Loving Discipline

Somewhere along the line our culture has forgotten the idea that discipline is real motivated by love. My wife and I get a magazine called Parenting. It was a free subscription. This magazine always makes sure you know that children are never to be spanked. Never mind the proverb “spare the rod, spoil the child”. People today think it is just barbaric to spank a child. Our schools don’t do it, many parents don’t do it, and then we all wonder what happened when the kids become teenagers and they go crazy. People think that spanking a child is what angry child abusers do, but instead it is an act of love to drive folly from the child. It is for his own good. That is the real motivation of ‘corporal punishment’ as it is sometimes called. It was always just a good ole spankin’ back in my time.

This principle does not stop with parenting sadly enough. It infests our church. I have a friend, who is a believer, but attends a conservative Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA) church in Colorado Springs. Try as I might I cannot convince him his church is wrong, and that the denominations refusal to discipline the hundred or so pastors who actively support homosexuality as right is an abomination. He stubbornly holds to the idea that all should remain as it is, and it is better not to stir the pot too much. Somewhere the PCUSA lost the idea of loving discipline and now it treads water until it becomes the Anglican church with active gay men as ministers.

It also ties into the current debates that will be raging throughout the Reformed Churches regarding the Federal Vision. John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation in his latest Trinity Review makes a good point. Granted I am not in the habit of saying Robbins makes good points, but here I believe he raises a valid concern. Why would the Mississippi Valley Presbytery make a report condemning these things without trying to bring charges against fellow ministers? If you believe that what they teach is really a damnable error, then is it not the loving thing to do to bring charges? If not for the ministers’ souls then for the flocks they lead? How is it loving to leave them with only this innuendo over their heads, but no real charges to think over? I think the plain answer is it is not. I worry that many churches have lost the idea of loving discipline, just like many modern families. One day the church will wake up and wonder why the kids went crazy. They need look no further than the lack of church discipline.

Star Wars vs. Christianity

I just returned from watching Star Wars Episode III. It was simultaneously the greatest of the 6 movies and the worst. Let me confess up front that I am a Star Wars geek. I love the original trilogy, and I am one of the few who thought Episodes I and II were fantastic. Yet, Episode III trumped them all. Lucas accomplished the Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader transformation perfectly. The battle scenes were spectacular, the use of color was magnificent, and the Republic-cum-Empire topped them all. With the sole exception of Padme dying before baby Leia could possibly have formed any memories of her, (contrary to Leia’s account in Episode 6) the movie was consistent and well done.

Yet, I have this against the movie. There is one glaring out-of-place political insertion by George Lucas that taints the whole movie, undoes all his great work, proves he doesn’t understand his own movies, and declares war on Christians everywhere. The quote is the climax and occurs at the beginning of the battle between Darth Vader and Obi Wan.

Vader: "If you are not with me, you are my enemy."
Obi Wan: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

This small exchange of dialog is a clear attack on Christianity, especially in light of recent criticisms of Christians’ involvement in politics. First, Vader’s quote is an obvious reference to Christ and Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me." Thus Obi Wan’s (the good guy’s) reply is directed at those who hold that Christ is the only way to heaven and salvation. Second, this comment falls into a larger conversation concerning control of the Senate, which does fit well with the movie and the characters, but it serves to link the bad guy who believes in absolutes with the evil consolidation of Sith power that ultimately destroys democracy. Replace "bad guy" with "Pres. Bush" and "the evil consolidation of Sith power" with "Christians bringing their moral absolutes to the political arena" and you see where I’m going.

This blatant attack, in my opinion, only serves to make Lucas look stupid since the rest of Episode III sees the Jedi dealing in absolutes (just one example occurs when Obi Wan tells Vader he is lost because he can’t see that it’s really the Emperor that is "evil"), as well as the entire plot of the whole series, a series about the battle between good and evil, two very absolute things. Lucas should be ashamed of himself. As it is, he stands as yet another example of the inconsistency of a non-Christian worldview, which fails to understand what good and evil really are.

Synod Report

I have to admit that I enjoyed my first Synod. Yes, the RCUS argue a whole bunch, mostly about strange things like the price of e-books and the difference between a quasi-committee of the whole and an informal discussion. But, I think my Scotch-Irish heritage helps me enjoy such arguments.
I did learn a whole lot by simply listening, and I did do a little listening rather than always talking. I have returned excited about the RCUS, its future, and I hope to impart a real vision for how the church in Herreid, SD can play a real role in the spreading of the Kingdom of Christ. Because perhaps what I learned most was the importance of an energized Consistory. Food for thought.

However, the real point in posting tonight is to speak of the Report on N.T. Wright, entitled Wright is Wrong that passed “without dissenting voice”. Hopefully the RCUS website will have it posted soon, and I will make sure to post a link. In the report, the teaching of N.T. Wright are condemned as another gospel. I am sure that this will open up more debate than last year’s report which condemned the teachings of Norman Shepherd. Next year a report will be received about the Federal Vision. I look forward to that work once it is done.

I have also notice that the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report is now an overture to the PCA General Assembly rather than a mere communication. That ought to cause a fun discussion at GA. The OPC study committee is expected back, if I am not mistaken, and I am sure that more will happen at other assemblies around the nation. When I get news of each, I shall endeavor to pass them along.

Reformed Ecumenical Madness

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union - Schaff. What is Church History? Pg. 122

This was a bold prediction made by Philip Schaff in one of his early writings about Historical and Theological Development. Charles Hodge warned at the time that this would make people see every innovation "the growth of orthodox dogma, never a possible devolution from the Christian gospel." Hodge was proven a prophet indeed. For Schaff’s statement helped merge the old RCUS with the Evangelical Lutherans to become the Evangelical Reformed Church and then later the United Church of Christ. This current controversy over the Federal Vision is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, and has brought with it Scahff’s view of history, and consequently his view of Christian Union. This can be clearly seen in two areas:

First the view on Christian union appears in their demands for denominations to accept divergent positions on justification, sacraments, and even the use of creeds and confessions as part of the Reformed Heritage. They want to co-exist despite these major differences, even claiming that such things should fall under the the liberty of conscience.

Second, it can be seen in the leaders of this movement accepting with open arms modern evangelical trends. John Armstrong shows this in his treatment of the Emergent Church movement, Pentecostal ideals, and even borderline Name and Claim it messages like that ofJoel Osteen, where he declares that he formerly would have joined people like Michael Horton in critiquing the bad theology, but now appreciates all things. Andrew Sandlin is not much different and has a habit of calling Roman Catholics his Christian brothers and sisters. An increase in appreciation for non-Reformed and non-Protestant traditions can be seen all throughout the internet, as the followers of these principles put into practice the logical result of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, Shepherdism, a revival of Mercersburg Theology, or whatever one wants to call it.

It seems to me that the Reformed community will have to deal with these movements one way or another. The principle ‘Always Reforming’ must be upheld, but it does not mean ‘Always evolving’ as some claim, but rather it means 'Always remaining re-formed according to God’s Word’, lest we devolve back into a salvation by works.

Social Security Reform Flip-Flops

The reason I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat is because those parties seemed married to simply opposing each other. Trying to find a principle that those parties have stuck by and followed for their entire life is like trying to find a unicorn that has wings.

Allow me to give a recent example. Yesterday, I was listening to Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot on tape. It made me laugh a few times, but that is beside the point. In that book Al (or his fact checker Jeff depending on how seriously you take parts of the book) has a chapter about Social Security reform. Now this book was written during Clinton about 93 or so I think. Al does not give any specific plans, but seems committed to some sort of reform of the system. He uses phrases like “immanent collapse” of the system and critiques how the politicians have decided not to touch the problem just so they can have “20 more years of peace.” So, I thought for sure Al would be endorsing Bush’s plan or at least excited about the prospect of reform. Yet in the blog section of his web site, he seems to favor walking a way from the table and doing nothing because President Bush gambles with the future of Social Security. Flip flops like this hurt my head.

Just in case you think it is limited to Democrats please examine Republican positions on the Department of Education, balanced budgets, and deficit spending. Oh yeah, and when the Republican party came into existence in the 1850’s they were the party of Big Government and the Democrats were the party for limited government. Go figure.

Ascension Day

Today, May 5th, is Ascension Day. This is the day where the church remembers and celebrates the ascension of Christ into heaven. It is one of the five traditional Feast Days of the Reformed Church, so I thought I would post a few links to some good hymns about the occasion.

A Hymn of Glory by the Venerable Bede
Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise by Charles Wesley

Please do look around at the rest of the Cyber Hymnal. It is worth a few minutes to browse.

To Sabbath or not to Sabbath?

In the past few months, I have been investigating the positions surrounding the 4th Commandment. So, I have decided to take a little informal survey and debate. As far as I can tell there are at least three positions on this subject.

1. The 4th Commandment means that every day, indeed, every moment of our lives is to be holy, and we are to rest from our evil labor and rest in Christ every moment. Meeting for worship on Sundays is not required, for no particular day is required. Sunday is just the traditional choice. The church is allowed to choose the day to meet. John Calvin and Gromarius appear to hold this position.
2. The 4th Commandment means that Sunday is our new Sabbath, but we are not to observe it as the Jews did. Corporate worship is commanded on Sunday, resting from servile labors is commanded, but all other things are permissible. I believe Bullinger, Capito, Cramner, and the pronouncement of the Synod of Dort hold this position.
3. The 4th Commandment means that Sunday is required, and no work is to be done on that day. The day is to be spent in public and private worship, allowing only for works of necessity and mercy. Often this position is accompanied by a refusal to use Feast Days like Christmas and especially Easter because they detract from Sunday’s meaning. The Westminster Divines appear to hold this position along with many of the early New England Puritans.

I just thought I would throw this debate out there to any who wish to give an opinion or voice to the matter. I hope everyone has a good Sunday.