Follow the link to a list of helpful resources on the subject, from a trusted source.
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
William Still and Private "Ministry"
In response to the quotation of William Still, my dear friend Aaron Hoak asked the following series of questions: "Is the pulpit the only place a pastor should be feeding sheep the truth? (Please note the question is not about the primacy of the pulpit ministry.) Can the Word be fed to the sheep in a conversation after church; in a visit to their home; in a counseling meeting? Or are these things worldly claptrap and goat entertaining?" As I began to reply, my response got a little too long. So I decided to post it here. Hope this helps.
The three questions you are asking are all different from one another. As to the last one, in the context of the quote, I don't find Still arguing that visitation or conversation with the sheep are "worldly claptrap." The comparison is at a very different level, viz., ministers who occupy their time with something other than their most basic and all-consuming task, the public ministry of the whole Word of God. Still does not address the question you have raised until later.
Your first two questions, however, present something of a conundrum. Should the pulpit be the only place the sheep are fed is a question of precept; but can the sheep be fed in personal conversation or pastoral visitation is a question of possibility. The two are quite different. Pardon the play on words, but we can't possibly answer the second question because, in itself, it is flawed. As ministers of the Word, and as Christians, we don't deal in the realm of possibilities (your second question), but rather we live and move and have our being in the realm of precept (your first question). The correct question to ask, then, is not "is it possible that some Christians might be fed by private ministrations of the Word," but rather, "What means of nourishment has God ordained, commanded, and promised to bless?" Neither you nor I can know the secret counsel of God; we must be content with what he has revealed (Deut 29:29). Ours is a theology (and pastoral theology) of revelation, not speculation. The question, then, is what has God said -- and more specifically for us, what has God said for us to do. And as we search the Scriptures we find that God has ordained, commanded, and promised to bless the reading, but especially the preaching of His Word unto the salvation (i.e., the feeding) of his sheep. There are a lot of things we don't know, but this much we do know: the sheep are and must be fed by the ministry of God's Word. Anything less is not the ministry.
Now, unless you conclude that I am dodging the intent of your question, let me assure you I am not. The perspective briefly laid out above has far reaching implications, and I can only address them briefly here. I (and Still) would argue that personal conversation and pastoral visitation are only complementary and supplemental to the divinely sanctioned public ministry of the Word, and only insofar as that kind of private word is actually necessary. Don't misunderstand. After church you are standing around and someone asks a question about the sermon. Are you going to ignore them? No, but your answer is going to confirm or amplify the preached Word. Will God bless that private Word? Yes, but as a by-product of the preached Word. Nevertheless, I think the question being asked here is less about that kind of conversation and more about a kind of regular, sustained "private" ministry of the Word [Not your question necessarily, Aaron, but the question as it is generally asked today]. Still (and I think he is quite right) contends that where the Word is properly ministered and faithfully preached the attention the sheep demand outside of the pulpit should naturally decrease. Seemingly needy sheep become faithful (fed or fat?) sheep as they heed the ministry of God's Word, so that the need for any other spiritual food (i.e., counseling) is greatly reduced. He writes, "My pastoral work of personal dealing, considerable though it is, has been greatly reduced through the years because the building up of people's faith, by the ministry of the Word of God, solves so much in their lives" (pp. 20-21). As I read him, he draws that conclusion for several reasons.
First, and most obvious, is the sufficiency of the Word (and the Word preached). The Word itself is living and active (Heb 4:12), and if the minister makes it his all-consuming duty to preach the whole counsel of God (not just tidbits or preferences), then the sheep should have a full diet that meets all their needs. The public ministry of the Word thus demands very little supplement -- and where it does, it is in the context of crisis or great need (e.g., death). Still is writing from a perspective that sadly not many share any longer -- one of a long tenure in the church, for both pastor and parishioner alike. If we are in it for the "long haul," the Lord will sanctify us by his Word over the "long haul." We have been trained to seek the immediate fix or the mountain top experience. And sadly many pastors either think they have the power or want desperately to provide that fix or experience for sheep who are struggling or suffering. But is that right? Is that biblical? No. None are freed from suffering and difficulty in this life -- it is an inescapable reality on account of the overlap of the ages. None are freed from sin entirely in this life -- it, too, is an inescapable reality in the life of the saint. But should that cause despair? Has the meager sheep no recourse or help? No, for our gracious Lord and Savior has ordained the public means of grace to be our steady diet, a diet that if faithfully administered and faithfully received Lord's Day after Lord's Day, is appointed to the end of our full nourishment. God will meet our real needs for solid spiritual food as his Spirit works through his preached Word. Hart and Muether make the same point in With Reverence and Awe concerning the slow but steady diet of the God-ordained public means of grace.
As I've already alluded to, the second reason Still (and I) would give for his conclusion is the sovereingty of the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ knows the sheep (their troubles, trials, etc.) with a perfect knowledge, unlike the minister. Thus, the minister ought to have confidence that the Spirit will apply his own living and active Word to Christ's sheep perfectly and sufficiently (far better, indeed, than you or I ever could) -- and the means appointed to that end is the preaching of the whole Word of God, both the law and the gospel. In this way faith and patience go hand in hand. Do we believe that God's Word is sufficient and God's Spirit is sovereign to save? If so, then we will not busily or frantically try to do the work of either (which, I fear is what we are doing by counseling, et al). Instead, we will fulfill our calling. We will preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering (i.e, patience) and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). We will minister God's Word when and where and how we are commanded and trust that the Spirit will accomplish his sovereign purposes of conversion and sanctification when and where and how God has promised, namely, as the Shorter Catechism states by the reading, but especially, the preaching of the Word of God.
The final reason, which I had never considered at great length, is the application of the preached Word in the communion of the saints. Above I quoted Still saying that the ministry of the Word solves so much in peoples lives. He continues, "It enables those who receive it and seek to live by it to understand and solve so much in other lives, that instead of becoming a liability on my time and energy, they become pastors themselves. Indeed, one of the features of such a radical and total ministry of the Word is that it thrusts so many into spiritual and social work that I can hardly keep a congregation together on account of their scattering throughout the land, and indeed, the earth" (p. 21). Now, I do not agree that the sheep become pastors -- there is a distinction to be made. But Still has a point. He suggests here that the ministry of the Word bears fruit nationally and globally. My point, and he makes it elsewhere in the book, is that the ministry of the Word ought to bear fruit ecclesiastically, i.e., in the church and for the sake of the church. While too much has been made of this in recent years by creating a whole theology of "one-anothering," there is a point to be made concerning Christ's people loving and caring for each another. As some sheep grow and mature through the means of grace, they are able to help other sheep at a more personal level. One sheep loves another, confronts another, prays for another, and the like. Now, we will miss the point entirely if we try to formalize this, or create a program for it. No, this is an informal reality in the church, which arises as a Spirit-born by-product of the full-orbed ministry of God's sufficient Word. So that just as the minister confirms privately and personally what he has declared in the ministry of the Word, so also Christ's sheep confirm the Word with and for each other.
While I have probably raised more questions than provided answers, my basic answer turns us again to what belongs not only at the center of the pastoral ministry, but what is the sum and substance of the pastoral ministry, viz., the public ministry of God's Word. Anything else we do as ministers only serves to confirm (or grow out of, or revolve around) that, and it must be our prayer that Christ by his Spirit does what only he can do in and for our churches, viz., powerfully and effectually apply the Word to each and every one of His beloved sheep.
The three questions you are asking are all different from one another. As to the last one, in the context of the quote, I don't find Still arguing that visitation or conversation with the sheep are "worldly claptrap." The comparison is at a very different level, viz., ministers who occupy their time with something other than their most basic and all-consuming task, the public ministry of the whole Word of God. Still does not address the question you have raised until later.
Your first two questions, however, present something of a conundrum. Should the pulpit be the only place the sheep are fed is a question of precept; but can the sheep be fed in personal conversation or pastoral visitation is a question of possibility. The two are quite different. Pardon the play on words, but we can't possibly answer the second question because, in itself, it is flawed. As ministers of the Word, and as Christians, we don't deal in the realm of possibilities (your second question), but rather we live and move and have our being in the realm of precept (your first question). The correct question to ask, then, is not "is it possible that some Christians might be fed by private ministrations of the Word," but rather, "What means of nourishment has God ordained, commanded, and promised to bless?" Neither you nor I can know the secret counsel of God; we must be content with what he has revealed (Deut 29:29). Ours is a theology (and pastoral theology) of revelation, not speculation. The question, then, is what has God said -- and more specifically for us, what has God said for us to do. And as we search the Scriptures we find that God has ordained, commanded, and promised to bless the reading, but especially the preaching of His Word unto the salvation (i.e., the feeding) of his sheep. There are a lot of things we don't know, but this much we do know: the sheep are and must be fed by the ministry of God's Word. Anything less is not the ministry.
Now, unless you conclude that I am dodging the intent of your question, let me assure you I am not. The perspective briefly laid out above has far reaching implications, and I can only address them briefly here. I (and Still) would argue that personal conversation and pastoral visitation are only complementary and supplemental to the divinely sanctioned public ministry of the Word, and only insofar as that kind of private word is actually necessary. Don't misunderstand. After church you are standing around and someone asks a question about the sermon. Are you going to ignore them? No, but your answer is going to confirm or amplify the preached Word. Will God bless that private Word? Yes, but as a by-product of the preached Word. Nevertheless, I think the question being asked here is less about that kind of conversation and more about a kind of regular, sustained "private" ministry of the Word [Not your question necessarily, Aaron, but the question as it is generally asked today]. Still (and I think he is quite right) contends that where the Word is properly ministered and faithfully preached the attention the sheep demand outside of the pulpit should naturally decrease. Seemingly needy sheep become faithful (fed or fat?) sheep as they heed the ministry of God's Word, so that the need for any other spiritual food (i.e., counseling) is greatly reduced. He writes, "My pastoral work of personal dealing, considerable though it is, has been greatly reduced through the years because the building up of people's faith, by the ministry of the Word of God, solves so much in their lives" (pp. 20-21). As I read him, he draws that conclusion for several reasons.
First, and most obvious, is the sufficiency of the Word (and the Word preached). The Word itself is living and active (Heb 4:12), and if the minister makes it his all-consuming duty to preach the whole counsel of God (not just tidbits or preferences), then the sheep should have a full diet that meets all their needs. The public ministry of the Word thus demands very little supplement -- and where it does, it is in the context of crisis or great need (e.g., death). Still is writing from a perspective that sadly not many share any longer -- one of a long tenure in the church, for both pastor and parishioner alike. If we are in it for the "long haul," the Lord will sanctify us by his Word over the "long haul." We have been trained to seek the immediate fix or the mountain top experience. And sadly many pastors either think they have the power or want desperately to provide that fix or experience for sheep who are struggling or suffering. But is that right? Is that biblical? No. None are freed from suffering and difficulty in this life -- it is an inescapable reality on account of the overlap of the ages. None are freed from sin entirely in this life -- it, too, is an inescapable reality in the life of the saint. But should that cause despair? Has the meager sheep no recourse or help? No, for our gracious Lord and Savior has ordained the public means of grace to be our steady diet, a diet that if faithfully administered and faithfully received Lord's Day after Lord's Day, is appointed to the end of our full nourishment. God will meet our real needs for solid spiritual food as his Spirit works through his preached Word. Hart and Muether make the same point in With Reverence and Awe concerning the slow but steady diet of the God-ordained public means of grace.
As I've already alluded to, the second reason Still (and I) would give for his conclusion is the sovereingty of the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ knows the sheep (their troubles, trials, etc.) with a perfect knowledge, unlike the minister. Thus, the minister ought to have confidence that the Spirit will apply his own living and active Word to Christ's sheep perfectly and sufficiently (far better, indeed, than you or I ever could) -- and the means appointed to that end is the preaching of the whole Word of God, both the law and the gospel. In this way faith and patience go hand in hand. Do we believe that God's Word is sufficient and God's Spirit is sovereign to save? If so, then we will not busily or frantically try to do the work of either (which, I fear is what we are doing by counseling, et al). Instead, we will fulfill our calling. We will preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering (i.e, patience) and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). We will minister God's Word when and where and how we are commanded and trust that the Spirit will accomplish his sovereign purposes of conversion and sanctification when and where and how God has promised, namely, as the Shorter Catechism states by the reading, but especially, the preaching of the Word of God.
The final reason, which I had never considered at great length, is the application of the preached Word in the communion of the saints. Above I quoted Still saying that the ministry of the Word solves so much in peoples lives. He continues, "It enables those who receive it and seek to live by it to understand and solve so much in other lives, that instead of becoming a liability on my time and energy, they become pastors themselves. Indeed, one of the features of such a radical and total ministry of the Word is that it thrusts so many into spiritual and social work that I can hardly keep a congregation together on account of their scattering throughout the land, and indeed, the earth" (p. 21). Now, I do not agree that the sheep become pastors -- there is a distinction to be made. But Still has a point. He suggests here that the ministry of the Word bears fruit nationally and globally. My point, and he makes it elsewhere in the book, is that the ministry of the Word ought to bear fruit ecclesiastically, i.e., in the church and for the sake of the church. While too much has been made of this in recent years by creating a whole theology of "one-anothering," there is a point to be made concerning Christ's people loving and caring for each another. As some sheep grow and mature through the means of grace, they are able to help other sheep at a more personal level. One sheep loves another, confronts another, prays for another, and the like. Now, we will miss the point entirely if we try to formalize this, or create a program for it. No, this is an informal reality in the church, which arises as a Spirit-born by-product of the full-orbed ministry of God's sufficient Word. So that just as the minister confirms privately and personally what he has declared in the ministry of the Word, so also Christ's sheep confirm the Word with and for each other.
While I have probably raised more questions than provided answers, my basic answer turns us again to what belongs not only at the center of the pastoral ministry, but what is the sum and substance of the pastoral ministry, viz., the public ministry of God's Word. Anything else we do as ministers only serves to confirm (or grow out of, or revolve around) that, and it must be our prayer that Christ by his Spirit does what only he can do in and for our churches, viz., powerfully and effectually apply the Word to each and every one of His beloved sheep.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
New Books Dealing with The Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul
One of the advantages the internet affords is the ability to search for new or forthcoming books, which is best done by searching the individual publisher's site. Over the past several weeks I have stumbled across several volumes I had heard about previously from various sources, but which have only recently been (or are soon to be) made available. [Note: I hope to make such reviews/previews of new/forthcoming books a regular feature of the Confessionalist.]
First, Michael Horton has written an introduction to covenant theology entitled, God of Promise (Baker). This book is available, as of last month. Reformed Baptists like myself will not agree with all of Horton's conclusions, most notably concerning the practice of infant baptism; nevertheless, as my father and co-pastor, Don Lindblad, observed, the introduction is, by itself, a concise and cogent summary of this vital subject. Much that passes for 'covenant theology' in Reformed circles today is really a 20th century revision (or retarding) of classic covenant theology. Horton helpfully reverses that trajectory and introduces afresh historic covenant theology to the present generation.
With a similar subject (i.e., covenant theology), but a more polemic purpose is Guy Prentiss Waters's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparative Analysis (P & R), due out sometime in May or June. If this volume lives up to its billing and title, then Waters's labors will go a long way to show that classic covenant theology and the Federal Vision are not different shades of gray, but are as different as white and black. Some (e.g. Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together) are contending that the basic contours of confessional Reformed theology can be expressed across a broad spectrum of theological formulations. The Federal Vision, however, is an altogether different theological system than confessional Reformed theology, despite what its proponents profess. It maintains a different view of election, of the covenant, of justification, and of the sacraments (to name but a few). Lord willing, Waters will make that crystal clear to the broader Reformed world.
Two other volumes dealing with recent challenges to the biblical and confessional doctrine of justification by faith alone are Cornelis P. Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) and J. Ligon Duncan's Misunderstanding Paul?: Responding to the New Perspective (Crossway) are due out in May/June and October, respectively. Both appear to be written with both pastors and laymen in view, and should be of tremendous service to confessional Reformed Christianity.
Happy reading.
First, Michael Horton has written an introduction to covenant theology entitled, God of Promise (Baker). This book is available, as of last month. Reformed Baptists like myself will not agree with all of Horton's conclusions, most notably concerning the practice of infant baptism; nevertheless, as my father and co-pastor, Don Lindblad, observed, the introduction is, by itself, a concise and cogent summary of this vital subject. Much that passes for 'covenant theology' in Reformed circles today is really a 20th century revision (or retarding) of classic covenant theology. Horton helpfully reverses that trajectory and introduces afresh historic covenant theology to the present generation.
With a similar subject (i.e., covenant theology), but a more polemic purpose is Guy Prentiss Waters's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparative Analysis (P & R), due out sometime in May or June. If this volume lives up to its billing and title, then Waters's labors will go a long way to show that classic covenant theology and the Federal Vision are not different shades of gray, but are as different as white and black. Some (e.g. Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together) are contending that the basic contours of confessional Reformed theology can be expressed across a broad spectrum of theological formulations. The Federal Vision, however, is an altogether different theological system than confessional Reformed theology, despite what its proponents profess. It maintains a different view of election, of the covenant, of justification, and of the sacraments (to name but a few). Lord willing, Waters will make that crystal clear to the broader Reformed world.
Two other volumes dealing with recent challenges to the biblical and confessional doctrine of justification by faith alone are Cornelis P. Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) and J. Ligon Duncan's Misunderstanding Paul?: Responding to the New Perspective (Crossway) are due out in May/June and October, respectively. Both appear to be written with both pastors and laymen in view, and should be of tremendous service to confessional Reformed Christianity.
Happy reading.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Work of the Pastor
I realize I have posted very little here, and it is perhaps the case that very few are keeping up with what little I say. The ministry has been quite demanding of late, and I don't pretend that will stop any time soon. Nonetheless, it is my hope to post more theologically and ecclesiastically poignant material on this site -- in particular I have some thoughts on the doctrine of the covenant of works in relation to the ongoing controversies regarding the doctrine of justification, and I have some thoughts on preaching and the pastoral ministry as that relates to theological prolegomena (viz., the doctrine of the Word of God).
In the meantime, I give you a quote from William Still's fine volume The Work of the Pastor:
"It is to feed sheep on [the] truth that men are called to churches and congregations, whatever they may think they are called to do. If you think that you are called to keep a largely worldly organisation [sic], miscalled a church, going, with infinitesimal doses of innocuous sub-Christian drugs or stimulants, then the only help I can give you is to advise you to give up the hope of the ministry and go and be a street scavenger; a far healthier and more godly job, keeping the streets tidy, than cluttering the church with a lot of worldly claptrap in the delusion that you are doing a job for God. The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to the goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by his Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God."
I say, "Amen!"
In the meantime, I give you a quote from William Still's fine volume The Work of the Pastor:
"It is to feed sheep on [the] truth that men are called to churches and congregations, whatever they may think they are called to do. If you think that you are called to keep a largely worldly organisation [sic], miscalled a church, going, with infinitesimal doses of innocuous sub-Christian drugs or stimulants, then the only help I can give you is to advise you to give up the hope of the ministry and go and be a street scavenger; a far healthier and more godly job, keeping the streets tidy, than cluttering the church with a lot of worldly claptrap in the delusion that you are doing a job for God. The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to the goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by his Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God."
I say, "Amen!"
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Ministry We Need
Calvin, commenting on Galatians 3:1, writes, "Let those who would discharge aright the ministry of the gospel learn, not merely to speak and declaim, but to penetrate into the consciences of men, to make them see Christ crucified, and feel the shedding of his blood. When the Church has painters such as these she no longer needs the dead images of wood and stone, she no longer requires pictures; both of which, unquestionably, were first admitted to Christian temples when the pastors had become dumb and been converted into mere idols, or when they uttered a few words from the pulpit in such a cold and careless manner, that the power and efficacy of the ministry were utterly extinguished."
Clearly, Calvin does not intend to stir ministers of the gospel to a kind of emotional excitement in the pulpit. Instead, his exhortation underscores the church's need for the clear and unequivocal proclamation of Christ crucified. Calvin is right. The church needs not practitioners of the latest church growth methodology (even that of the emergent church); rather, she needs faithful servants of Christ who will open the word of God, declaring nothing more or less than what God himself has revealed and disclosed in his only begotten Son. Or, do we think ourselves wiser than God? The church needs not props, but the proclamation of Christ! The church needs not a few words of encouragement from Lord's Day to Lord's Day, but the word of Christ explained and applied in all its detail and glory. May God grant his churches ministers who will eschew the latest and the greatest, and instead labor to declare the perfect and sufficient word of Christ by the power of the Spirit of Christ.
Clearly, Calvin does not intend to stir ministers of the gospel to a kind of emotional excitement in the pulpit. Instead, his exhortation underscores the church's need for the clear and unequivocal proclamation of Christ crucified. Calvin is right. The church needs not practitioners of the latest church growth methodology (even that of the emergent church); rather, she needs faithful servants of Christ who will open the word of God, declaring nothing more or less than what God himself has revealed and disclosed in his only begotten Son. Or, do we think ourselves wiser than God? The church needs not props, but the proclamation of Christ! The church needs not a few words of encouragement from Lord's Day to Lord's Day, but the word of Christ explained and applied in all its detail and glory. May God grant his churches ministers who will eschew the latest and the greatest, and instead labor to declare the perfect and sufficient word of Christ by the power of the Spirit of Christ.
Friday, February 10, 2006
No One Really Cares, But...
For the five of you who occassionaly check this web masterpiece, I am back online. After our move, and the addition of our second daughter, I should have some new posts for your reading pleasure in the near future.
So, stay tuned...
So, stay tuned...
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design
Editor's Introduction
Upon reading this post, you might ask, "what does this have to do with Reformed Baptist faith or practice?" Reformed Christianity, on the whole, has usually recognized the need for thoughtful, intelligent, and faithful interaction with the culture around us (not adaption, not accommodation, but interaction). The following, written as a letter to the editor for the Washington Post by Walter J. Chantry, editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, does just that. This is a clear, well-argued, and thought-provoking piece that interacts with the current debate on Intelligent Design from the perspective of the philosophy of science (which, is a perspective often ignored by evangelicals, to their own peril). The careful reader, however, will notice something more: namely, Reformed theology and anthropology at work. Although he does not put the matter in precisely these terms, by decrying lawyers and school-boards for crying "religion, religion!" against this particular theory of origins, Walt pinpoints the real reason Intelligent Design has sparked so much debate: fallen man's innate, but irrational, suppression of the truth of natural revelation in all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18ff.). Here is a helpful reminder, then, that all things are in fact disciplined by theology. Bad theology produces bad fruit; Reformed theology produces thoughtful interaction with the cultured despisers of the revealed truth of God. With that said, read on...
Cultural Dogmatism against Intelligent Design
Walter J. Chantry
Much of the media seems to be pleased that lawyers and judges in government courts may outlaw discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. To others of us it is chilling that thought police have limited the discussion of ideas within schools.
If a decision were taken to teach in science classes only scientific methods of observation, experimentation and measurement, then there would be no place for discussion of “intelligent design”. However, there would be no place for discussion of any philosophy of science. Yet the philosophy of science, which does not arise from observation, experimentation and measurement, is of vital concern to science.
Science has always rested upon philosophical assumptions. Its set of philosophical assumptions changes through history. At the end of the 20th century most serious scientists had to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s work noted radical changes in the philosophy of science. In fact the most productive scientists have thought outside the accepted norms of the scientific philosophy of their day and consequently have advanced our civilization. Newton and Einstein come to mind as changing philosophical direction in science and thereby making science enormously more productive. It is to be expected that great scientists will amend present thinking in the philosophy of science to make future advances in science (but the courts have ruled that no new philosophical paradigms are to be admitted to the classrooms of science).
By its methodology (empirical or sensual investigation) science has limited itself to examining and discussing material reality. This is either a metaphysical assumption that all reality is material, or it is an a priori admission that science has no knowledge of non-material reality…if any such exists.
The idea of “creation” is that all material reality was brought into existence by an entirely non-material Being. In other words, all that is material had a spiritual first cause and has a continuing spiritual management. By its chosen methodology science is incapable of proving or disproving this viewpoint. Science refuses to discuss what most of humanity past and present considers to be by far the more important reality—the spiritual. Most men think themselves to be an amalgam of both material and spiritual reality. Science is not all. For example, there are fine arts.
Yet science, with its empirical and therefore necessarily material outlook, cannot keep itself from speculating about origins of the material universe. In doing this it jettisons its own principles of reporting only upon the empirically observed facts. No man was present at the beginning of the universe to make sensual observations.
Darwin has become the darling of a majority of scientists, and now, we suppose, of the lawyers as well. What Darwin gave us as a philosophy of science was a materialistic determinism. In chromosomes or DNA or genetic code or in some yet-to-be-discovered element of material there lies an inevitable upward (improving) force of development from within material itself. This is claimed although in a world of merely the material there is no ground for judging improvement! Strangely, this predestinarian view of physical development is not thought to be inbuilt or directed by a personal intelligence. It is the worst of all predestinarian views, because it presents the idea that there are inevitable, purely material impulses creating change that gains dominance by destruction of all competing forms.
When those who believed in such materialistic determinism employed “The survival of the fittest” politically and militarily in the last century, we had Bolshevism and Nazi Fascism. This was hardly a cultural advance. Ideas have consequences!
The media has recently focused on school board members who may have introduced the teaching of “intelligent design” for religious reasons. Horrors! Lawyers have cried, “Religion! Religion!”, and have frightened a nation. Religion does have a philosophy of “Intelligent design” wrapped into its view of creation. Religion teaches intelligent (spiritual, personal) design as opposed to impersonal, unfeeling predestinarian materialistic forces. Should there be a discussion of philosophy or merely the imposition of Darwin’s philosophy?
What is worse, from the point of view of the media, “intelligent design” did not originate with religiously motivated school board non-scientists. Many of our finest scientists do not share Darwin’s philosophy of science (one wonders if there is money to be made by lawyers in silencing them all). Some who began their scientific work assuming Darwin was correct have changed their minds as a result of science itself.
Only since the 1950’s have we had microscopes powerful enough to give us images of cells of the human body. Scientists using these microscopes have observed and described the complexity and marvel of the operations within one human cell. After recording their findings, some sat back and pondered their results. A number of them have concluded from their studies that the existence of a human cell does not fit into Darwin’s philosophy. They could not conceive of cells evolving through the “survival of the fittest” scheme. Nor could they imagine such development from impersonal materialistic determinism. Some scientists are thinking that a change of paradigm is needed in science itself. This did not have religious origins, but it might encourage religious opinions. However, there is the great “bugbear” again—religion! Run for your life!
Are students to be ordered not to read scientists who are suggesting a change in the philosophy of science? What would the courts have done to a theory of relativity before Einstein? I am afraid that the pontifical courts and the lawyers are all “emperors without clothes” on this one; they are for suppression of thought.
Upon reading this post, you might ask, "what does this have to do with Reformed Baptist faith or practice?" Reformed Christianity, on the whole, has usually recognized the need for thoughtful, intelligent, and faithful interaction with the culture around us (not adaption, not accommodation, but interaction). The following, written as a letter to the editor for the Washington Post by Walter J. Chantry, editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, does just that. This is a clear, well-argued, and thought-provoking piece that interacts with the current debate on Intelligent Design from the perspective of the philosophy of science (which, is a perspective often ignored by evangelicals, to their own peril). The careful reader, however, will notice something more: namely, Reformed theology and anthropology at work. Although he does not put the matter in precisely these terms, by decrying lawyers and school-boards for crying "religion, religion!" against this particular theory of origins, Walt pinpoints the real reason Intelligent Design has sparked so much debate: fallen man's innate, but irrational, suppression of the truth of natural revelation in all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18ff.). Here is a helpful reminder, then, that all things are in fact disciplined by theology. Bad theology produces bad fruit; Reformed theology produces thoughtful interaction with the cultured despisers of the revealed truth of God. With that said, read on...
Cultural Dogmatism against Intelligent Design
Walter J. Chantry
Much of the media seems to be pleased that lawyers and judges in government courts may outlaw discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. To others of us it is chilling that thought police have limited the discussion of ideas within schools.
If a decision were taken to teach in science classes only scientific methods of observation, experimentation and measurement, then there would be no place for discussion of “intelligent design”. However, there would be no place for discussion of any philosophy of science. Yet the philosophy of science, which does not arise from observation, experimentation and measurement, is of vital concern to science.
Science has always rested upon philosophical assumptions. Its set of philosophical assumptions changes through history. At the end of the 20th century most serious scientists had to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s work noted radical changes in the philosophy of science. In fact the most productive scientists have thought outside the accepted norms of the scientific philosophy of their day and consequently have advanced our civilization. Newton and Einstein come to mind as changing philosophical direction in science and thereby making science enormously more productive. It is to be expected that great scientists will amend present thinking in the philosophy of science to make future advances in science (but the courts have ruled that no new philosophical paradigms are to be admitted to the classrooms of science).
By its methodology (empirical or sensual investigation) science has limited itself to examining and discussing material reality. This is either a metaphysical assumption that all reality is material, or it is an a priori admission that science has no knowledge of non-material reality…if any such exists.
The idea of “creation” is that all material reality was brought into existence by an entirely non-material Being. In other words, all that is material had a spiritual first cause and has a continuing spiritual management. By its chosen methodology science is incapable of proving or disproving this viewpoint. Science refuses to discuss what most of humanity past and present considers to be by far the more important reality—the spiritual. Most men think themselves to be an amalgam of both material and spiritual reality. Science is not all. For example, there are fine arts.
Yet science, with its empirical and therefore necessarily material outlook, cannot keep itself from speculating about origins of the material universe. In doing this it jettisons its own principles of reporting only upon the empirically observed facts. No man was present at the beginning of the universe to make sensual observations.
Darwin has become the darling of a majority of scientists, and now, we suppose, of the lawyers as well. What Darwin gave us as a philosophy of science was a materialistic determinism. In chromosomes or DNA or genetic code or in some yet-to-be-discovered element of material there lies an inevitable upward (improving) force of development from within material itself. This is claimed although in a world of merely the material there is no ground for judging improvement! Strangely, this predestinarian view of physical development is not thought to be inbuilt or directed by a personal intelligence. It is the worst of all predestinarian views, because it presents the idea that there are inevitable, purely material impulses creating change that gains dominance by destruction of all competing forms.
When those who believed in such materialistic determinism employed “The survival of the fittest” politically and militarily in the last century, we had Bolshevism and Nazi Fascism. This was hardly a cultural advance. Ideas have consequences!
The media has recently focused on school board members who may have introduced the teaching of “intelligent design” for religious reasons. Horrors! Lawyers have cried, “Religion! Religion!”, and have frightened a nation. Religion does have a philosophy of “Intelligent design” wrapped into its view of creation. Religion teaches intelligent (spiritual, personal) design as opposed to impersonal, unfeeling predestinarian materialistic forces. Should there be a discussion of philosophy or merely the imposition of Darwin’s philosophy?
What is worse, from the point of view of the media, “intelligent design” did not originate with religiously motivated school board non-scientists. Many of our finest scientists do not share Darwin’s philosophy of science (one wonders if there is money to be made by lawyers in silencing them all). Some who began their scientific work assuming Darwin was correct have changed their minds as a result of science itself.
Only since the 1950’s have we had microscopes powerful enough to give us images of cells of the human body. Scientists using these microscopes have observed and described the complexity and marvel of the operations within one human cell. After recording their findings, some sat back and pondered their results. A number of them have concluded from their studies that the existence of a human cell does not fit into Darwin’s philosophy. They could not conceive of cells evolving through the “survival of the fittest” scheme. Nor could they imagine such development from impersonal materialistic determinism. Some scientists are thinking that a change of paradigm is needed in science itself. This did not have religious origins, but it might encourage religious opinions. However, there is the great “bugbear” again—religion! Run for your life!
Are students to be ordered not to read scientists who are suggesting a change in the philosophy of science? What would the courts have done to a theory of relativity before Einstein? I am afraid that the pontifical courts and the lawyers are all “emperors without clothes” on this one; they are for suppression of thought.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
A Little Humor from the Good Doctor
A little ecclesiastical humor, courtesy of Jim Renihan. This would be funnier, however, if it weren't true of many present day churches.
http://tinyurl.com/9fmfm
p.s. if it wants you to download Quick Time or iTunes, you don't have to. You can change the format (right above the "screen") and it should play in Windows Media Player or your default media player. If it doesn't work, sorry. I repeat, I am not computer savvy.
http://tinyurl.com/9fmfm
p.s. if it wants you to download Quick Time or iTunes, you don't have to. You can change the format (right above the "screen") and it should play in Windows Media Player or your default media player. If it doesn't work, sorry. I repeat, I am not computer savvy.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
A Baker's Dozen (+1)
The idea was simple: pick what I deem to be the best 10 books out of my small library and say a few words about them. This proved to be more difficult than anticipated, because I quickly realized I have some mighty fine books. Choosing between them necessitated cracking the cover of several volumes, and I quickly became lost in biblical, theological, and historical thought. I also had a hard time narrowing the list to 10. Hence, what follows is a baker's dozen list of the best 13 books in my library (you'll see why the list goes to #14 when you get there). The list is confined to my library, so I'm not pretending to speak authoritatively about the best books of all time. Also, these books are in no particular order, and the list does not include any Confessional documents or Bibles, English or otherwise.
Much of this list is predictable, but hey, it's my list.
1. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. A wealth of theological wisdom, but in a concise and accessible package.
2. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd edition, 4 volumes. Yes, a set counts as one on my list, and this is a critical work in historical theology.
3. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 volumes. I know, obvious.
4. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Important, both theologically and historically. The inability to distinguish properly between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace has crippled much of modern Reformed theology. Fisher's dialogue would be helpful in rectifying that problem.
5. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology. Vos, in my opinion, had to be on this list, and it was between this volume and his Biblical Theology. This is less accessible than Biblical Theology, and more specific in scope, but a gem for setting forth the basic structure of Paul's thought. If you aren't familiar with Vos, but you are familiar with the modern milieu of eschatological thought, don't be fooled by the title (and shame on you!). Neither Paul's eschatology nor Vos's conception of it deals exclusively with 'last things' narrowly considered.
6. D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverance and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship. The most important book on the most important subject.
7. John Brown, Galatians. The Old Perspective on Paul -- and the biblical perspective on Paul. Needs to be read alongside Calvin's commentary and sermons on Galatians.
8. John Owen, The Works of John Owen. No, it isn't cheating to include a massive set like this on a short list; but, if I had to pick one volume, it would either be vol. 4 or vol. 5.
9. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men Before the Law. Recently republished in Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. The original title is much longer, and gives the reader insight into the book's substance and intent. Not just another book on covenant theology; the most important on the subject. Coxe, a 17th century Particular Baptist, argues for credo-baptism (and against paedobaptism) on the basis of covenant theology. Quite frankly, this is brilliant. I thank God every day for Nehemiah Coxe, and for the man who introduced me to this volume, Dr. James M. Renihan, professor of the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies (at Westminster Seminary California).
10. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: A Complete Body of Divinity, 2 volumes. Very fine, especially on the covenant of works with Adam, and the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption.
11. Francis Turretin, The Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 volumes. Meaty.
12. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. Arguably the most important book written in the 20th century, by arguably the most important confessional Presbyterian of the 20th century.
13. Carl Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic & Contemporary Evangelicalism. I've only had this little book for less than 6 months, but I've read it cover to cover and I find myself returning to it often. Well worth the price of admission.
14. James M. Renihan, Things Most Assuredly Believed Among Us: A Commentary on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). THIS IS NOT A REAL BOOK, BUT IT SHOULD BE. This author has not (yet) written this book, but he is the world's leading expert on the theology and the history of the Confession of Faith. He needs to write this book, and when he does, it will be at the top of this list. I'm simply reserving the space in advance. [By the way, I have no idea what his title would be, or if he is currently working on this project; this is purely hypothetical and fictional on my part -- don't ask Jim if he is working on this, or if he has decided this is his title, he will never forgive me for it.]
I'll probably revise this list several times before I die (or before February, whichever comes first). Nevertheless, enjoy...
Much of this list is predictable, but hey, it's my list.
1. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. A wealth of theological wisdom, but in a concise and accessible package.
2. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd edition, 4 volumes. Yes, a set counts as one on my list, and this is a critical work in historical theology.
3. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 volumes. I know, obvious.
4. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Important, both theologically and historically. The inability to distinguish properly between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace has crippled much of modern Reformed theology. Fisher's dialogue would be helpful in rectifying that problem.
5. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology. Vos, in my opinion, had to be on this list, and it was between this volume and his Biblical Theology. This is less accessible than Biblical Theology, and more specific in scope, but a gem for setting forth the basic structure of Paul's thought. If you aren't familiar with Vos, but you are familiar with the modern milieu of eschatological thought, don't be fooled by the title (and shame on you!). Neither Paul's eschatology nor Vos's conception of it deals exclusively with 'last things' narrowly considered.
6. D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverance and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship. The most important book on the most important subject.
7. John Brown, Galatians. The Old Perspective on Paul -- and the biblical perspective on Paul. Needs to be read alongside Calvin's commentary and sermons on Galatians.
8. John Owen, The Works of John Owen. No, it isn't cheating to include a massive set like this on a short list; but, if I had to pick one volume, it would either be vol. 4 or vol. 5.
9. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men Before the Law. Recently republished in Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. The original title is much longer, and gives the reader insight into the book's substance and intent. Not just another book on covenant theology; the most important on the subject. Coxe, a 17th century Particular Baptist, argues for credo-baptism (and against paedobaptism) on the basis of covenant theology. Quite frankly, this is brilliant. I thank God every day for Nehemiah Coxe, and for the man who introduced me to this volume, Dr. James M. Renihan, professor of the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies (at Westminster Seminary California).
10. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: A Complete Body of Divinity, 2 volumes. Very fine, especially on the covenant of works with Adam, and the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption.
11. Francis Turretin, The Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 volumes. Meaty.
12. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. Arguably the most important book written in the 20th century, by arguably the most important confessional Presbyterian of the 20th century.
13. Carl Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic & Contemporary Evangelicalism. I've only had this little book for less than 6 months, but I've read it cover to cover and I find myself returning to it often. Well worth the price of admission.
14. James M. Renihan, Things Most Assuredly Believed Among Us: A Commentary on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). THIS IS NOT A REAL BOOK, BUT IT SHOULD BE. This author has not (yet) written this book, but he is the world's leading expert on the theology and the history of the Confession of Faith. He needs to write this book, and when he does, it will be at the top of this list. I'm simply reserving the space in advance. [By the way, I have no idea what his title would be, or if he is currently working on this project; this is purely hypothetical and fictional on my part -- don't ask Jim if he is working on this, or if he has decided this is his title, he will never forgive me for it.]
I'll probably revise this list several times before I die (or before February, whichever comes first). Nevertheless, enjoy...
Monday, January 09, 2006
My Maiden Voyage...
There are some in this world who are computer savvy -- I am not, even though I own multiple PCs.
There are some in this world who are blog savvy -- I am not, even though I have responded to posts on a friend's blog (http://zoomstick.blogspot.com).
There are some in this world who seem to have countless hours to devote to this (mediocre, and often self-aggrandizing) form of publishing -- I do not, even though I am mediocre in many of my pursuits (e.g., golf, texas-hold-'em, etc.). As a man, a husband, a father, and a minister of the gospel, I do not have that kind of time. I have no intention of becoming a slave to this blog.
There are some in the ecclesiastical world (particularly the Reformed and Protestant world) who seem to think that blogging is a helpful tool for advancing biblical and theological acumen amongst God's people -- I'm skeptical, at best. Often blogging ends up being nothing more than a bunch of strangers sharing their collective ignorance. Instant publishing, in fact, is much like light beer when compared to a finely crafted cask conditioned ale -- less filling, no taste. While there may be profit in internet banter, especially when the subject is the living God and his inspired Word, as a general rule of thumb internet research is no safe guide, and for the Christian it is a far cry from the outward and ordinary means of grace God has appointed for his church (more on that in a future post).
So, then, why have I started this blog? Mob mentality, I guess. Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Admittedly, that is very poor reason, and I already regret having posted such an admission in my very first entry.
Nevertheless, as the title and description of this blog would suggest, I am a confessional Reformed Baptist (again, more on that in a future post) -- and I am a minister in a confessional Reformed Baptist church. As such, I have created this blog so that I (and invited ministerial cohorts) might have a forum to address certain matters theological and ecclesiastical that might not appear in printed format, either in a book or theological journal.
Enjoy. And don't forget to come back.
There are some in this world who are blog savvy -- I am not, even though I have responded to posts on a friend's blog (http://zoomstick.blogspot.com).
There are some in this world who seem to have countless hours to devote to this (mediocre, and often self-aggrandizing) form of publishing -- I do not, even though I am mediocre in many of my pursuits (e.g., golf, texas-hold-'em, etc.). As a man, a husband, a father, and a minister of the gospel, I do not have that kind of time. I have no intention of becoming a slave to this blog.
There are some in the ecclesiastical world (particularly the Reformed and Protestant world) who seem to think that blogging is a helpful tool for advancing biblical and theological acumen amongst God's people -- I'm skeptical, at best. Often blogging ends up being nothing more than a bunch of strangers sharing their collective ignorance. Instant publishing, in fact, is much like light beer when compared to a finely crafted cask conditioned ale -- less filling, no taste. While there may be profit in internet banter, especially when the subject is the living God and his inspired Word, as a general rule of thumb internet research is no safe guide, and for the Christian it is a far cry from the outward and ordinary means of grace God has appointed for his church (more on that in a future post).
So, then, why have I started this blog? Mob mentality, I guess. Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Admittedly, that is very poor reason, and I already regret having posted such an admission in my very first entry.
Nevertheless, as the title and description of this blog would suggest, I am a confessional Reformed Baptist (again, more on that in a future post) -- and I am a minister in a confessional Reformed Baptist church. As such, I have created this blog so that I (and invited ministerial cohorts) might have a forum to address certain matters theological and ecclesiastical that might not appear in printed format, either in a book or theological journal.
Enjoy. And don't forget to come back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)