Religion and Mitt Romney

In the very few times I have written blogs on here, I usually write them on something I think would benefit others. But this one is mostly selfish. I'm writing it because I have something I want to say and it's too long for a tweet or facebook status update.

What I'd like to say is that the conversation surrounding Mitt Romney's mormonism has bothered me. About a week ago some pastor in Dallas said Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, was part of a cult. He went on to suggest that Christians should vote for a real Christian (in this case Rick Perry) over a cult member (Romney).

Since then almost every person who has commented on it has repudiated this pastor, conservatives included. I just watched a video with Karl Rove where he basically suggests we shouldn't even talk about this. I've been similarly dissapointed that Herman Cain seems unwilling to deal with the issue, suggesting he's not running for "theologian-in-chief" when asked about it.

Here's what bothers me about all this:

1. The suggestion that a candidates religious perspective doesn't matter or shouldn't be an issue we are allowed to ask about is incredibly naieve. Everybody is religious. What I mean by that is everyone has a certain view of God, man, and the world. Some people haven't thought about theirs, but they all have one. As President of the United States, you make decisions based on your views of God, man, and the world. So your view of these things, i.e. your religious perspective or worldview, is of utmost importance. To say "I'm not running for theologian-in-chief" or the like is essentially to say "I'm not going to talk about how my religious views affect my decision making." But they necessarily do affect your decision making! So either a.) you're just not thinking about it, in which case you're making decisions based on something, but it's not God's truth, or b.) you know you actually make your decisions on some worldview other than the Christian one but don't want to admit that because it would alienate evangelical votes you're hoping to keep.


2. This pastor has done nothing wrong by suggesting that mormonism is a theological cult. Agree with him or not, it's not inappropriate for a pastor to boldly express his convictions, even if it steps on toes.


3. Mormonism is not Christianity. This is a necessary distinction. Mormonism does not preach the gospel. Everyone in this discussion seems to make it sound like we shouldn't even be allowed to make a judgment on that. The fact that Herman Cain, a professed Christian, doesn't seem to have the balls or discernment to be clear on this is troubling to me.


4. Everyone around this discussion, partly because of the pastor's own comments, seems to be assuming that if I have questions about a candidate's faith it means I'd vote for Joe Shmoe Christian over Mitt Romney. So any questions about religion are written off as "irrelevant." That's simply not true, and assuming so precludes us from asking important questions about how worldview impacts a candidate's decision making. Personally I'd vote for Mitt Romney over a Christian with no political experience or expertise. But that doesn't mean religion is irrelevant, it just means it's not the only relevant data point.


5. It reveals to me that what so many conservatives really care about is winning. Shut up about religion, it doesn't win, is the attitude. Let me just tell people I'm a Christian so I can corner the evangelical voting block, but if you ask me to really spell out how that affects my life you're irrelevant or something.

Such an attitude is killing the possibility for intelligent discussion about how religion should affect policy, since we know that religious views already do. But when those religious views that necessarily exist in many of these decisions go unstated, they are assumed and unproven, and often may not be in line with God's truth. Grudem's Politics According to the Bible is a good example of making these implicit religious assumptions explicit and bringing them in line with what God says is truth.

God told me _____ (Part 4 of 4)

This past weekend I had the privilege of attending the wedding of Brett and Janelle Bauer. While there I was inspired to start blogging again by two of the three or four people who actually read this blog. In the day that followed the wedding I also was hit with some ideas of stuff I want to write again about, primarily on the joy of discipleship and sadness. But, I try to be a person who finishes what he starts. I started this "God told me _____" series a long time ago and I finally want to finish it. In the last part my intention was simply to make some brief comments on how the content from the first 3 parts plays out practically.

Before I start this section, I need to post a quick tidbit and define some important terms from Vern Poythress' excellent article on charismatic gifts Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

"A key distinction here is the distinction between rationally explicit processes, such as those involved when Luke wrote his Gospel, and intuitive processes, such as those involved with the Book of Revelation. One type of process is not inherently more “spiritual” than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired."

In the article, Poythress defines the rationally explicit process as a discursive process (in his example, to write his gospel Luke actually sits down and thinks and reasons through his gospel), and the more intuitive process as a non-discursive process (in his example, John didn't sit down and think "now, logically, what will the end be like? I see 7 horns on 7 beasts etc. John was led more through intuition and just recorded that). I use these terms this way throughout the post. Read the article, especially the first few paragraphs under point (3) if this is still unclear. Now that that's out of the way...

What I essentially argued in the first 3 parts of this blog series was that decisions we make that aren't explicitly spelled out for us in scripture are made through wisdom, i.e. a logical process that uses our minds. So attempts to arrive at decisions from subjective impressions of "God told me ______" are inadequate.

But here's the question we now have to ask: in the wisdom process, where does wisdom ultimately come from? As I showed in James 1:5-6 and 3:17 in earlier posts, wisdom comes from God Himself. Therefore, when we make decisions we are not to see ourselves as rationally reasoning through everything independent of God. We are dependent on God for the wisdom process. This is what the Bible often calls guidance (e.g. Psalm 48:14).

In the New Testament, it seems the Holy Spirit is identified as the member of the trinity who performs this guiding function. Romans 8:14 is the clearest example in my opinion:

"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God."

There we have the idea that the Holy Spirit leads God's children. So as Christians we aren't mere rationalists. We are utterly dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide us, but He guides us through the wisdom He gives from above (see James 1:5-6, 3:17 again).

This doesn't mean we never get subjective impressions of the Spirit's leading in our lives, but it does mean those our sense of those leadings alone are inadequate. They should be subject to wisdom, because the wisdom from above is "open to reason" (James 3:17). That wisdom should be derived from God's Word (this is explained more in parts 1-3). Let's look at two examples of how this plays out:

1. Jesus commands me to love my neighbors. I think to myself "how could I apply this?" I ask God to give me wisdom to do that. As I'm thinking about it I realize: well, I have literal neighbords who I've never met. As a way to love them, I will host a cookout and serve them a meal and seek to get to know them. That was a thinking process. No subjective impressions, just straightforward logic. It is what Vern Poythress would call a "discursive" process in the article I referenced above.

2. For some reason I wake up one more morning with a burden for one of my neighbors. I feel an impression that God wants me to engage them relationally. I feel like a cookout would be a good way to do that. That is a very subjective impression, or what Poythress calls a non-discursive process. I would argue that at this point I should test my subjective impression against wisdom. When I do, I realize Jesus has called me to love my neighbors and this would be a good way to do it.

In the way most of us today talk about decisions 1 & 2, people in situation 2 will say "God told me to reach my neighbors" while people in 1 will say "I decided to reach my neighbors." I think both terminologies should be dropped, and I would rather say that both were "led by the Spirit." I also don't think one is inherently better or more spiritual than the other. I see this in the first case through a discursive process and the second through a non-discursive process (see the Poythress article). In both cases we are dependent on the Holy Spirit and in both cases He deserves the glory for our decisions, not autonomous reason or mere feelings. I would perfer to speak of the Spirit's leading however because I think it's the terminology the Bible uses and I want to gaurd "the Lord saith ______" and "God told me _____" for things we actually know God said, which for us means only the words of scripture.

I would further add that when it comes to making decisions that go past what scripture has explicitly commanded the primary means God calls us to pursue is a discursive process. We are commanded to ask for wisdom, not "the still small voice of God." That could quickly become another blog article, but also hear me say that I'm open to the Spirit leading through subjective impressions, I just don't think it's the primary means we're called to seek when making decisions, i.e. God initiates it and it's still subject to wisdom.

In summary: When faced with decisions that fall outside of what scripture explicitly commands, we are called to pray for and exercise wisdom. That wisdom comes from above, specifically through the Spirit's leading in our lives, which can start either through discursive or non-discursive processes but in either case should be subject to wisdom, which is "open to reason." Therefore in all of our decisions we are to be led by the Spirit, but we should expect that leading to come primarily through our thinking and to always be subject to wisdom. For the practical concern of maintaing the uniqueness of the words of God that we know for a fact are God's words, it is my opinion that we should refrain from calling this leading of the Spirit "God's words." So while I affirm that many instances of "God told me _____" experiences could be legitimate, I also maintain in this series that some are not inasmuch as they fall short of biblical standards of wisdom, and that those which are would be better referred to as examples of the Spirit's leading.

Pushing Another Book

For the 2-3 of you who are actually waiting for a substantive blog post, you may have to wait a little longer. I'm just posting this to push the 25th anniversary edition of Piper's Desiring God. Interestingly enough, though I've listened to about 1000 of his sermons, I don't own nor have I ever read Desiring God. So I ordered my 25th anniversary copy today.


http://www.desiringgod.org/dg-25

Check it out. Also I do plan to post the last part of the God told me ______ series within the week.

God told me _____ (Part 3)

In part 2 I talked about how our wisdom needs to be open to reason. The main two ways that will happen is through personal study of scripture and the counsel of others. It's open to reason, meaning if the scriptures provide reason to believe our decision is unwise, we change it. It also means others can ask questions and provide reason as to why we may be faulty in our thinking. If your thinking is "God told me" that's not open to reason.

Another thing I now feel compelled to say about this is that seeking God's will should not happen on a merely case-by-case basis. Romans 12:2 says this:

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

This describes an ongoing process of the renewal of our minds, so that when the time comes to make a decision, we may discern God's will. That means we're consistently reshaping the way we think so that it accords with God's thoughts. We start to value what He values and hate what He hates, and then we engage in reasonable decision making with his priorities.

Alot more can be said about God's will. It's not my purpose to write the whole book on it. I merely wanted to show that the process involves wisdom, which is by its very nature a reasonable process. We are called to engage in a continual process of the renewal of our minds, pray for wisdom, and make a decision that applies God's general will as revealed in the scriptures to our specific situation. Sometimes that decision is not very clear (where to live) and sometimes it is (whether to steal). For the less clear decisions, there will be more searching of the scriptures, more praying, more seeking counsel, etc. But in either case, the process is the same as to what we are to do.

In the concluding part, I'll talk about how we should communicate this and what role the Holy Spirit has in "leading" or "speaking" in this process. I'll also briefly touch the Biblical examples of people receiving direct revelation of God's will (e.g. Abraham when commanded to sacrifice his son).

God told me _______ (Part 2)

I think when I finished Part 1 I said I'd discuss why we seem to jettison wisdom when it comes to decisions the Bible hasn't clearly spoken on. On the one hand, I said it always requires wisdom to apply the Bible to our unique circumstances. So even this bifurcation of "things the Bible has clearly spoken on" is purely pedagogical. If by things the Bible has clearly spoken on we mean things the Bible has told us how to handle without any steps of wisdom on our part, I'm inclined to say it actually hasn't spoken clearly on anything. I obviously don't think that. I'd rather say the Bible speaks clearly on everything, but that some things just require a few more steps of wisdom. The level of deicison making in these things therefore takes on a different quantity (we have to think more, pray more, etc.) but not a different quality (we leave wisdom and move to "hearing God's voice").

What we should do when coming to a deicison then is ask what God wants us to do as He's revealed His general will in scripture. If that answer is clear to us, we simply make that choice. Now here's where the rubber meets the road: if it's not clear. In other words, in this situation, we lack wisdom. What we to do when we lack wisdom? God tells us:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind." - James 1:5-6

We are to pray, and ask God for wisdom in faith that He will give it. We don't ask for Him to speak new words to us, we ask Him for wisdom. If we ask in faith, God gives it. James further describes this wisdom:

"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." - James 3:16-17

The contrast here is between decisions influenced by our sinful motives, and the wisdom from above. So that should be part of the decision process and one of the things wisdom will reveal: sinful motives vs. wisdom from above. Again this is all logical wisdom grounded in God's revealed will in scripture. The wisdom from above is even described as "open to reason." That means it's testable and open to correction as opposed to "God told me ____." Who can argue with that? In Part 3 we'll look more at how our wisdom can be "open to reason."

Read This Blog Post

From Tullian whats-his-name: Counterfeit Gospels I found Biblicism and social-ism most convicting. In each of these I can say "I can control my life apart from God, i.e. save myself, by just knowing everything and having everything right so no claim can be brought against me" or "I can control my life apart from God, i.e. save myself, by developing a network of like-minded friends who make me feel good about myself." The latter has been a particular temptation as I move to a new city and get involved with a new church that honestly contains alot of like-minded people who I'm developing friendships with. I find I tend to feel like I need them all to like me and affirm me, so it leads me to be less willing to serve anyone, especially those who aren't "in" at the church and aren't as like me as others. Good stuff from Tullian.

What I'm Learning From the Puritans

Today I finished reading A Quest For Godliness by J.I. Packer. The subtitle of the book is "The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life." In it Packer basically gives an overview of the Puritans. While the book started slow for me, I eventually found myself learning alot from it. I've always heard reformed guys talking about the puritans but never really delved into them myself, mostly because they always seemed like such difficult reads. I found this book to be a great middle ground that exposed me to the puritans without requiring me to actually read an entire book written by a puritan. I want to share with you some of the big takeaways I got from it. First, specific chapters:

• Chapter 7: The Puritan Conscience - I was really impacted by this chapter, especially since I think I rarely explicitly consider the role our conscience should play in our Christian lives. The Puritans saw the conscience as "a witness, declaring facts (Romans 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12), a mentor, prohibiting evil (Acts 24:16; Rom 13:5), and a judge, assessing desert (Rom 2:15; cf 1 Jn 3:20f)" (p. 110). This means we should make sure our consciences are in line with what God actually requires and prohibits. It also means we should not sin against our consciences, doing what we believe God does not want us to do or vice versa. I think alot of times I pay no attention to this. Sometimes Christians whose conscience condemns them even feel like that's just satan bothering them and they should not respond. But our conscience is a gift from God, and we should consider when we feel guilty whether we have sinned against God. We should examine ourselves. Then we rest ultimately in Christ's death to purify us from a guilty conscience (Heb. 9:14)
• Chapter 8: 'Saved by His Precious Blood': An Introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death - Everyone should read this chapter. It's available online here. It's one of the most succint and compelling statements/defenses of calvinism I've read.
• Chapter 15: The Puritan Approach to Worship - In this chapter Packer goes through some of the commonalities the puritans held, not their difference. The commonality is a general approach to worship. That approach is essentialy an approach to God. That's what we're doing in worship: approaching God. Thus they held that this should be done joyfully. We should delight in God and in the worship of Him. They also emphasized that God is actually more glorified in public worship than private, because the church shows a gathering of God's people in unity and diversity, which is to His glory. A part of the chapter that really struck me was their emphasis on preparation for worship. Often I stumble into church fresh out of bed, my heart not at all ready to sing God's praises or receive His Word. The puritans emphasized the need on saturday night and Sunday morning for disciplined time of confession, prayer, and meditation...asking God to prepare one's heart to worship Him. I tried this this past Sunday and indeed saw the fruit of a much more focused time of worship.
• Chapter 17: Puritan Preaching - The basic structure of Puritan preaching was doctrine, defense, application. I think this provides a helpful grid for preaching. What are we to believe, why are we to believe it, and how should it change our lives? The Puritans are known for hour long sermons where they would go to great pains to apply the text as specifically as possible to their audience. In my own teaching and in some that I hear application is very general and lacking in practicality. The puritans offer even a grid for how to make specific application. This is needed, because if we only have general notions of repentance we will too easily say things like "I'm working to love people better" without it actually changing any of our actions. (as a sidenote, one thing I really appreciate about my current church, Redeemer, is the precision of application).
• Chapter 18: Puritan Evangelism - My main appreciation here is of the sovereignty of God. The Puritans preached every sermon evangelistically, meaning every sermon was rooted in God's grace in Christ and calling everyone to faith and reptentance on the grounds of it. They knew nothing of the "evangelistic meetings" of today or of the special "evangelistic sermons." Every sermon was a call on sinners to repent. Believers and non-believers both need to hear the gospel and be called to the right response: faith and repentance. They would preach in this manner and press on the consciences of their hearers, then leave the rest to God. No altar call, no call for immediate decisions, just a trust in the Spirit of God to work. Now that doesn't mean they didn't do evangelism relationally, in fact in this chapter there are examples of puritans saying the best way to do evangelism is to follow up the broad preaching with individual conversation. However, their preaching of the gospel to non-believers was not done in a manipulative way, forcing a decision, but with an attitude of trust in God to be the one at work. Often as I'm reaching out to non-believers I can get impatient with them and try to force them into a decision, all the while not remember that non-believers are powerless to make such a decision unless God gives them a new heart. This encourages me to patience in sowing the gospel.
• Chapter 19: Jonathan Edwards on Revival - Edwards saw a revival in his ministry, and prayed for the Holy Spirit to be poured out afresh among his people. Revival is a large scale renewal of true religion among people that results in a renewed passion and joy in Christ and good works. I was just convicted of how I really don't pray this way and almost don't think God could do such a thing. I've begun praying this way for the Texas Tech campus, that God would pour out His spirit among the students and create in them a passion and joy in Christ.

Well, those are some of the specifics. But in general in this book I saw men who were captivated by God's grace, resulting in a deep joy and satisfaction in Jesus. This led them to lives of holiness and pursuit of God's glory in all the earth. It's motivated me to try to read next year Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections and at least one biography of a puritan (I'm leaning towards Lloyd-Jones, who is more of a modern day Puritan). I highly recommend A Quest For Godliness.

God told me _______

I've been thinking alot lately about the idea of guidance. I'm sure most of you have yourself said or at least encountered someone who's said something to the effect of "I really feel like God's telling me to do _______" (e.g. share my faith with my friend, move to China, drop out of college, etc.). The question that most people inevitably grapple with in this is, "how do you know that's God telling you?" Stated other ways it sounds like: "how can I know what God's will is in this situation?" or "how can I hear God's voice?" or "how can I be sensitive to the Spirit's leading?" You may have even received such teaching from Christians you respect: "you need to be seeking God's will in everything you do," "you need to be listening for God's voice," "you need to be sensitive to the Spirit's leading," "have you really asked God if He wants you doing this?" In my experience, most Christians are simply confused about this whole process. I'm one of them. However, I feel like lately the Lord is growing me in understanding in this area.

Questions like these become relevant any time we are faced with a decision that the Bible hasn't clearly spoken one way or the other on. In some ways, this includes every situation we encounter in our actual lives. This is simply called application: taking God's general will as revealed in the Bible and applying it to our specific situations. For instance, should I steal my favorite candy bar from the store or not? Well, if we consider the Bible in its narrowest sense, it hasn't directly addressed that question. There's no passage on Mike Anderson in a convenience store with a candy bar. However, the Bible has spoken generally about theft, and in fact prohibited it. But for me to apply that to my life, I use wisdom, i.e. a rational thought process. It goes something like this: "To steal or not to steal the candy bar? The Bible prohibits stealing, to steal the candy bar from the store would be stealing, therefore I will not steal the candy bar." Often times in an obvious case such as this the thought process I've just described goes on subconsciously, but it happens nonetheless.

Now can you imagine me asking someone for counsel on my decision (whether to steal the candy bar) and them saying "well you should pray and ask the Lord if He wants you to steal the candy bar, and then wait to see what He says," or "follow how you feel His spirit leading"? Absolutely not. Such counsel would be superfluous at best and misleading at worst (e.g. if I really want to steal and still feel like stealing after praying, now I feel like that's justified because it's "how the Spirit is leading." I can almost hear the Christian rationalization now: "I just felt the Lord telling me He wanted me to really live out of my freedom in Christ"). Now I assume everyone agrees with my line of reasoning so far, however it seems to me when we get to more complicated issues we jettison such reasoning. The counsel we've just shot down in the case of stealing suddenly seems to be garden variety when it comes to issues like where one should live or who one should marry. Why is that the case? We'll look into it in part 2...

More on Politics According to the Bible

Well, Brett convinced me to get another entry up here by requesting it on my facebook wall. As it turns out I've been thinking/talking more about Grudem's book Politics According to the Bible since my last post. Alot of this got worked out on a comment thread over at TGC reviews, but I'll repost my thoughts here in a more formulated, drawn out manner (sounds exciting, right?).

As I said before, in general I've really enjoyed the book. It's contained great biblical insight and the chapters on specific issues have been very helpful introductions to the issues facing our nation today from a Christian perspective. That said, he didn't answer my questions (the nerve!). On the one hand, who am I to think Wayne Grudem should set aside time to answer my questions? For alot of people, the book will probably do a fine job of presenting a Biblical view of government. Insofar as that's true, I applaud the book and I can't say I'm mad at him or something because he didn't answer my questions. Nonetheless, in my mind these questions are substantive and worthy of attention:

1. Where is the NT imperative for Christians to change government? I talked about this alot in my earlier post on Politics, so I won't rehash it all here. In his book Grudem gives 2 NT narrative examples of Christian engagement in politics that I found to be exegetically weak. In fact, NT imperative with respect to politics seems to be entirely about Christians submitting to government, not trying to change it.

2. In Grudem's criticism of the "do evangelism, not politics" view in chapter 1, he accuses them of having too narrow an understanding of "the gospel" (p. 45-47). Basically he says the gospel doesn't just apply to individual salvation, but also includes a transformation of society (his words). The "what is the gospel?" conversation is a hot one these days (I'm thinking of Carson's essay in For the Fame of God's Name and Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel?) but it seems to me at least (for what that's worth) that the growing evangelical consensus is that the gospel broadly conceived (as sometimes it is in scripture) includes a cosmic redemption, not just the redemption of individual lives. I completely agree with that, but it doesn't answer the question of what role we play in that redemption. Why is it that because the good news includes a cosmic redemption (i.e. transformation of society) that the acitivity of people in this age is the means through which that redemption happens? I think many Christians would agree that the good news includes a cosmic redemption, but would still see a progressive decline in this age until Jesus returns and establishes the transformed society unilateraly (for a brief statement of this view see this blog post, especially point #9). I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but is it not worthy of at least some response from Grudem (I mean come on, Mark Dever's no fool)?

3. As I think about this point more that I made over at the TGC comment thread, it makes sense to me that if the church's role is to preach the Word, and God's Word contains His moral will for governments, and we are all involved in government in the U.S., then pastors should teach us how to submit to God's moral will as we all participate in the political process. So I wouldn't state my objection as strongly as I originally did. I do wish he'd be more clear in the book as to what things apply to the U.S. and what things apply to government as a whole. It seems like in the first 4 chapters of his book his goal is to discuss God's will for all governments, not just the U.S. government, yet some of it only makes sense to me if we're all part of the government. If it's God's will for all Christians to be involved in changing government, not just those in a democracy, then we'd expect to find that somewhere in scripture (see question #1 above).

4. His main passages in support of alot of his view of government are Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:14-15, which both describe government as punishing evil and rewarding good. But those passages seem to do just that, describe. They simply say "this is how it is; submit." They don't say "this is how it should be, and if it's not you better try to change it." Grudem takes these descriptive passages to be God's moral will for all governments, and then concludes that we should be actively making sure that governments conform to that. Maybe that's the case, but he doesn't actually argue that it is. He appears to take it for granted.

5. If the role of government is to punish evil and reward good (as he says it is), then why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? Isn't that evil? Or are we now appealing to some other standard (natural law?) than the Bible for our definition of good and evil? Grudem seems to be against that approach throughout the book since he consistently appeals to the Bible on moral issues. So if the Bible is our standard for good and evil, and the Bible says idolatry is evil, why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? I know he doesn't think they should (he says he's not a theonomist, and he argues for a distinction between church and state due to Jesus' "render unto ceasar" sentiment). But I fail to see how his position doesn't logically lead to government punishing idolatry, which is equivalent to "government compelling religion," one of his wrong views of chapter 1! Grudem again doesn't even address this question.

As I said before, I don't think Wayne Grudem should in any way feel like he needs to answer my questions. However, at least questions 1, 2, and 5 are questions anyone who's thought about the 2 kingdoms/Kuyperian debate wonders. For Grudem not even to address them in his 4 chapters that are supposed to set forth God's will for government is a major oversight in my mind.

Well, it's been fun posting again. I hope to follow up this post with some of the positives I've taken from Grudem and the resulting thinking/dialogue on Christians and politics. I highly recommend reading his book, especially the first four chapters. I'd definitely say anyone reading Trueman's new book or the Gerson/Wehner book needs to read Grudem's first 4 chapters since what I'm hearing about those book is that they don't give any detailed theological description of God's will for government. And come on, if you're reading this and thinking about politics as a Christian, drop me a comment!

A New Book Recommendation

In this post I want to embark on a first for my blog and for my life: I'm going to recommend a book I've never read. In the mail today I got my copy of For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor edited this collection of essays from renowned scholars and pastors in honor of John Piper. They cite Phillippians 2:29 where Paul commands the Philippians to "honor such men" as Epaphroditus. Basically they're thanking John Piper for his years of service to the body of Christ, but more fundamentally they're praising God for His work through Piper's life and ministry.

When I heard that, I thought to myself "man, I want do to that too!" I benefit from alot of different Bible teachers through their online ministries (thank God for the internet!), but probably none has been so formative in my life and thinking as John Piper. His talk from the 2006 Desiring God Conference changed my view of the Bible and in many ways the direction my life took from that point on. His teaching on the supremacy of God in all things, true joy, and the sovereignty of God opened my eyes to see God as He has really revealed Himself in the Bible. I love God more today and I am happier in Him as a result of this.

If your life has been similarly impacted even in smaller ways by Piper, I'd recommend buying this book as a way of saying "Thanks" to John Piper, but moreso as a celebration of God's ability to use whoever He pleases to spread a passion for His glory.

A few other new/upcoming books I'd buy if wise financial stewardship didn't prevent it:

City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era - Michael Gerson & Peter Wehner
Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative - Carl Trueman
40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law - Tom Schreiner
Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes us Just - Tim Keller

The Shadow of Christ in Braveheart

Ok, I admit that I get a little tired of "Finding God in _____" books. As a sidenote, I recently saw there are two of those books out on The Shack. Seeing as The Shack is supposed to clearly be about God, it's probably a bad sign that you need some other book to help you find Him in it. While all of its supporters were touting The Shack as a modern day pilgrim's progress, can you imagine a book called "Find God in The Pilgrim's Progress"? Of course you can't, because anyone who's read Pilgrim's Progress has no problem seeing God in it on their own (I did search amazon for a book of this sort for Pilgrim's Progress; didn't return any results). Anyway, I digress.

Even though these types of connections can be trite, as I watched braveheart for the 700th time today (rough estimate), I was struck with the many connections between William Wallace and Christ. This is particularly evident to me in the mini-redemption of Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce starts out a slave to others, mainly his father. This is in stark contrast to William Wallace, who because of his commitment to a principle (freedom), is a slave to no one.

Ultimately Wallace's commitment to a principle, a principle that also committed him to a people (the Scottish), cost him his life. He never backed down from suffering, but willingly accepted his death on behalf of his cause. Yet in his death he was victorious. I think two things impact Robert the Bruce about the suffering and death of Wallace: 1. That he himself betrayed a great man in Wallace 2. That Wallace loved a principle and a people enough to die for them. Robert the Bruce knew that wasn't him. He realized he was rather a selfish man, only after his own crown. But in Wallace he saw the emptiness of such a hope and was empowered to die to his selfish desires, that he might truly live. His heart was captivated by what Wallace did on behalf of his people, so Robert the Bruce was changed in such a way that he now wanted to live, and possibly die, for freedom. He wanted to be like Wallace.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think we get a full blown gospel parallel in Braveheart. Even Chronicles of Narnia couldn't deliver that. But I think there are some definite parallels. To name a few:

• Wallace suffered and died for a principle and a people. Jesus suffered and died for God's glory (Jn. 12:27-33, 17:5) and for the redemption of all who would trust Him (Heb. 10:14).
• Wallace suffered and died to set the Scottish free from British oppression. Jesus suffered and died to set us free from our slavery to sin under the law (Gal. 3:10-13, 5:1).
• Robert the Bruce realized he betrayed a great man. The centurion present at Jesus' crucifixion realized that they crucified the Son of God (Mark. 15:39)
• Wallace was victorious in death. Jesus was victorious in death (Col. 2:14-15)
• Robert the Bruce is drawn to Wallace because Wallace was willing to die for his cause and people. Jesus drew people to himself when He was crucified (Jn. 12:32)
• Wallace did not resist his punishment once he was caught. Jesus likewise did not answer back to those who sought to kill Him, but continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23)
• Wallace finally dies on a cross, before which he yells out "FREEDOM!" Jesus also died on a cross, and in a similar fashion yelled a victorious "IT IS FINISHED!" (Jn. 19:30)
• The result of Wallace's death is that Robert the Bruce is now committed to his cause and wants to be like him (freedom). The result of Jesus' death is that His people are now committed to His cause (God's glory) and want to be like Him (Titus 2:14, Phil. 2:12-13, 1 Cor. 10:31).
• In order to follow Wallace, Robert the Bruce had to deny himself (his desire for the crown, glory from men, etc.). Jesus similarly calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him (Luke 9:23)
• The result of Robert the Bruce's change and allegiance to Wallace is his joy (as is so clear in the final scene when he leads the Scots in battle). The result of allegiance to Christ is fullness of joy (Jn. 15:11, 17:13, Ps. 16:11)

Nonethless, the gospel is much better than Braveheart. Wallace himself wasn't perfect (having sex with another man's wife, albeit a poor excuse for a man, is still sinful). Wallace never makes provision for the guilt of his own sin or Robert the Bruce's for that matter. He also dies permanently, so he can't rule anymore. Therefore the freedom he purchases is temporary, and the kingdom he leads is temporary as well. But Christ was sinless (Heb. 4:15), bore the curse our sin incurred (Gal. 3:13), and rose again (1 Cor. 15:3-4). He therefore purchased us eternal freedom (Heb. 4:9-11, Gal. 5:1) in an eternal kingdom (Isa. 9:7, Eph. 2:6, Rev. 21-22) if we place our trust in Him alone. And in Him there is truly fullness of joy.

I Love This Article

Today I was surfing Desiring God looking for a sermon to listen to to do something different in my time with my God. As I was doing it I stumbled across this article. It drove me to tears and confession before God. I want to pass it along to you:

What Is That To You? You Follow Me!

Enjoy!

Some Initial Reactions to Wayne Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible"

If you catch my sidebar on the books I'm reading you may have noticed that I've recently been going through Wayne Grudem's newest book entitled Politics According to the Bible. I've finished the first 4 chapters. These all fall under the first part of the book, which is entitled "basic principles." This is the part of the book I was most excited to read. I've been frustrated in the past when I hear other Christians debating individual political issues. The reason that can be hard for me is because I find myself unsure of how to even approach politics. How involved should we as Christians be? Should we legislate morality or leave freedom? Should we feed the poor via government or leave that to the people? Should we care for the environment via government sanctions or the will of the people?

Christians fall down on either side of these issues, especially younger Christians who are fed up with the politicizing tendencies of the Christian right. However I think myself and most of my peers also forget the politicizing tendencies of the Christian left (generally seen in the more liberal, mainline churches). The difficulty for me in sorting through these arguments is that I feel I don't know how to even approach them. What constitutes a "correct" view on a given issue? What does God want politics to look like? So, I got Grudem's book and was excited to read it. Here are some initial reactions 4 chapters in:

1. Grudem is an excellent communicator of biblical truth. He writes with such clarity and in general his reasoning flows clearly from the scriptures. He calls error error and truth truth. I really appreciate this about him.

2. In his second chapter Grudem puts forth the idea of "significant Christian influence on government." This is in his view the Biblical position. In support of this he offers a number of OT texts where governments in general, not just Israel, are condemned for their failure to obey God's law in their governance. From this we see God has a moral will for government. He then cites two stories in the NT where Christians confront rulers about their sin. John the Baptist confronts Herod (Matt. 14, Luke 3) and Paul confronts Felix (Acts 24).

The interesting thing to me about these NT texts is the text itself doesn't specify what John the Baptist and Paul confront their counterparts about. It says they call them to repentence, but it doesn't say that has anything to do with their political positions. In fact, in the case of John the Baptist he confronts Herod about his personal sexual immorality. Grudem simply assumes that political advice or calls to repentence in their policies were also there. Thus he finds NT precedent for believers engaging in policy issues. I find this suspect at best. We have no evidence that this is what John the Baptist and Paul were doing, yet these are the only examples Grudem gives of NT people "engaging in politics."

I don't think any evangelical denies that God as a moral will for governments. The question is what we as Christians are to do about it. Should we simply evangelize and disciple everyone, including politicians, such that as they are progressively sanctified by the Spirit they grow in holiness that then overflows to their vocation? Grudem says no, this is not enough. He calls this the wrong view of "do evangelism, not politics." But this seems to be all we know the NT church to be doing. Where is the imperative for the church to be engaged in politics? It seems what we see more of the NT church actually doing and being commanded to do is to submit to the government and to reach the people in it with the gospel, not try to fix the system itself. All he has to counter this are 2 suspect examples.

I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other, but it's the kind of question I wish Grudem had addressed more thoroughly. He speaks of the gospel as God's "good news for all areas of life." I'm fine with that, but it leaves so much unanswered. If the gospel includes the redemption of governments, does that automatically mean it's a redemption we bring about progressively? Is this a post-millenial view where we bring about the millenium by redeeming all areas of life? (But then again Grudem is pre-mil). These theological underpinnings of our view of governments were exactly the thing I was hoping Grudem would have addressed more adequately.

3. This ended up being longer than I thought. More to come.

I'm Still Here

Hey everyone, not much to say in this post, just mostly wanted anyone still reading this blog to know that I am in fact still alive. Haha, I know it's been over a month since my last post and I do want to get back into it. I'm working through alot of good books right now (see right) so hopefully there will be some things the Lord teaches me through them that I could share with you all.

I've started working full-time with The Navigators as a campus missionary at Texas Tech University. The move and getting started have been excited but have also kept me busy, hence my absence from blogging. Keep your eyes peeled though; more to come shortly.

DeYoung on Homosexuality

Kevin DeYoung has a very helpful blog post today in light of Prop 8 being struck down. In it he goes through specifics of what Christians should do in response to this. I appreciated his candor and specificity. I think he's right to point out that many times our advice in dealing with homosexuality is vague and not ultimately helpful. I'd encourage anyone to check out this article. One point I really appreciated:

3. We should assume that there are people in our churches right now struggling with same gender attraction. Leaders need to verbalize this (not specific names obviously) in sermon application and in pastoral prayers. We need to convey that the church is a safe place for those fighting this temptation. Second to Jesus Christ and his gospel, those struggling with same gender attraction need gospel community more than anything else.

And actually one more good measure (this one particularly convicting for me):

9. No gay jokes. None. It doesn’t help our witness and they’re not funny. Plus, the more we laugh at sin the more it gets normalized

Applying God's Sovereignty and Means

My church recently went through 1 and 2 Samuel and I've recently been going through 1 Chronicles in my personal time with God. As the Lord has been teaching me through these portions of scripture, I've noticed something that the Spirit has recently brought conviction about.

My observation is that there are a number of stories where people act in such a way as to bring about a certain result. That result then comes, i.e. the people are successful. Then the text does something perhaps unexpected: it says that God did it. It doesn't say "so such and such happened because the people planned well, tried hard, etc." It just says "such and such happened because God did it." Let me give a few examples:

"And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For the Lord had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the Lord might bring harm upon Absalom." - 2 Sam. 17:14

"and Jehozadak went into exile when the Lord sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar." - 1 Chron. 6:15

"But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and killed the Philistines. And the Lord saved them by a great victory." - 1 Chron. 11:14

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations." - 1 Chron. 14:17

In each of these cases, something happens that we could explain without God. We could say Absalom perferred Ahithophel's counsel because Ahithophel was a wise guy and Absalom was prideful. We could say Judah and Jerusalem went into exile because King Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful, dominating, king. We could say Israel defeated the Philistines because they had a better army. We could say the nations feared David because he was killing a bunch of their surrounding nations.

But God does not choose to reveal Himself in that way in scripture. He inspires the writers of scripture to instead ascribe these various events as being done by the Lord Himself. They don't say "God allowed such and such to happen," they say that God Himself did it. How are we to understand this? Another text from 2 Chronicles is helpful here.

"But it was ordained by God that the downfall of Ahaziah should come about through his going to visit Joram. For when he came there, he went out with Jehoram to meet Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom the Lord had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab." - 2 Chron. 22:7

Here God ordains both the downfall of Ahaziah and the means through which it happens. God uses means, but is just as sovereign and in control of those as He is the ends. As a result, in any situation we would be right to say that if it happened, God ordained it to happen.

So what does this have to do with real life? Well for me I experienced conviction in the fact that I rarely if ever speak of events in this way. I especially see this come out in the successes of others. For instance, beats me in a sport, has more people in a Bible study, raises more money than I have for their ministry, I'm quick to explain it by "well you know they play more, they're more extroverted, they know more Christians." I'm not saying those things aren't true, it just seems the scriptures might choose to emphasize it differently. I find I hesitate to do so because I don't want to believe that God's plan for my life might not include the same level of "success" as others.

But the fact that everything in my life happens according to God's will is good news, because His will is to conform me to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:28-29), and this is the best thing for me!

What is A Stumbling Block?

If you've been around Christian circles long enough you've undoubtebly heard the term "stumbling block." On the surface the meaning of this term is fairly clear: acting in such a way that you temp another person to sin. Probably the most common example is women dressing modestly in order to not be a "stumbling block" to their Christian brothers. This is certainly a legitimate application of the term and I'm personally thankful to women who observe it as such.

However, I think there is some confusion on how this principle applies in other situations, specifically as it deals with those who have differing convictions. What I mean by that is, one person thinks something is permissible for a Christian and the other doesn't. I've seen this come up in a number of scenarios: drinking, gambling, what movies one watches, what constitutes profane language, the extent of our observance of the law of the land (e.g. speed limit, downloading music), and the list continues. In Biblical times food practices and feast days fell into these categories.

As always the question that should guide our thinking and practice here is "what has God said about it in His Word"? Probably the clearest passage answering the present question is Romans 14. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing or at least have it in front of you as you read my comments on it.

First let's identify the stronger and weaker brothers. Notice the passage is talking about brothers, so we are here discussing relationships between Christians. In verse 2 we see that the weaker brother is the one with stronger, or more strict, convictions (in the case of Romans 14, the one who abstains from meat). This brother could be called weaker either because he has not fully embraced his freedom in the gospel to eat whatever he wants or because actions might cause him to stumble that don't cause others to stumble. So if someone is choosing to abstain from something we are not required to abstain from in scripture, they are the weaker brother.

What then should be our attitude towards one another? To put the matter simply, the one who feels freedom to engage in something that the other is abstaining in should not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains should not judge the one who doesn't (v. 3). This is because we've both been accepted by God and He is our judge (v. 4). We should each do what we do because we are convinced in our minds it is right, and we should do it as unto the Lord (v. 5-6). We shouldn't abstain or not abstain to please others, but because we feel it is what God has called us to do.

If that describes our attitude, what should our actions look like towards one another? In this section of the passage (v. 13ff), Paul addresses mainly the "stronger" brother. He is the one Paul associates himself with (since Paul feels the freedom to eat any food), and he is the one at risk of being a stumbling block. Paul basically says they should not partake of the thing the weaker brother is abstaining from if they are in close contact with the weaker brother (v. 15-16, 19-20).
The reasons given are:

• so that our conduct will not be spoken of as evil (v. 16)
• the kingdom of God isn't in it (i.e. loving people is a bigger deal than abstaining from these things) (v. 17)
• it is the peaceful and mutually upbuilding option (v. 19)
• if we cause a brother to be tempted towards doing the thing he feels God has called him not do, we are tempting him to act out of step with faith, and anything that does not proceed from faith is sin (v. 23, in other words to do the thing he is abstaining from is "unclean for him" (v. 14))

To my mind this text gives us very clear guidelines in how to approach these issues: For those with the more strict convictions (the abstainers), don't judge those who don't abstain. For those with the looser convictions, don't despise those who do abstain. Futher, don't carry out the action the other abstains from in such a way that they might be tempted to go against their convictions.

A quick example of what I mean: I drink. I believe drunkenness is a sin (cf. Eph. 5:18), but I think God gave alcohol for a good purpose (cf. Psalm 104:15) and when used in moderation it is ok. Hardcore Southern Baptists disagree with me. When I am around them or influencing them in some way scripture commands me to abstain from alcohol so as not to be a stumbling block to them.

A note in closing: I want to be very clear that I don't think everyone in the Christian community agrees with what I've just summarized. I hear much more of something to this effect: "If you abstain from the thing the other person is abstaining from, what you're saying is that we don't have freedom in the gospel. This either supports legalism or at least looks legalistic to non-believers. It is therefore a barrier to the gospel." Given the clarity of Paul's thought in Romans 14, the case is just the opposite. Paul sees NOT abstaining when around an abstainer as the real barrier to the gospel, and Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

A Quick Reflection on God's Sovereignty

I was hiking/camping the other day and also attended a church where one of the people speaking shared about his love for the outdoors. I can relate to that. I love being outside and seeing God's creation. I feel like many Christians share this passion. It makes sense, especially when you consider the various places in scripture where God is praised for his creation (e.g. Ps 8, 19, 104). There is even some sense in which creation reveals who God is (Rom. 1:19-20).

In many cases this love for the outdoors and seeing God's glory in creation is viewed over against something like a city. There we see buildings, cars, computers etc. but not the beauty of a mountain. As I was thinking about this I started to wonder why we make this distinction.

It's probably because we see the earth (the "natural" parts of it) as created by God and buildings as created by man. However I don't know how significant this distinction is. Everything that exists exists because God willed it to exist. God then brings about His desired ends through the use of means. In creating what we see today and call beautiful (for instance, a mountain) it seems God used the means of erosion, weather, soil science, etc. This is what makes science intelligible.

Now what about a skyscraper in New York? Well, God must have willed its existence or else it wouldn't be there. This time the means he used were people. The difference here is that people are ethical agents, and sometimes their motives for building can be wrong, whereas erosion doesn't have a motive. So there are buildings that God doesn't like (e.g. tower of Bable, cf. Gen. 11), but on the other hand I think we should see beautiful buildings as a product of God's will and should still be able to look at it and see that it too sings of God's glory (Ps. 19:1-2). I think a skyscraper shows God's creativity and power as well as a mountain, for if God were not creative where would man (created in God's image) have gotten the capacity to make such a thing?

A few questions still remain in my mind. 1. Did God really use means when he created the world? In Genesis 1 it seems He just spoke and things were. It seems creation was miraculous in that sense, whereas buildings are not. But if God did not use means then seeing mountains as a result of erosion etc. doesn't make sense, yet that's what science tells us. I may be wading into deeper water here (e.g. evolution, age of the earth, etc.)

I'd love any comments on this one.

Three Song Recommendations

It was cool for me in college that I had the chance to be lead in worship well by both The Navigators worship band and at my church, Grace Fellowship. I've tried to introduce my church to two Navigators favorites (contemporary renditions of Rock of Ages and Holy Hands). I wanted to take this opportunity to recommend three songs to my readers that I was exposed to through Grace Fellowship Chuch:

1. Psalm 130 (From the Depths of Woe) - Christopher Miner. This is a contemporary version of a hymn written by Martin Luther based heavily on Psalm 130. It's similar to Holy Hands in that there aren't really any good recorded versions available unless you buy the CD it's on. There is however this one youtube video with the best version of it I've found available online. Also leadsheets and lyrics here.

2. Jesus, Thank You - Sovereign Grace Music. Available on iTunes etc. Also on youtube.

3. I Will Glory in My Redeemer - Sovereign Grace Music. Also available on iTunes etc. The version I listen to most is from Bob Kauflin's CD Upward. There is also a version on youtube.

These songs are theologically rich and musically moving. To give you just a little taste I've included the lyrics to Psalm 130 (From the Depths of Woe) below:

1. From the depths of woe I raise to Thee
The voice of lamentation;
Lord, turn a gracious ear to me
And hear my supplication;
If Thou iniquities dost mark,
Our secret sins and misdeeds dark,

O who shall stand before Thee?
(Who shall stand before Thee?)
O who shall stand before Thee?
(Who shall stand before Thee?)

2. To wash away the crimson stain,
Grace, grace alone availeth;
Our works, alas! Are all in vain;
In much the best life faileth;
No man can glory in Thy sight,
All must alike confess Thy might,

And live alone by mercy
(Live alone by mercy)
And live alone by mercy
(Live alone by mercy)

3. Therefore my trust is in the Lord,
And not in mine own merit;
On Him my soul shall rest, His word
Upholds my fainting spirit;
His promised mercy is my fort,
My comfort and my sweet support;

I wait for it with patience
(Wait for it with patience)
I wait for it with patience
(Wait for it with patience)

4. What though I wait the live-long night,
And ’til the dawn appeareth,
My heart still trusteth in His might;
It doubteth not nor feareth;
Do thus, O ye of Israel’s seed,
Ye of the Spirit born indeed;

And wait ’til God appeareth
(Wait ’til God appeareth)
And wait ’til God appeareth
(Wait ’til God appeareth)

5. Though great our sins and sore our woes
His grace much more aboundeth;
His helping love no limit knows,
Our upmost need it soundeth.
Our Shepherd good and true is He,
Who will at last His Israel free

From all their sin and sorrow
(All their sin and sorrow)
From all their sin and sorrow
(All their sin and sorrow)

©1997 Christopher Miner Music.

One of the Best Chapters I've Ever Read

If you pay attention to my sidebar on "books I'm currently reading" you know I'm currently reading a book by Greg Bahnsen entitled Presuppositional Apologetics: State and Defended. Today I finished what I consider one of the best chapters I've ever read in a book. It's the third chapter of the book and is entitled "Neutrality and Autonomy Relinquished."

I would not do justice to this chapter to try to summarize it here. Suffice it to say that for anyone desiring to think seriously about apologetics and philosophy from a Christian perspective this chapter is a must read. In it Bahnsen masterfully calls all of us to submit to Christ's Lordship over all areas of life, even our apologetic and intellectual endeavors. He do so with stunning clarity and persuasion. While the rest of the book has also been great, this chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

A sample from Bahnsen's own words as he summarizes much of the chapter:

"The foregoing articles have been given to demonstrating this presuppositional position from epistemological considerations. We have noted the unavoidable interdependence of metaphysics and epistemology (or method), the fact that all argumentation appeals to an ultimate (and unproved) authority, and the impossibility of neutrality. We have discussed the possibility of a man being ignorant of items of which he really has knowledge (but will not acknowledge). We have contrasted the necessity of revelational epistemology with the hopelessness of autonomous epistemology. It has been observed that the unbeliever's intellectual schizophrenia makes a presuppositional approach to him legitimate, just as the possibility of a meaningful argument makes a presuppositional approach necessary. Moreover, an analysis of language usage and informal logic shows presuppositional apologetics to be the only workable and promising approach to the non-Christian." - Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, pg. 124-125

P.S. This made me think of other chapters I really like from other books. I'd like to post on these eventually as the come to mind.