Peter Jones, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On November 8, 2014 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Theology and Pastoral Work

Andrew Purves commenting on Gregory of Nazianzus’ view of pastoral ministry. This quote is packed with wisdom. Note especially the last sentence.

Gregory of Nazianzus does not separate theological and pastoral work. He is aware of the distinction between them, of course, for one is the study of God, and especially the Trinity, while the other is the service of God through the pastor’s care for God’s people; nevertheless, the first implies or calls for the second and the second is possible only on the basis of the first. One cannot be a pastor without being a theologian, in the sense of being a faithful and disciplined student of the Word of God. Gregory’s view prevailed for a long time in the church, and probably only in recent times has pastoral work come to have such an ambiguous connection to the church’s theological heritage that psychology and counseling methods rather than the church’s doctrine have come to dominate.

<>индексация google

On October 21, 2014 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Few subjects get as many Christians as quickly upset as worship music. Yet for all the anger and frustration we are often not very deliberate about what we do in worship. We argue and debate, but do the same things the same way and expect a different result. There are many reasons for this cycle. There are also some signs that we are coming out of that malaise. Paul S. Jones (no relation) mentions an important way we can grow our worship music up in his little book What is Worship Music? He packs a lot in this short quote:

“Music is not in competition with pastoral work, rather, it is pastoral work. It can provide many of the same kinds of spiritual care that pastoral ministry provides. Music can comfort, encourage, instruct, teach, proclaim the gospel, interpret Scripture, make application, and reach the soul. All of these are the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when and where there are parallels, the parameters that one applies to ministerial staff should be applied to church musical staff and those applied to sermons and prayers should be applied to church music.

Pastoral musicians, irrespective of title, should be qualified, trained, spiritual, mature, humble, accountable, and aware of their responsibilities. They should be afforded honor, respect, authority, and sufficient (even generous) remuneration. Likewise, assisting musicians should be skilled, devoted, prepared, service oriented, and conscious of the roles they fulfill in worship. The music presented should be excellent, the best the congregation can offer, spiritual, joyful, thoughtful, intelligible, fitting, God-honoring, theocentric, properly rehearsed, live, instructive, functional, and artistic.”

Jones’ point that music is a teaching ministry of the church on par with preaching has been lost for several generations and needs to be recovered. Wouldn’t it be great if over the next 25 years the church saw a rise in music pastors? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a growing list of pastors/elders who are qualified in both character and skill to write, select, teach,perform, and lead the congregation in songs. If we had less youth pastors and more music pastors the church might be more mature. I am grateful for all the strides I have seen in this area. There are more and more mature, godly men writing songs that are rooted in Scripture and dig deep into theology. May the Spirit see fit to continue that trend.<>

On October 16, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Eye Candy, Girl Fights, and the Death of Motherhood

Pastor Doug Wilson describes movies as catechism class for our age. They tell us what to believe, help define reality for us, tell us who our gods are and what are the major sins of our age. That is why it is good for Christians to evaluate what are the major themes of movies. Americans spent 10.9 billion dollars at the movie theater last year. That does not include Redbox, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What are we being taught in these catechism classes? I came across one lesson as I read about the movie Fast and Furious 6, which came out in the summer of 2013

(Disclaimer: I have never seen any of The Fast and Furious movies.) I was reading an article about what Hollywood can learn from one of the most surprising film franchises in history. The article lists six things that Hollywood can learn from this movie franchise, which has earned over 1.6 billion dollars worldwide. The fourth reason on the list is that it appeals to women. Here is what the article says:

Casting women as more than scantily clad helpmates and arm candy has further broadened “The Fast & The Furious” franchise’s appeal.

Women represent 51 percent of the U.S. population and 52 percent of the moviegoing public, but according to a 2012 study by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, only 11 percent of the protagonists in top grossing films are female.

Yes, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker are the top-billed stars in the series, but what’s refreshing about “Fast & Furious 6” is that Rodriguez and co-star Gina Carano have roles that are integral to the action. In fact, Jeffrey Kirschenbaum, Universal Pictures co-president of production, told TheWrap that the most recent “Fast” film is the highest testing among women.

He added that the on-screen throw down between Rodriguez and Carano is a key selling point of the film and “trumps” the fight between Diesel and Dwayne Johnson that was a heavily promoted part of “Fast Five.

Notice the first and last paragraph. Apparently the moviegoing public wants more than women in bikinis. Eye candy, by itself, is no longer acceptable. (If you watch the trailer you will see it is still there.) Now we need women who beat each other up. Here is another article declaring that the girl fight in the movie is the most intense girl fight ever. And the director and the women involved are of course proud. It is “refreshing” that women are now central to the action. They don’t have to sit on the sidelines anymore wearing next to nothing. Now they can get into the action and pulverize one another.

Iron Man 3 was also praised for its portrayal of woman. “Wired” says,

Consider that the genius in Iron Man 3 who creates a powerful—indeed, perhaps too powerful—form of technology capable of changing the world isn’t Tony Stark; it’s Maya. And the hero who ultimately saves the day by taking out the bad guy in smash-em-up physical confrontation isn’t Tony Stark; it’s Pepper Potts. Sure, Tony Stark and the Mandarin are ostensibly the hero and the villain, but if you look at the things that people actually do rather than where the camera happens to focus, the female characters are the ones who truly begin to shine.

So in Iron Man 3 we have a female scientist who creates some powerful technology and we have eye candy, Pepper Potts, who beats up the bad guy.

The catechism question these movies are asking is: What should a woman be? The answer is: be a sex toy or be a man. Wear a bikini, wear a gun, wear a business suit, but most certainly do not wear an apron. You were made to be used by a man or to act like a man. Where are the mothers, I mean real mothers with children, in modern movies? Where are the faithful wives who love their husbands? They are conspicuous by their absence. When is the last time you watched a major movie where motherhood is a virtue or a central element in the story? When was the last time you watched a movie with a husband and wife who love each other and love their children? Look at the top 25 movies from 2013. I have seen fifteen out of the 25. How many of those movies have a strong mother character? 2014 does not look much better. There are smaller movies that do have faithful mother characters and occasionally big budget films will do that as well. But let’s not be naive. A majority of movies that come out today do not have a mother of consequence in them. The women are either professionals, someone to be bedded, or fighters. Hollywood has effectively killed motherhood as a vocation for women.

Our wives and daughters need to be aware that their fundamental calling has been rejected by the media. Fathers, pastors, and husbands need to encourage the women in their care to be faithful to God in that calling and not buy the lie that motherhood is a waste.

This was originally posted at Singing and Slaying.

<>

On October 2, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Family and Children Like

Patriarchy & Parental Consent in Geneva

At my personal blog, I am working through John Witte Jr and Robert Kingdon’s book Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva. While the title is a bit dry, the book was a great example of historical scholarship that helps the reader think through contemporary problems. I thought my summary of and thoughts on this chapter might interest the readers of Kuyperian.

In most cultures parental involvement in who someone married was a given. Children assumed that the approval, especially of the father, was good and in many cases necessary for a marriage to move forward. Geneva was no different. Eight of the first ten articles in Geneva’s 1546 Marriage Ordinance were devoted to parental consent. The prominence of parental consent issues in this document show the importance of the doctrine to John Calvin. Here is a summary of those eight articles.

1. Any son under twenty and daughter under eighteen years of age had to have the father’s consent to marry. After that age they were free to marry whom they wished though the father’s consent was still desirable.

In this article the age at which a child can marry without parental consent is given. However, there was “no minimum age children needed to be to enter into marriage in the first place.” This was flexible. The child had to be able to bear or sire children and thus must be post-puberty. In theory, any time after puberty a child could be given consent to marry. In reality, the maturity or lack thereof of a child played a big role in when consent was given.

2. If the father was dead, a ward or guardian could take the father’s place. Relatives of the child were to be consulted about a child’s marriage choice if the father was dead.

3, If two people under-age have entered into a secret marriage it can be dissolved at the parents’ or guardians’ request.

4. Secret promises to marry between under-age couples were not valid.

Note that the marriage “can be” dissolved in #3 at the parent’s request. It does not appear that it had to be.

The authors make this note. “All the leading Protestant reformers allowed parents to annul their children’s secret engagements. The question that divided Protestants sharply was whether parents could annul their children’s secret marriages, too.” By 1560 Calvin decided that secret marriages, which had been consummated, could not be annulled just because the couple was under-age.

They later add

The medieval canonists used sacramental logic: even secret marriages could not be dissolved because they were sacramental. Calvin used prudential logic: Even secret marriages could not be dissolved because that catered to parental tyranny, left despoiled virgins vulnerable to spinsterhood, and consigned any children of the union to the bane of bastardy.

5. A father cannot withhold the dowry if a daughter above age has married lawfully, but against the father’s wishes.

6. A father cannot compel a child to marry against their will. If a young person refuses consent the father cannot punish them for this.

7. If a child rebels against their father’s will and marries badly the father can refuse to provide for the child.

This is the balance to #5 and #6. Children had freedom in who they married, but if it could be proven that they married a wicked or immoral spouse then the father had the right to refuse financial support.

8. A previously married child is free to remarry without the father’s consent though it is desirable.

Calvin felt that parental consent was essential in making the decision to marry. It gave the child guidance and direction in determining whom to marry. Here are few quotes from Calvin on the matter:

Since marriage forms a principle part of human life, it is right that, in contracting it, children should be subject to their parents, and should obey their counsel. This order is what nature prescribes and dictates.

It is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage except with the consent of the parents. And, certainly, natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of the parents.

However, Calvin was no fool and he knew the doctrine of depravity extended to parents as well as children. He often condemned men in the Bible, such as Caleb, for holding out their daughters as prizes of war without consulting them. Here are some quotes that show the balance between the consent of the child and the will of the parents:

Children should allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.

Although it is the office of parents to settle their daughters in life, they are not permitted to exercise tyrannical power or to assign them to whatever husbands they think fit without consulting them. For while all contracts ought to be voluntary, freedom ought to prevail especially in marriage that no one may pledge his faith against his will.

Here is a quote from Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor:

Are children to agree necessarily with those in whose power they are? I reply that they are not forced since a free and fully voluntary consent is a first requirement for marriage. But still the respect owed to parents and to those who take the place of parents demands that [a minor child] should not disagree with them, except for a very serious reason. But in turn, it is only fair that parents treat their children with moderation and not force them into this or that marriage against their will.

Parental consent like individual consent was essential to a valid engagement in Geneva. Here are a few closing thoughts on Geneva’s laws regarding parents involvement in the marriages of their children.

There is a wonderful balance, at least on paper, between the will of the parents and the will of the child. We tend towards extremes. Many evangelical parents have little say in who their children marry. They assume a child can make their decisions with little guidance. In reaction to this many family-centered types have made the will of the child of little consequence. If dad doesn’t like the boy then the daughter cannot marry him even he is a godly man. In Geneva, neither the child nor the parent got to dictate. Both were to work together towards a mutually agreed upon marriage. Parents should be involved in whom their children choose to marry, even if the child has left the home. But the will of the parents does not trump the will of the child.

In Geneva, the father had real authority, but not absolute authority. In family-centered/patriarchal churches it is often assumed that whatever dad thinks must go. A father makes decisions about his daughter’s future and assumes there is no one above him to whom he is accountable. But in Geneva fathers would be chastised by the Consistory if they were exercising their power in a tyrannical fashion. Children could appeal to the Consistory if the father refused consent for selfish reasons. It was specifically said that if a child and parent could not come to an agreement then they should go to the magistrate. Beza said, “Severity of fathers in all aspects of their role should be shunned, and likewise fathers must be warned against abusing the power entrusted them by God.” Patriarchy, as understood by the reformers, meant that fathers were accountable to the elders, the broader community, and the magistrate. The fear some have of patriarchy could be alleviated if there was more authority over fathers and if fathers submitted willingly to that authority. On the flip side, some of those anti-patriarchy folks need to remember that fathers do have real authority over their children.

The above paragraphs show how Geneva tried to functioned as a community, not a collection of individuals. The decision to marry was not left up to the man and woman only, as is often the case in our society. The parents, extended family, community, state, church, prospective spouses, and of course God speaking in the Scriptures all had a say in who married who. Today if one person “loves” another person that is assumed to be all that is necessary for a marriage to be formed. But in Geneva that would have been impossible. Outside consent was as necessary as individual consent. The decision to marry was built on the consent of the community not just on the feelings of the individuals involved.<>

On September 19, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Bartering and Blessings

This is a follow up to a previous post. I am now going to address two objections to the idea that we should not give to get. Then I will end with some ways to have a more biblical mindset when giving.

Doesn’t God Promise Blessings to Those Who Obey?

It could appear that what I said in the previous post contradicts the idea the God blesses us for obedience. If we give to God won’t we get back from God? Isn’t salvation a trade on some level? God does promise blessings if we obey and we should strive after those blessings. We should seek to obey everything God has commanded. But this is not the same thing as trading with God so he will give us what we want. And while the difference is not always easy to discern, it is real and important. Paul knew he had fought the good fight and had a crown of glory laid up for him. But he also knew that God owed him nothing. Paul did not treat God like a puppet.

The trick here is the definition of blessing. Usually for us blessing means I get what I want when I want it. In the Scriptures there are blessings in this life that come with obedience. The man who avoids sinners and meditates on God’s Word will be blessed (Psalm 1). But those blessings are not defined by us. We don’t get to say, “Lord, I will trade you a good prayer life for a new wife.” “Lord I will read my Bible every day and you will make sure my job doesn’t fall through.” (Remember these trades are usually unspoken.) You could read God’s Word and meditate on God’s Word and get fired for obeying it. Even in Psalm 1 the ultimate blessing is in the end when we stand with God’s people after the wicked have been driven away (verses 4-5). The problem with a bartering mindset is that we set the rules. We say, “I will trade you this for that.” That is not the same thing as saying, “I know God blesses obedience, so I am going to obey him and he will bless when and how he sees fit.” The first views God as if we are a consumer. The second views God as if we are his sons and heir

Shouldn’t Relationships Have Some Give and Take?

One person commented by asking, “Shouldn’t friendships be built on a give and take type relationship?” The answer to this is, “No.” Friendships should be built on giving. We should pour ourselves out for those around us, whether it is family or friends or our brothers and sisters at church. Of course, we will benefit from most friendships when we pour ourselves out for others. This is seen clearly in passages like Ephesians 5:28 where it is said that the man who loves his wife loves himself. Throughout Proverbs there is the idea that a man who disciplines his son benefits with the son giving honor to the father. In other words, the Bible teaches that we are blessed when we give.

But this is not the same thing as giving so we will get. The question is not do we receive blessing when we give to others. We do. The question is do we think we deserve it. Do we believe that if we give x they must give y? And as with God, we often trade for a specific thing. If I am nice to her she will help me with the children. If I serve at church in this way, then the leaders will give me more responsibility later. If I go over and help him with his yard, he will help me with my car. We should not have this mindset. We should not be giving so others will give to us now or in the future. We should give freely to our friends and family and let God bring blessings through them when he sees fit.

But what about a friend who is constantly taking and never giving? Should I remain friends with that person? The answer may be no. But if you decide to stop being friends with a person it still has to be rooted in love for that person. By refusing their friendship you are still giving to them. You are giving them the gift of a rebuke.

Learning to Give Not Trade

First, learn to give in circumstances where there is no immediate benefit. Care for a child when the child cannot give anything back to you. Show respect to someone who doesn’t respect you. Give someone a gift when you know they cannot pay your back.

Second, drink deep of God’s many kindnesses to you. The more we meditate on God’s kindness the easier it will be for us to express that same undeserved kindness to others.

Third, do things for people secretly. This does not mean every gift must be a secret. But doing things secretly can show us the state of our heart. If it is hard then we know we give because we like praise.

Fourth, learn to say thank you instead of immediately thinking of a way to pay someone back for what they did for you. One of the key ways we know we like to trade is how we react when someone gives us something. Just say, “Thank you.” Don’t try to find a way to pay the gift back.

Fifth, whenever you do something for your children, a friend, or your spouse strive to do it for their good and their good alone. Our hearts are deceitful here. We can often do something that appears to be the right thing, say teaching our children to do chores, but instead of doing it for the good of our children we are doing it for our good. We are teaching them a good thing, but for our benefit. We are bartering with them instead of giving to them.

<>

On September 10, 2014 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Ray Rice and American Culture

On Tuesday TMZ Sports posted a video showing Ray Rice, now former running back for the Baltimore Ravens, punching his wife in an elevator and then dragging her out of the elevator unconscious. This event occurred on February 15th. Law enforcement gave Rice the typical penalty for a first time offender. The NFL suspended him for two games. However, once the video hit the internet he was cut by the Baltimore Ravens and indefinitely suspended by the NFL. It has been fascinating to watch the internet explode when the video was released. What Ray Rice did was a terrible thing worthy of condemnation by Christians. However, it is always interesting to look at what these things tell us about American culture. Here are some questions I asked as I watched the situation unfold.

Why does the intrusive use of video and audio not concern us more? In the long run what is more dangerous a man who punches his wife or the fact that almost all of our movements can be recorded either by video or by our phone’s GPS? Donald Sterling lost his NBA team over a recorded phone conversation. Why did his racism bother us more than the intrusive use of surveillance?

Why have several decades of feminism led us to a place where women are hated more than they were prior to the movement? Do we honestly believe that women are better off now than they were in 1950?

Would Ray Rice have been treated differently if he had punched a man? And if you say yes, aren’t you implicitly denying feminist principles?

Is there any segment of society as arrogant as the talking heads who all believe they know better than Janay Rice, Roger Goodell, and the local law enforcement? Few people pontificate as much as the media.

Does the media report the news or create it and then tell us what to feel and think about it?

Has social media created a vigilante culture where people are tried via mob and then hung? Does the fact that the mob gets it right some of the time make it okay? How can leaders carefully wait for the facts so that justice is served when the mob has taken up torches and is ready to burn someone?

How does the short memory of the internet (remember Ferguson?) and the need for vigilante justice fit together? The pattern seems to be mob justice with quick punishment, followed by the incident and people being quickly forgotten. Lives are destroyed, but those who do the destroying move on. This seems like a dangerous way to dispense justice and to set people on the path to restoration.

How will the mob mentality influence law enforcement? Law enforcement said that Ray Rice got the punishment every first time offender gets for this particular crime. But for the mob that does not appear to be enough. Will law enforcement adjust when there is a public outcry? Will punishments be equal no matter who it is or will high profile cases get more punishment? Would a little school in Pennsylvania have been punished as severely as Penn State was for the sex abuse scandal? Would a factory worker who punched his wife have been fired from his job like Ray Rice was? In short, can justice be blind when the mob sees everything and demands that action be taken, especially with high profile people or cases?

Why is taking a prostitute up the elevator different from punching your wife in the elevator? Why is punching your wife worthy of so much outrage and adultery is not?

How are the NFL and other rich and powerful organizations, such as college football, going to interact with local law enforcement in the future? It appears the NFL was burned by trusting the judgment of local law enforcement. In the future will they not trust these groups and do their own investigation?

Why do we get so outraged when we see something, but not outraged when we read it? If you had read that Ray Rice had punched his wife and drug her out of the elevator would you have been as upset as watching it on video? Why not? What does is it say about our culture that we must see something to feel its impact?<>

On August 19, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Family and Children Like

I Call That a Bargain

As a boy I loved to trade baseball and football cards with my friends. We would meet on Saturday morning, go to the local supermarket, buy a few packs, open them up and then decide what we wanted to keep and what we wanted to trade. Of course, what you could get from your friends always depended on what you had. If I had a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card or Brett Favre special edition then I could get something in return. But if all I had was a 15 year veteran who had never really done much then I was stuck.

I was talking to a friend recently and we were discussing how we treat our wives and God and it became clear that even as grown men we still like to trade. But now instead of trading cards we are trading good deeds for good deeds. I will do this for you, if you will do this for me. We give so we can get. We bargain. The more I thought about this the uglier it became. I realized that as Christians we often approach life like we are trading cards (or whatever girls traded when they were young). Here are some ways we do this.

Parenting

I never traded a card if I did not think I was getting something better in return. Parents adopt this same mindset. They do not give for the sake of the child, but for the sake of the parent. This can work a thousand ways, but here are some examples. I bought you those clothes so now you must show me respect. I spent time playing a game with you, so now you should happily do your chores. I spent my time and money to educate you, so now you must get a job that I approve of. We can do this with spanking as well. Spanking can become a way of getting from the child instead of giving to the child. We are trading some swats for what we want. Now all of these things, buying clothes, playing games, etc. are good things and we should do them. But there is often a spirit behind them that does not reflect the love of God towards us. The things we do become hooks in our child to bind them to us instead of training for our child to be free to follow God. The parents do not spend their life giving. They spend their life trading.

Marriage

Spouses do the same thing in marriage. The wife cooks all day and thinks her husband should now be nice to her because of her labor in the kitchen. The husband treats his wife to a nice dinner on Friday night so he can watch football on Sunday afternoon. The wife submits to her husband in one easy area so she won’t have to in another more difficult area. The husband is kind in public so he can be a jerk in private. The possibilities are endless. Just like the parents the spouses here are trading, not giving.

Our Walk with God

And of course, we can do this with God as well. We barter with God. God if I pray every day then I expect my life to be easier. If I show up at church every week then I won’t get fired or fall into financial ruin. If I clean up my life then you will bring me a wife/husband. If I read my Bible every day then I will not get cancer or my child won’t die in a car wreck. If I preach faithfully then my church will grow. If I start obeying here then I expect you to bless me over there. And on and on it goes. We are trading with God. We are not giving. We are treating God like a vending machine where if we put in so much time or obedience then he will dispense blessings.

One final point here: these trades are usually unspoken. We don’t say to neighbor, “I play ball with my son so he will do his chores.” Or “I am nice to my wife so she will let me buy that gun I want.” The words are rarely spoken, but that doesn’t mean the trade is not happening.

Dangers with this Mindset

First, we begin to look at people based on what they can give us. You don’t trade with people who have nothing to offer. Unless the person has something worth trading they are of little value to us. At best we put up with them and at worse we totally reject them. We stop being generous. We don’t give freely whether the person can return it to us or not.

Second, we are frequently disappointed when God, our children, or our spouses do not deliver on their part of the trade. People who live this way are bitter because they thought they were trading for $50.00 rookie card and got a 2 cent card instead.

Third, we can assume that others are treating us the same way. When someone is kind to us, we assume they are trading with us, not giving to us. So we try to give back to them in some way. This cuts out true thanksgiving. True thanksgiving comes when something is given, not when something is traded for.

Fourth, our children will learn to function this way. They will drink from our well and learn to be kind to those from whom they can get something in return.

Fifth, we misunderstand God’s grace in our lives. If we think that God is in the bartering business we are blind to our own sinfulness and God’s goodness to us. God was not kind to us because of what we could give back to him. We can offer him nothing that he does not already have. It is not a minor problem to misunderstand God’s free grace.

Sixth, we obscure God’s grace to those around us. God’s grace is freely given. But if we treat others as bargaining tools to get what we want then we twist his grace. Our offer of free grace loses its potency. Then our evangelism falls short because we are no longer heralds of the good news, but rather we are heralds of a flea-market god who will bargain with you for his great salvation.

<>

On July 31, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

The Death of the Elderly: Part I

This is the first of three blog posts on how we treat the elderly. This post will focus on the ways we are destroying what the elderly are meant to be. It is a negative post. The next post will focus on the results of cutting off of the elderly. The final post will focus on what we can do to fix the problem.

You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:32).

As Christians we have fought hard against the massacre of children that masquerades as a right our society. We march against the clinics. We set up counseling centers to offset the lies of Planned Parenthood. Pastors set aside a Sunday to preach against the murder of the unborn. But abortion has a younger sister. She is not yet full grown. She has not reached the power and domination of her older sister. But give her time and she will pick up her shovel and begin burying people, just as her more mature sister has.

It should not surprise us that killing unborn children and hatred of the elderly go hand in hand. Both groups are weak. Both groups are or will be a drain on time, energy, and money. Both groups, by our society’s values, contribute little. Both groups are physically weak and therefore easily dispensed with.

“But our society is not killing the elderly,” you say. It is true. We do not put them down, as we do the unborn. Yet our society is killing what the elderly are meant to be. The idea of the elderly is being put to death. Is it that far fetched to think that one day we might kill their bodies as well? Here are four ways we kill the elderly in our society. If you think of more, put them in the comments.

First, we have exalted youth culture for decades. The Church has drunk in this idea as much as the world has. What demographic are movie makers most interested in seeing their movies? Here is a list of the top 25 money making movies in 2013. Which of them had a strong, mature elderly character? The closest I saw was Kevin Costner in Man of Steel. What group are the TV executives most interested in watching their shows? Who do most of the advertisements appeal to? When an elderly person is exalted it usually is because they are acting young. For example, Christie Brinkley was recently praised in a magazine because she could wear a sexy swimsuit at sixty. Our society loves an old person who acts young. Once the young aspired to be like the old. Now the old are required to act and look young.

Second, we have an unbiblical love of youthful beauty and strength. If wearing bikinis and looking cut is the most important thing, then the elderly will have no place among us. If we want smooth skin, tan legs, mini-skirts, skin tight t-shirts, and white teeth then again the elderly will not have a place among us. There is a place for enjoying youthful beauty. When we see an NBA player throw down a dunk or a woman whose beauty is striking we should stand back in proper admiration. But there are other types of beauty. If we cannot see the beauty of wrinkled hands, blue hair, men who walk with a limp, poor eyesight, and false teeth then we have lost something vital.

Third, we refuse to bring our parents and grandparents into our homes to die. There are exceptions to this. Sometimes the physical needs of a parent are so great they need care which cannot be provided at home. However, in many cases putting a parent in a home is not necessary. It is just convenient. What could we glean if we got to listen to our parents and watch them die? But we don’t like death, except on the big screen. Who wants the burden of changing adult diapers, bathing an older woman, or getting up in the night to care for a parent? What does it say about a society when the people who poured out their lives for us are left to die alone?

Fourth, we do not long for wisdom and maturity. We want to remain forever young, holding on to sixteen as long as we can. But wisdom resides with the aged. Not all the elderly are wise. But many of them are. They have fought battles we have not. They have seen things we have not. They have made mistakes we can learn from. They have endured loss and pain we have not gone through. But in our culture wisdom lives with the young. It is embarrassing how the young treat the old. At times I am ashamed of my age bracket. We get angry because they are slow in super market. We don’t talk to them because they haven’t seen the latest movie. We organize our church services so they cannot really participate. We get irritated when they tell us the same story again. We are so sure the way they did it was wrong. We snipe at them or worse ignore them. The way the young treat the old would make our forefathers blush. The biggest problem is not that we do it, but that we think it is a virtue.

There are other ways we have cut off the elderly. Our love of the newest technology comes to mind. But these four points should give you the picture. In a culture where youth and beauty are exalted and where we despise wisdom is it any wonder that the elderly are put out to pasture?<>pagerank а

On July 24, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Worship Like

Liturgy as Emotional Discipline

Moderns tend to view emotions as inevitable. We cannot help what we feel. Paul says, “Not so fast.” Throughout Paul’s epistles he encourages us to feel certain things and to not feel other things. One of the best examples is Romans 12:15 where Paul encourages us to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. Here are two expressions of emotion that Paul commands us to feel. Come on Paul, you know I cannot just conjure up weeping! There are numerous other examples as well. Our emotions are not a runaway semi careening towards the bottom of the hill. We are to corral our emotions, to discipline them, so that we feel what is appropriate to each circumstance. There are times we are supposed to feel anger, joy, love, etc. Christians often speak of training our minds to think righteous thoughts (Romans 12:2), but we do not speak of training our emotions to feel righteous feelings (Romans 12:10-12). Our whole life is to be brought into conformity to God’s Word, including our emotions.

One of the main ways we learn emotional discipline is through a fixed liturgy (worship service) that includes a variety of tones. At my church, we walk through the same basic pattern every week in worship. God calls us. We confess our sins. We hear God’s Word read and preached. We eat together at the Lord’s Supper. Finally we leave with God’s blessing to go out and bless the world with the gospel. Each step has its own tone. The call is exciting, the confession of sin more sad, the forgiveness of sins is filled with joy, and so on. The tone is not dictated by the feelings of the person in the pew or by the pastor. The tone is dictated by what we are supposed to feel at each part of the worship service.

When we enter God’s presence we should be excited that God has called us into his presence. We may not feel excited when we enter God’s house. We may feel discouraged or distracted or apathetic. Yet the minister does not change the call to worship to match our feelings. At our church the call to worship is a Scripture reading usually followed by a response of the people. Here is one example. I read Psalm 96:1-4 and then we have this exchange:

Minister: In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

People: Amen! Matthew 28:19

Minister: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

People: And also to you. Romans 1:7

Minister: I will sing unto the Lord

People: For He has dealt bountifully with me. Psalm 13:6

The congregation (or the minister) may not feel like they are getting grace and peace from God. They may not feel like God has dealt bountifully with them. But their feelings do not dictate truth. God does. By opening our service this way, the minister is saying, “This is what you are supposed to feel because this is truth.” He is saying bring your emotions in line with the truth.

The same could be said of each part of our worship service. We kneel each week and confess our sins. Does every member of my congregation feel like they are sinner each week? Do we always want to get down and declare “Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from your ways like lost sheep?” Well no, of course not. After we get done publicly reading God’s Word the whole congregation says, “Thanks be to God.” Do we always feel like giving thanks for God’s Word? Maybe the reading was too long, too boring, or I just don’t want to hear God’s Word this week. On one level that does not matter. We are to be thankful for God’s Word no matter how we feel. More than that we are train our emotions to be thankful for the Word. We may not feel like eating the Lord’s Supper with our brothers and sisters in Christ, but we do it anyway. We may not feel blessed by God at the end of service and yet a benediction (blessing) from God comes anyway whether we want one or not. Why? Because how we feel at the end does not dictate the truth.

A good liturgy will force us to examine our emotions. We will have to do and say things we don’t feel like doing. But a good liturgy should do more. It should train us to feel what we ought to feel when we are confronted with our sin, God’s Word, our brothers, and interacting with the world. A consistent liturgy with the proper Biblical tone for each part will discipline us emotionally. We will not just learn to think Biblically, but we will are also learn to feel Biblically. A good liturgy will help bring our emotions in line with the reality of God’s Word.<>game online mobile рекламма

On July 11, 2014 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

John Calvin on Land Grabbing, Inflation, and Other Thefts

I told you at that place [a sermon on Deuteronomy 19:14] that if a man’s lands are not kept secure, no man will be master of his own possessions, but all will go to spoil and chaos. And surely the maintenance of just weights and measures, of lawful money, and keeping boundaries unchanged, are things that are universally acknowledged. How can men buy and sell, or engage in any trade at all if the coin is not lawful? Again, if weights and measures are falsified, we shall be cheated. What purpose will justice serve any more? And we can say the same for boundaries and landmarks. So then, under this saying [Deuteronomy 27:17] God intended to show that it was necessary for us to observe equity and uprightness in dealing one with another” (John Calvin, Sermon on Deuteronomy 27:16-23).

<>