Laughing in his sleep

I went into my son's room to wake him up this morning (its a call day for me, so I don't go into work until later in the day) and, right as I was getting ready to nudge him awake, he started laughing. Not an hysterical laugh like when I tickle him until he collapses; no, this was a good, round, hearty giggle-to-overt-laughter kind of thing. What a great moment. I've never seen anyone laughing in their sleep (and, of course, I think my son's got a particularly contageous one) and it startled me at first. When he stopped, I woke him and asked him what he was laughing at. He didn't remember, just "a funny dream, I guess." Praise the Lord for laughter--what other God would allow his people to laugh even while they sleep?

Kudos to Moscow . . .

For the three or four of you who actually read this blog, this is probably restating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Much of my thinking regarding the Bible and its application to life has come via the ministries of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Douglas Wilson is the pastor of this church; the church's other ministries include the magazine Credenda/Agenda, a publishing house called Canon Press, Classical Christian schools called Logos School (through High School) and New St. Andrews College, and a sundry of other things that you can read more about at their website. I have never attended this church, nor have I met Pastor Wilson, but my thinking has been deeply affected by both, and to both I am grateful. Much of my musings on this blog come from thoughts provoked by someone in or around Moscow; when they are direct quotes, I will of course cite them, but just consider this a blanket "thanks" to Pastor Wilson and all the folks "out there." If you are actually reading this, you would probably also be interested in Wilson's blog, as well as Peter Leithart's blog. Again, thanks guys. Keep up the good work.

More book recommendations

The following is from an e-mail I sent to our Sunday School class regarding some suggested reading material. The titles of the books are hyperlinked, so clicking on them should take you to where you can purchase them.

The book I'm going to use as a source for our upcoming study of Samuel is by Peter Leithart, and is called A Son To Me. We won't expect to cover all the material in it for the lessons, just hit the high points. Reading along is not a requirement; I only provide this for those interested in "digging deeper" than we can get in a thirty minute SS class.

Here is a list of book recommendations covering some of the material we've been studying the past few weeks during our "Introduction to reading the Old Testament" series. All of these are excellent; I've listed them in order of recommendation:

-Through New Eyes by James Jordan--a great book on OT imagery and its use in forming a Biblical world view
-A House for My Name by Peter Leithart--an overall survey of the OT, complete with study questions
-The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress--great book on seeing Christ in the Law
-Primeval Saints by James Jordan--an excellent study of the overall themes of the book of Genesis
-He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt--great book on reading and understanding OT narratives

Sex and pietism

It seems Viagra has added a new twist to its advertising: in several new ads, the featured "middle-aged man" has his head strategically positioned in front of the "V" of the medicine's name, giving the man the appearance of horns coming out of his head. "Return to the mischief" (or something to that effect) the caption reads. Sex, it seems, at least to the Viagra people (and also to the ad's assumed audience) is equated with sin in general and Satan in particular. At least if you're going to enjoy it.

An interesting phenomenon of this age is the open acknowledgement by the world that sexual promiscuity is indeed sin. Las Vegas calls itself "Sin City", referring blatantly to that town's affinity for lasciviousness; "What happens here stays here," the slogan says, as the commercial reporting what happens there goes out to all parts of the country. The world, it seems, is proud of the equation of promiscuous sex with sin.

We, as Christians, should be happy to concede this point, as it is one that we've been making for thousands of years. However, we should also be quick to explain ourselves. A middle-aged or elderly man enjoying sex with the "wife of his youth" is most certainly not sinning, and should not accept his equation (at least in the mind of the Viagra folks) with Satan. Enjoyment of sex within the boundaries set by the Lord is a vital aspect of the Christian life--just ask Solomon or St. Paul. Once again, we see that the law is gracious--it presents to us the boundaries wherein we may enjoy our fellowship with Yahweh and one-another. Is God being miserly in confining our sexual activities to marriage between a man and a woman? Of course not--he's being good to us. We need to remind ourselves of this constantly.

The temptation to concede the whole point to the world, however, places us in danger of giving in to the evils of pietism. Think for a moment about alcohol--should we all do without wine and beer because some use it irresponsibly? Obviously not, but that hasn't stopped us from substituting grape juice for the element the Lord gave us to represent his blood in the Supper. What about sex? Until we as Christians decide to think and act like Christians, the world will take its point and we will remain pietists.

Sunday School Notes from 8/22/04

Introduction to the Old Testament III: Common Themes, Continued
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, August 22 2004

I. Miscellaneous Other Themes
a) Faith vs. unbelief (as opposed to Law vs. Gospel)
b) Water
i) Flood/baptism (compare 1 Peter 3:20b-21)
ii) Wells (throughout Genesis)
(1) Digging wells (or having them filled up—Gen 26:15)
(2) Meeting and marrying by wells (Isaac/Rebecca, Jacob/Rachel, Moses, Jesus [Jn 4])
iii) Red Sea (Exodus 14) and Jordan River (Joshua 3)
(1) Both waters divided
(2) Both delivered God’s people into a “land of promise”
(3) Again, note the inescapable connection to baptism—water kills the wicked and delivers the righteous
c) Garden/Promised Land/Tabernacle/Temple vs. “east”, “wilderness”, etc.
d) Kingly lordship (often associated with wearing robes) vs. slavish servitude
i) Example of Joseph (Gen 37ff)
ii) Jacob (“robe” of animal skin) and Esau (mess of porridge)
iii) Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4)
iv) Israel as a whole
(1) Was supposed to rule the nations for God’s glory (“creation mandate”)
(2) Saw great splendor during David/Solomon
(3) Ended up servile under pagan rulers (Ezra/Nehemiah)
e) Egypt
i) Many of the great among God’s people either sojourn in or arise from here
(1) Abraham (Gen 12)
(2) Joseph (Gen 37ff)
(3) Moses (Exodus)
(4) Jesus
ii) Pharoah as the prototype of God’s hardening (Romans 9)

II. Abraham = the primary prototype of the faith we as Christians are to have
a) Romans 4:1-25
i) Paul, in arguing for justification by faith alone, is setting forth the example of Abraham
ii) He begins with statement found in Gen 15:6, that Abraham “believed Yahweh, and it was counted unto him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3)
iii) He then contrasts the verbs “worketh” (or “to work”) and “believeth” (or “to believe”) (4:4-5)
(1) Working is connected with the verb “reckoned” in the KJV; Paul says the “reward” is “reckoned” to him that works, but out of a sense not of grace but of debt
(2) Believing is connected, again in the context of “reward”, with the verb “counted”; belief “on him that justifieth the ungodly” is therefore counted for righteousness
(3) Thus, the righteousness that was counted to Abraham came not because of what he did but because of what he believed
iv) Paul then shows us that this righteousness was counted to Abraham before he was given the sacrament/sign of circumcision (4:10-11)
(1) This makes him the father “of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also” (4:11)
(2) So, Abraham’s faith and belief was the paradigm for both the Jews (who claimed him) and the gentiles; Paul is trying to show that justification comes not from the law that was available only to Jews, but from faith that is accessible to all
v) Paul then goes on to describe and characterize this faith in detail; this is a pivotal point of understanding for us, because this is the faith that we are asked to have (4:18-22)
(1) Notice first in v. 18 what Abraham believed: “. . . that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken [in Gen 15:5], ‘So shall thy seed be’”.
(2) Verse 19 tells us why this was such a hard thing for Abraham to believe—he was nearly dead, “about an hundred years old”!
(3) Now for the nuts and bolts: look at vv. 20-22
(a) He “staggered not” at the promise of Yahweh through unbelief
(b) Instead, he was “strong in faith”
(c) This strength of faith gave “glory to God”; how? Abraham was “fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform” (v. 21)
(d) Verse 22: “And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness”. Abraham was given righteousness for not staggering at the promises of Yahweh, as unbelievable as they were (Heb 11:1)
(e) This is the kind of faith, the strength of faith and belief that was “counted for righteousness”; and this is the kind of faith and belief we, too, are asked to have
b) Galatians 3:6-9, 29
i) Paul is using the same theme here in Galatians to argue again for the avenue through which righteousness is imputed to God’s people
ii) Note in verse 7 that it takes faith, not physical connection, to be a child of Abraham; this recalls Paul’s argument from Rom 4
iii) In verse 8, Paul makes the connection between what was promised to Abraham and the gospel
(1) The gospel is what Abraham believed when he was told in Gen 12:3, “In thee shall all nations be blessed”, although Abraham himself didn’t have a picture of Jesus of Nazereth in his mind
(2) Abraham, though, in believing that Yahweh would do this, was in fact also believing in how Yahweh would do this—belief in God always encompasses belief and trust in all that he has done and will do
(3) Thus, Abraham believed in what Yahweh would do and how he would do it (thus, he believed in Christ)
iv) Again, Abraham’s faith is set before us as the example for us to follow—we, too, are Christ’s (like Abraham) and are therefore “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (v. 29)

Sin and gravel

Proverbs 20:17 (in the Authorized Version) reads, "Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel." Doug Wilson has made the point that this is true, really, for all (or, almost all) sin. After all, sin wouldn't be enticing if it weren't "sweet" to begin with. As with most of the Proverbs, there are great applications to child-rearing here. We all-to-commonly tell our children to avoid sin because its bad. "Don't hit your sister." "Don't talk to your brother like that." We address their sin on a superficial level, often for no better reason than the fact that it bugs us. "If you two don't stop fighting like that, I'm gonna send you both to your rooms!" But kids are much savvier than that--they know, when we prohibit them from something, we are keeping them from something that, at least on the surface, has some sweetness. So often, though, in reprimanding them, we ignore this fact and present them with the dictum; knock it off or else, we say. It's bad to hit your sister. But the kids know that it is actually, in some circumstances, kind of fun to hit her--especially if you can get her to hit you back, all-but ensuring that she will be the one to get into trouble. If we dealt with their sins more honestly, though, we would likely short-circuit this thought process from the beginning. "I know it seems fun to do x; but you must remember that ultimately it will turn out for the worst." Sin is sweet at the first; but, the Proverb above tells us, it ends up as appetizing as a mouthful of gravel.

Kids must be taught the principle of foresight. Many things seem good at first, including many sins. That's why we do them. But, as the Proverb teaches us, it's the end that counts. And that means a mouthful of gravel. In nurturing our children in the Lord, they must be instructed to think through things, to see their end. It is ridiculous to think of a man who just jumped off of a 100-storey building and says "O.K. so far" around the 25th floor. We need to teach our kids to make the same kind of connection when they begin down the road of a particular sin. "O.K. so far" they might say after lying about cleaning their room, and they might be right--for a time. Wise parents, though, will teach them what gravel tastes like before it gets to the point that the serving of gravel is enough to do serious harm to them.

God on film?

It is always intriguing to read what the unbelieving world thinks of Christians, particularly when it comes to our interactions with the media. In an article in the August 16 issue of Time (a periodical I don’t read all that often), there is a story about how Christian ministers are using movies to inspire their sermons and make the gospel message “relevant” to their congregations. While the story cites a smattering of pop evangelical ministers who seem to derive a smattering of pop evangelical messages (e.g., “Peter Parker [the hero of the Spider-Man movies] gives us all a chance to be heroic”) from a smattering of popular movies (including such raunchy fare as Catwoman and Anchorman), it inadvertently (and unintentionally, I might add) makes some very insightful points.

One minister/critic sets forth the rationale some modern pop evangelical ministers have for using film as a medium for communicating their message: “[The culture has] moved from wanting to understand truth rationally to understanding truth as it’s embedded in story.” The conclusion here is excellent, but the road to it is a little muddled, in my opinion. Faithful Christians have long understood the gospel as a part of the story—the Lord gave us a book of stories, not a systematic theology text. In other words, this is not some new discovery postmodernism has given to us. J.R.R. Tolkien, famous for authoring the Lord of the Rings trilogy, felt very strongly that not only was the Gospel a story, but all stories that resonate with us because of their “truth” are true because they contain at least a sliver of the Gospel in them. Thus, when we see Peter Parker’s desire to give up the exciting life of Spider-Man for the sake of those he loves, we see a hint of the self-sacrificial love of the Lord Jesus. For more on the idea of the Gospel as story, see this issue of Credenda/Agenda.

The problem, however, with the Time piece, or at least with the theology and worldview represented therein, is that the pop ministers are not trying to find the Gospel in the films, but instead are trying to find good messages that they see as “relevant” to their congregants (e.g., “Discovering my true identity” from Catwoman). They even cite Paul’s argument before the Areopagus as an example of this kind of “cultural relevance” argument. This is a dangerous first step down a very slick slope; Paul was calling those unbelievers to faith in the God Jehovah, not some touchy-feely sense of togetherness and wellness that one gets from many of the pop evangelicals quoted. The sermons of Paul were exegetical almost across the board—and that accusation could never be leveled at a pastor preaching a sermon series on “God on Film.”

God has revealed much to the world by his common grace—so much so, in fact, that all men are without excuse when they don’t turn to him (Romans 1). Lets all pray fervently that the pastors and shepherds of our land don’t turn away from the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” when presenting the Gospel to their congregations.

Sunday School Notes for 8/15/04

Introduction to the Old Testament II: Some Common Themes of the Old Testament
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, August 15 2004

I. Seed of the Woman vs. Seed of the Serpent—Gen 3:15
a) All men, including all biblical characters, fall into one group or another
b) Can be thought of not as “marble and granite” (two different kinds of the same thing) but as “Yankees and Red Sox” (two different eternally opposed teams or armies)
c) Can be seen throughout biblical stories (some more obvious than others); examples . . .
i) David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)
(1) Note how Goliath is described (v.5)—“coat of mail” actually means “scales” (not used in any other description of armor in the bible)
(2) How does Goliath die? (vv.49-50)
ii) Other “head crushings”
(1) Abimelech (Judges 9, esp. v. 53-57)
(2) Dagon, the Philistine god/idol (1 Sam 5:1-7, esp. v. 4)
iii) Saul and Nahash (1 Sam 11)
(1) “Nahash” means “serpent”
(2) Saul’s first test as king is a battle against a “serpent”
(3) Compare to Adam in the Garden (Gen 3) and Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4)
II. Death and resurrection—God often uses death (or near-death) in the process of making (or re-making) things
a) The flood (Gen 6-9)
i) Wickedness is rampant, culminating in the Sethites (“son’s of God”) intermarrying with the Cainites (“daughters of men”)—Gen 6:1-2
ii) God breaks and destroys the world (note: He does this by water)
iii) Out of that death, He delivers a “remnant”—Noah and his family
iv) The world is renewed—note the parallels in language between Gen 9:1-7 and Gen 1:27-31
v) Compare all this language with the story of Moses’ deliverance as an infant from the Egyptians (Ex 2, esp. v. 3)
b) Joseph (Gen 37-50)
i) Jacob’s sons (God’s “people”) act wickedly
ii) Joseph “dies” by being sent to Egypt as a slave
iii) God raises Joseph from nothing to a position of power and influence
iv) God’s people are “saved” and “reborn” through the faithfulness of Joseph
c) Israel in the Exodus
i) God delivers His people “with a mighty hand” from Pharoah
ii) Israel turns to wickedness and grumbles
iii) God “destroys” His people (an entire generation) in the wilderness
iv) His people are reborn through “a remnant” being saved
v) The world is renewed in the Promised land
d) Exile and restoration
i) God destroys and exiles His people at the hands of Assyria (northern kingdom) and Babylon (Judah)—2 Chron 36, 2 Kings 24-25
ii) God “saves” a remnant of his people (e.g., Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah)
iii) His people are “reborn”, and Jerusalem is “renewed” (though less gloriously)
e) The death of “deep-sleep”; examples:
i) Adam “dies” in order that Eve may be “born” from him (Gen 2:21-23)
ii) Abram “dies” in order that God may covenant with him, promising him new life as father of nations (Gen 15)
III. Miscellaneous Other Themes
a) Faith vs. unbelief (as opposed to Law vs. Gospel)
b) Water
i) Flood/baptism (compare 1 Peter 3:20b-21)
ii) Wells (throughout Genesis)
(1) Digging wells (or having them filled up—Gen 26:15)
(2) Meeting and marrying by wells (Isaac/Rebecca, Jacob/Rachel, Moses, Jesus [Jn 4])
iii) Red Sea (Exodus 14) and Jordan River (Joshua 3)
(1) Both waters divided
(2) Both delivered God’s people into a “land of promise”
(3) Again, note the inescapable connection to baptism—water kills the wicked and delivers the righteous
c) Garden/Promised Land/Tabernacle/Temple vs. “east”, “wilderness”, etc.
d) Kingly lordship (often associated with wearing robes) vs. slavish servitude
i) Example of Joseph (Gen 37ff)
ii) Jacob (“robe” of animal skin) and Esau (mess of porridge)
iii) Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4)
iv) Israel as a whole
(1) Was supposed to rule the nations for God’s glory (“creation mandate”)
(2) Saw great splendor during David/Solomon
(3) Ended up servile under pagan rulers (Ezra/Nehemiah)
e) Egypt
i) Many of the great among God’s people either sojourn in or arise from here
ii) Abraham (Gen 12)
iii) Joseph (Gen 37ff)
iv) Moses (Exodus)
v) Jesus

Children and the Proverbs

In the spirit of the previous post (about the Leithart book), isn't it interesting to note that the book of Proverbs, with all of its advice about the adulteress, the woman with out discretion, and the wife of noble character, was written for children (sons in particular, as Doug Wilson argues in Future Men--another must-read for parents of sons). Four times in the early chapters of Proverbs are we reminded by specific pleas from Solomon (4:1, 5:7, 7:24, 8:32) that not only did his audience include children, it was (and is) children. Even his plea regarding the enticements of the "strange woman" was to "ye children" (7:24). How often to we shy away from teaching these things to our children--"Wait 'till they're older," we say--only to find out that they've already started learning the opposite at school, the skating rink, the playground, etc. Parents, fathers in particular, should pay heed to this warning. Read Proverbs--all of it--with your children!

Book Recommendation

I am about three "parables" in to Peter Leithart's Wise Words, found here. I cannot recommend this book highly enough, particularly to families with youngish children (late elementary-early teen)--although adults will find much encouragement from it as well. Leithart has taken principles from the book of Proverbs and woven them into short stories or parables rich with Biblical imagery. This book has been a great read for our family worship times, and has stimulated some wonderful discussion within our family. Give this one two thumbs-up, five stars, and a drool mark!

By the way, Leithart also has a weblog, found here. It is a little on the scholarly side for my every-day usage, but his sermon notes and meditations are insightful and encouraging.

Federal Vision stuff--Rich Lusk's responses

Rich Lusk has posted a couple of responses to Michael Horton, Modern Reformation, and Westminster West. You can find them here and here. If you are at all interested in the "Federal Vision" discussion, I would highly recommend them to you.

Arthur a Pelagian?

I saw the new movie "King Arthur" this week. Fantastic film. It does, however, deserve its PG-13 rating, more for rather adult sexual situations that manifest themselves (rather unnecessarily, I might add) than a tremendous amount of graphic violence (most of the violence, while present, is tastefully-done). They have done a surprisingly good job of dwelling on the connection between faith and "kingly-ness" that the Proverbs so often speak of. It is interesting, however, that while they made Arthur a Christian, they connected him to Pelagius instead of, say, Augustine. Oh well, you can't expect too much from an unbelieving Hollywood. Enjoy this film for what it is, though, and you'll be pretty satisfied.

Understanding Dispensationalists

I spent the last week on vacation catching up on some reading for Sunday School, etc. I read a few essays out of the book Continuity and Discontinuity, found here; this is a collection of essays in a point-counterpoint format between Covenant theologians and dispensationalists.

I have never seriously paid much attention to what the Dispensationalists have to say--at least, the scholarly dispensationalists. We are all familiar with the popular dispensationalists (who hasn't heard of the "Left Behind" series?) even if we don't know them by name. It seems that they, by winning the hearts of most publishers of popular Christian books, have won the day when it comes to the average Christian's understanding of the Scriptures, the OT in particular. By God's grace, I was brought up in my faith in the richness of Covenant Theology, and always had a healthy skepticism for their elaborate end-times schemes, their supposedly "literal" interpretation of Biblical prophesy, and their circle-the-wagons mentality towards Christian living. However, many modern American evangelicals take what they say for granted. I'm hoping to uncover some of the fallacies of their thinking in some upcoming Sunday School lessons, which is the reason I was reading some of their stuff this week.

Two things struck me as I read. The first is the fact that there is really a wide swath of common ground between the two points of view. I had always understood dispensationalists to claim that there were different means of salvation for different "dispensations" of God's dealing with mankind. While this idea was set forth in the original Scofield Reference Bible, it has since been refuted by more recent dispensational scholarship (as set forth, I understand, in the New Scofield Reference Bible). Apparently, there is much common ground, at least on the scholarly level.

The second thing that struck me was how hyper-individualized the dispensationalists are--and this, I suspect, is the source of their difficulties with covenant theology in the areas in which they do disagree. They spend a great deal of time trying to figure out exactly what it was that an OT believer actually had faith in. How, they ask, can a Covenant theologian really believe that Abraham had faith in Jesus of Nazareth? How could he have applied the "Four Spiritual Laws" to Joseph? How could someone like Rahab have been a "Christian"? What I think they are missing is an understanding of God's covenant faithfulness to his people, not simply to individuals. God's purpose in redemption is to save a people unto Himself, not just to be the Lord and Savior of individual lives. Taking that into account, we can look at a believer like Abraham, about whom we are told he "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness", and understand better the substance of his faith. Paul tells us in Galatians 3 that the gospel was preached to Abraham--and that gospel was "in you all nations shall be blessed." Abraham believed this, and it was credited to him as righteousness. He didn't have to follow some four spiritual laws to become connected with Yahweh; he simply believed what Yahweh told him. We, as Christians in the post-advent period of history, are in a same (but more glorious) position; we have the (now more gloriously-revealed) promises of God to be our God and take us for His people: we, too, must believe. The faith that is exercised in this belief is better understood by us as being in Christ--faith in his life, death, and resurrection that justify us before our Father and unite us to His glorified Son. But, in the bare bones reality of the situation, we have the same faith as Abraham. There is no difference. Dispensationalists want toot nit-pick particulars of a faith we cannot possibly be asked to understand, at least in the terms that they want to present it. Covenant theology teaches that God has always chosen his people and utilized the exercise of their faith/belief in attaching them to Himself. There is no discontinuity here at all.