| current | >< | archive » | >< | Site Feed | HSC Home Page |
|
Friday, July 29, 2005 posted by R.C. 10:06 PM link |
Repent and Believe There may well be any number of arguments against the doctrine of covenant succession. Perhaps the recent release of To You and Your Children, a compilation of essays on that theme put together by Ben Wickner and published by Canon Press (and with a foreword by the present writer) will prompt someone to make some of those arguments. My limited focus today is not to make the case for or against covenant succession, but instead to answer one rather silly objection. Baptists of varying stripes, though by all means not all Baptists, are concerned that if we treat our children as if they are believers, then we just might be preparing them for hell. How, some of my friends worry, will they ever become Christians if you don’t call them to repentance? They will go through life, my friends fear, never knowing that they are required to repent. Have you ever heard this argument? At Saint Peter Presbyterian Church we are inclined to believe that our children believe, unless or until they show us otherwise. Does this mean then that we don’t call them to repent? Does this mean that we don’t call them to place their trust in the finished work of Christ alone? Does this mean that they aren’t called to turn from their sin, and to walk in humble obedience? Well, we certainly don’t think so. We believe that our children believe, which is rather a different thing from believing they have no need to believe. If you were to come to worship with us, if you were to experience high Presbyterian liturgy, a covenant renewal service, what you would find could be seen, in a manner of speaking, almost like a Baptist tent revival. First, we are called by God to appear before Him. We begin with God calling us to appear, all of us, men, women and children. It is the Lord’s Day, the Day of the Lord when the Lord comes to inspect us. What will he find? A room full of sinners. This is why we respond to His call by confessing our sin, or to put it another way, by repenting. This too is for every man, woman and child. All Christians, whether they’ve been baptized yet or not, are called to repent. Next we hear the assurance of God’s pardon, we respond in grateful thanksgiving by praising God in song. Then another curious thing happens. All of us, men, women and children, profess our faith together, either reciting the first question to the Heidelberg Catechism or singing together the Apostle’s or the Nicene Creed. There again we acknowledge our sins, and our dependence upon the grace of God. Having confessed that we belong to Him, we listen then to His instructions, as the Word of God is preached. And then comes the altar call. No kidding. Every Lord’s Day everyone, man, woman and child, is called to come forward and either embrace Christ’s work for the first time, or to rededicate their lives to Christ. Which one it is we don’t much care. Either way they are at peace with God. Of course we don’t call this an altar call. We call it celebrating the Lord’s Table. Throughout our worship we are affirming the necessity of conversion. What we are denying is the necessity of a conversion experience. All must repent and believe, but not all must pinpoint a time, not all must face a conscious moment of crisis. “Dead orthodoxy” isn’t merely a problem for those who presume that they were saved from birth. It can likewise be a problem for those who presume that they were saved from their conversion experience onward. The key to fighting the error isn’t a moment of decision, but a perpetual decision, by God’s grace, to repent and believe. [comments] |
|
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 posted by R.C. 10:07 PM link |
The Grace of Grace: Blessed is everyone who fears the Lord It is a common lament in the Psalms that God in His strange providence sometimes causes the wicked to prosper. This ought to surprise us in some sense, while we ought never to be stumped by the world’s great head scratcher, why do bad things happen to good people? That one’s easy. Bad things have only happened to a good person once, and He accepted them voluntarily for the glory that was set before Him. As the late Dr. John Gerstner wisely put it, there is no problem of pain. There is only a problem of pleasure. But just as God from time to time sends hardship to both goats and sheep, so too does He sometimes send blessing upon His children. Sometimes the righteous prosper, and lest we lose sight of that, we need to celebrate such blessings, and give thanks. And so I shall. One of the greatest blessings God has given me as a pastor at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church is some incredibly outstanding people. I’m not surprised that people move here. I’m surprised that great people move here. As I mentioned on a recent Basement Tape, one of the greatest distractions I face as a preacher is this one. As I look out at the sheep God has placed in this fold, as I try to lead them in paths of righteousness, I sometimes lose track of where I’m going because I am overwhelmed by His grace. There’s the Cottrills. Wow, God sure loves us. There is the Hughes. He not only sent us them, but sent them five more children from Russia. There’s the Hays clan, in all their glory. I could go on through the entire church directory, but we still haven’t gotten to the point yet. One of the greatest hardships God has brought me as a pastor at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church is taking away some incredibly outstanding people. That is, people sometimes move away. Our dear friends the Deweys left us to face the hardships of church planting in Michigan. (My big gift for my fortieth birthday is a family trip to go and visit them in the fall.) But they are not the only ones. The experts tell us that when you plant a church, odds are that your entire core group will be gone in five years. Some will go away because people who change churches enough to come to yours are likely to change again. But others leave because of hard providences. The statistics proved accurate. And the last of the first families to leave was the best. The Stange family became a part of our core group after hearing a study on worship that I taught. There too I had a terrible distraction as their lovely daughter, Jennifer, simply beamed through the whole study. They had a son, Phillip, at the time still under 20, already serving as a missionary in Russia. Will, the father, exhibited a gentle and quiet spirit, and a cool confidence in the grace of God. Kathy, the matriarch of the clan, was a walking testimony of peace and joy. We became a church and Will became an elder, and served as faithfully in that role as he did as a husband and father. Phillip eventually came home, and served as our pianist for several years. The Stanges were, and are, what I wanted, and want, my family to be. More than all the theological giants that I knew growing up, Will is my hero. The search for gainful employment is what sent the Stanges from our midst. Not long after, a fine young man in the church, Michael, likewise went east in search of work. Eventually, God have each of them the desires of their heart, as Michael and Jennifer, graciously bringing the party back to this region, wed in our midst. I was honored to have a part in their wedding. As is my habit in such a setting, I take the liberty of adding to the blessing God gives us in Numbers 6. The wedding then complete, I laid my hands upon their heads and beseeched the living God, “May God bless you and keep you. May God make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. May God lift up His countenance upon you, make you fruitful, and give you peace.” And so He has. Michael and Jennifer are now the parents of Katherine Grace. God has blessed the righteous in Christ, Katherine Grace by placing her in this family, Jennifer and Michael, but giving them this reward, and Will and Kathy, who see their children’s children. May peace be upon them all. [comments] |
|
Monday, July 11, 2005 posted by R.C. 10:37 PM link |
Getting Even I never know what triggers a memory, but just last night one went off, that in turn inspired this squib. I began my long and illustrious career at Ligonier Ministries back in 1978. I worked hard. After everyone else had gone home for the day, I was there, vacuuming the floors, dusting the desks, and emptying the trash. My boss was Dave Fox, a fine man with an incredible passion for organization and details. What came back to me was a conversation we had about the time my first paycheck was due. He showed me my pay stub, and began to explain the deductions. He got to FICA and said something like this, “Well, this isn’t really a deduction, because you’ll get it back.” Keep in mind that I was all of thirteen years old at the time. When he told me I’d get it back, I assumed that meant in the next paycheck, or at worst, at the end of the year. No, he meant I’d get it back, oh, sometime around 2035. But even there he was wrong. The money that the federal government took from my paycheck that day was already in the hands of a social security beneficiary by the time they took out another chunk the next month. He operated under a false assumption that continues to plague the land, that the social security is a forced savings program. That would be evil enough, but instead what it is is a wealth transfer program. Money is given one group of people after it has been taken from another. They, in turn, are supposed to stay calm, because someone else down the road will be robbed. I have been trying now for decades to help Christians not only understand that simple point, but to understand that when they sign up for benefits from the state they aren’t “getting their tax dollars back,” but are instead encouraging Washington to steal from some other victim. I’ve argued that God will only set us free from this nonsense when we adopt a cheek turning posture, when we do not return evil for evil. Still, most Christians look at their paychecks, see that bite taken by FICA, and determine, “Someone must pay” little realizing that that someone will be my children. Suppose that one day you return to your home. You find it in terrible disarray, and several of your valuables are missing. But stacked neatly on the kitchen table is a pile of coupons. “The bearer of this document is entitled to break into his neighbor’s home and steal x% of the contents therein. The only stipulation is that you leave there a signed coupon, as well as a healthy stack of blank coupons.” The top one is signed by your neighbor to the east. Now I assume your first move would be to call the police. But suppose they said, “How do you know it was your neighbor?” And you tell them about the coupon. “I’m sorry sir, but it sounds as though everything was done decently and in order. We’ll warn your neighbor to your west that you’ll be stopping by soon.” Would you go and steal from your neighbor? I have in the past in other venues sought to make a sensible distinction between dealing reasonably with the reality of the fascist state, and cashing in on it. I will not quibble if you drive on their roads. Even Jesus walked on Rome’s roads. My blood pressure won’t rise if you should visit your local library, or your state-built airport or sports stadium. But there’s a difference between that and what that crazy Lester guy shills for on TV, his “We’ll help you find a federal program for that” books. One simple way to draw a simple line is this: are they writing you checks? If they state is helping you buy groceries, or a house, if they are educating your children, or financing your small business, if they are subsidizing the crops you grow or the crops you don’t grow, then you need to stop. Earn your money, don’t take it from others. Find something to do, and then you’ll even have something to share. [comments] |
|
Friday, July 08, 2005 posted by R.C. 6:50 AM link |
I Am Tempted of the Lord Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that God actually calls us to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, that we are to speak to them of the things of God when they lie down, when they walk by the way and when they rise up. Is anybody having to stretch themselves to embrace that premise? Now suppose that God has in turn called us to disciple the nations, to proclaim the good news, to be salt and light. Anybody stretching here? I’m a parent, and I exercise authority in my home. I say to my son, “Campbell, please go down to my office and get my water glass” and as a general rule, he does so. He rarely “forgets” and he never overtly rebels. Sometimes, however, he argues. If he says, “My sister Delaney could do that for you. Perhaps you should ask her” I reply, “I asked you.” If, on the other hand, he says, “Mommy has asked me to sweep out the garage right now. Which of these tasks should I tend to first?” I would be tempted to reply, “Why don’t you just pour yourself a glass of chocolate milk, pick up your favorite book, and I will get my glass, and sweep the garage.” If it were to happen that way his logic would have been commendable, but the great delight would be the way he handled his dilemma. There are rather a few differences between Campbell’s earthly father and his heavenly Father. We both have authority over my son. But I alone have the capacity to give my son conflicting and contradictory instructions. When God gives us an order, because He is the very God of order, we can rest assured that it does not contradict any other of His orders. Which brings us back to our first two suppositions. Which is more important, raising your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, or being salt and light? Christian homeschoolers are tempted to choose the former, while Christians who send their children into the government’s schools are tempted to choose the latter. What do you think? I hope you think that neither of these two commands is more important. We are to obey all of God’s law, and we can never justify breaking part b on the grounds that it was necessary to keep part a. Not that I haven’t tried. When I was a teenager I would often drive home at reckless and illegal speeds, so as not to break my curfew. When Christians of different theological persuasions get together, it isn’t uncommon for them to play what I call “dueling verses.” The Calvinist drops his verse, “Ephesians 2:1” and the Arminian retaliates with “John 3:16.” The two start flinging verses at each other, somehow believing that whomever can muster the most verses wins. But of course to get at the truth we have to understand and incorporate all the verses, because God’s truth is one. And so we do the same in our education wars. No homeschooler can justify indifference and inaction toward the lost on the grounds that they are busy raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And no government schooler can justify their children being discipled in a place where the Lord cannot be mentioned on the grounds of “witnessing.” What we need is to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, while seeking the lost. As I stated in my book When You Rise Up, “Do I care about the lost? Of course I do. Do my children care about the lost? Enough that they can pray for them at school, out loud, every day. I am homeschooling precisely so my children will be able to know, recognize and love the enemy, all while not becoming the enemy….The greatest thing our children can do for the lost is to so let their light shine before men that they glorify their Father in heaven.” [comments] |
|
Friday, July 01, 2005 posted by R.C. 12:08 PM link |
Lesbians, Transgendered and Queers, Oh MY! Redux On those rare occasions that I take it upon myself to opine regarding the weaknesses of my dispensational, charismatic, Arminian, or even ostensibly Reformed friends, I try to remember, no matter how much spittle begins to gather at the corner of my mouth, to remind those who are listening that we need to remember it’s not like we’re talking about genuine liberals. However disgusted I might get at the latest evangelical drivel, remember that it’s our drivel. Liberalism, however, is outside the camp. These wolves smell like sulfur, which is a good thing for the wolves. They need to get used to it. One of my great frustrations is that many otherwise evangelical folks aren’t sufficiently covenantal to know that it matters that they belong to these “churches,” that they haven’t the understanding of the need for the grace of discipline to flee these libertines now. Any church that won’t discipline a man for sleeping with his boyfriend, won’t discipline a man for sleeping with his girlfriend. You don’t stay to save the church; you leave to save your soul, and your family. Two years ago I wrote the below about just such circumstances, arguing that those who would leave the Episcopal church over sodomite priests have completely missed the boat. Unlike the rest of the evangelical world, I am not all aflutter while waiting for the Episcopals to decide. I have friends, all strong opponents of sodomy, who are on both sides of the issue. Some desperately hope that sense will prevail, and the bishopric won’t be handed over to Reverend Lightinhisloafers. What a tragedy, after all, to see this old and honored denomination sink to such depths. Now, I’m afraid, I have to say much the same thing to evangelicals contemplating another evil institution. Last year the Southern Baptist Convention proved to be our betters by considering at their annual gathering a motion to encourage all their parents to get their children out of godless schools. A similar measure made it to the floor of the Presbyterian Church in America this summer. Both failed miserably, but both brought honor to their sponsors, for the Presbyterians, Rev. Steve Warhurst, for the Baptists retired General Pinckney and attorney Bruce Shortt. This summer as the Baptists gather, some good men are trying again, or at least, they are trying to try. This time the resolution, sponsored by Pastor Voddie Baucham and Mr. Shortt, asks for rather less. It encourages all SBC parents to investigate how much their local school is promoting sodomite lifestyles. (Except, of course, their language is slightly less accurate, and slightly more gracious.) And if they find stuff not to their liking, then they should consider taking their children out. I’m quite confident that both Baucham and Shortt are fine, godly men, who, in this instance, have let their honorable zeal befuddle their goal through their strategy. They want the kids out, which is great. But their current strategy is to show the parents the boogeyman that is no longer in the closet. It is a horrible thing that any school would promote sodomy. But it is the natural result of previous and more grievous error, a school that will not affirm the Lordship of Christ over all things. Why are we worried about men kissing each other, when we ought to be worried that the entire system refuses to kiss the Son? To paraphrase myself, any parent who would remove a child from a school because of sodomite propaganda, but would not remove their child from a school that will not name the name of Christ, worships the god of middle class morality. And that god cannot save. This is what ought to turn our stomachs, “Jesus doesn’t matter here.” [comments] |