Thoughts From Easter

Christ broke the bread to feed five thousand, and they left full with plenty leftover. So Christ was broken to feed the world that it may be satisfied.

Does a true Christian celebrate Easter or Christmas or other “Christian Holidays?” Is one less of a Christian if they don’t celebrate these days?

Romans 14
5One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother?

“I would like to buy about three dollars worth of gospel, please.
Not too much– just enough to make me happy, but not so much that I get
addicted. I don’t want so much gospel that I learn to really hate
covetousness and lust. I certainly don’t want so much that I start to
love my enemies, cherish self-denial, and contemplate missionary
service in some alien culture. I want ecstasy, not repentance; I want
transcendence, not transformation. I would like to be cherished by some
nice, forgiving, broad-minded people, but I myself don’t want to love
those from different races– especially if they smell. I would like
enough gospel to make my family secure and my children well behaved,
but not so much that I find my ambitions redirected or my giving too
greatly enlarged. I would like about three dollars worth of gospel,
please.”

–D.A. Carson, Basics For Believers: An Exposition of Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996/2005), pp. 12-13.

Three Dollars Worth of Gospel Please!

clipped from tollelege.wordpress.com “I would like to buy about three dollars worth of gospel, please. Not too much– just enough to make me happy, but not so much that I get addicted. I don’t want so much gospel that I learn to really hate covetousness and lust. I certainly don’t want so much that I start to love my enemies, cherish self-denial, and contemplate missionary service in some alien culture. I want ecstasy, not repentance; I want transcendence, not transformation. I would like to be cherished by some nice, forgiving, broad-minded people, but I myself don’t want to love those from different races– especially if they smell. I would like enough gospel to make my family secure and my children well behaved, but not so much that I find my ambitions redirected or my giving too greatly enlarged. I would like about three dollars worth of gospel, please.” –D.A. Carson, Basics For Believers: An Exposition of Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996/2005), pp. 12-13.

Thoughts by Graeme Goldsworthy

clipped from www.beginningwithmoses.org The theme of the Bible is the kingdom of God. That is where the biblical account both starts and finishes. Salvation is the means by which the sovereign God brings sinful people into that kingdom as its willing and ac�ceptable subjects. When Jesus began His preaching, He declared that the kingdom of God was “at hand.” The term “kingdom of God” is not an Old Testament one, but the concept is. Clearly, Jesus’ hearers had some con�cept of “kingdom” which rested on their Old Testament upbringing, and they would have recognized Jesus’ words as a claim that the hope or expectation of Israel was to find its fulfillment in Him.

Doug Wilson says the Bible denies Sola Fide?

I am currently working my way through Doug Wilson’s book Reformed is Not Enough. Now, so far I would say there is probably some things I would agree with and would also disagree with, however this statement caught my attention:

“And although I hold to sola fide as the right scriptural interpretation, I have to do so recognizing that the only time that the Bible uses the phrase “faith alone,” it does so in order to deny it. “Ye see then how that by works man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas 2:24).” (pg 54)

Sola Fide is the doctrine that a man is justified solely by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone. Now Doug Wilson claims to believe in another one of the Protestant Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the ultimate authority in all areas of the believers life) and I have no reason to reject Wilson’s claim. That makes what he said all the more interesting. If Wilson claims to believe in Sola Scriptura, and he also claims to believe in Sola Fide, yet he claims the only time the Bible uses the phrase “faith alone” (Sola Fide) it denies it. What grounds does Wilson have then to believe in Sola Fide? If Wilson is consistent with his belief in Sola Scriptura then he should deny Sola Fide. Were Wilson consistent he would either have to reject Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura (or both). Now when Wilson uses the term again he means what James meant and that is a claim to faith that is showing no evidence. Faith and works together do not save, for the Scriptures are clear that faith alone saves, but that saving faith is never alone, which James is arguing and which historic and current Protestants would agree with.

Doug Wilson makes this statement in the midst of talking about how many have gotten away from using Biblical phrases for Systematic phrases and while Systematics are helpful, we shouldn’t be afraid of biblical languages. Now, many I have come across who have argued against Federal Vision claim that those promoting Federal Vision Theology have been unclear in their writings. If what I quoted above is typical of Doug Wilson and other Federal Visionist, I can see where an issue is.

Now, I want to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt. I will accept his claim to believe in both, however Wilson is being unclear. I think he commits the fallacy of equivocation. “Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument [1].” Wilson begins with one definition of Sola Fide and ends with a different definition for Sola Fide. I believe that by the first usage of “Sola Fide” Wilson means the historic Protestant usage which I gave a brief explanation above. When Wilson uses the term for the second time he seems to use it in way that James uses it (and he demonstrates this by quoting James). That is, this faith is bare. This faith is alone and does not demonstrate or prove itself through works. Salvation is through faith alone, but as James argued, and the early Protestants and those following in the tradition, this saving faith is never alone, and this is Sola Fide. Sola Fide is not what James is arguing against.

Now to be fair, the context in which the quote appears is not a section talking about justification through faith alone. Instead Wilson is talking about how through Systematizing of Scripture, we have gotten away from the language that Scripture uses. Another phrase that Wilson brings up is “baptism now saves.” Yet Wilson’s explanation of Sola Fide is confusing. Many who are known as Federal Visionist complain that their opponents don’t understand. While I haven’t done a lot of research in regards to this controversy, if things are explained like Wilson explains here, I can see why some might be confused.

1. Fallacies.  The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.   http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Sam Harris and Islamic Apologetics

On page 19 and 20 of his book, Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris makes these statements concerning the 10 Commandments:

“They [10 Commandments] are, after all, the only passages in the Bible so profound that the creator of the universe felt the need to physically write them himself-and in stone.  As such, one would expect these to be the greatest lines ever written [emphasis mine], on any subject, in any language.”

The implication is that the Ten Commandments are not the greatest lines ever written.  In fact, Harris goes on to try and demonstrate this.  Now, where has this type of argument been used before?  In Islam.  One of the biggest arguments a Muslim will use for the validity of the Koran.  Here is a line from the Qur’an itself:

“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant [Muhammad], then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. ” Qur’an 2:23

On both ends the argument is subjective.  The Muslim asks for us to provide a better piece of writing.  Sam Harris thinks that the 10 Commandments are not the greatest pieces of writing.  These arguments are about as useful as arguing about what flavor of ice cream is the best.

The 10 Commandments may not be the greatest lines ever written to Sam Harris, but that doesn’t mean that these aren’t the greatest lines ever written.  Someone may find these to be the greatest lines ever written.  Does that mean that they are the best lines ever written and thus hand written (chisled?) by God?  Of course not.  The argument then boils down to Sam Harris’s preference against someone else’s preference.  Again, this comes down to what is the greatest flavor of ice cream.

Truth and validity is not dependent on the preferences of individuals.  The 10 Commandments are not inspired because someone  thinks they are the greatest lines ever written.  I would even argue that the 10 Commandments are no greater than any other line of Scripture.  Now I have my favorite verses (Romans 3:222-26; Philippians 3:10,11 to name two), however the 10 Commandments are inspired by God like 1 Chronicles 2:17, Psalms 1:4, and John 3:16.  All these verses are the mind of God revealed to men in written form.  There were no red letters in the original manuscripts.

For being “so rational,” as Harris claims to be, he should have known better than to put forth such statements.  He did not put for an argument and against the Christian Scriptures and the basis for the Christian moral system.  Instead of making a claim against the Christian Worldview, all Harris has done is stated his preference for chocolate instead of vanilla.