Culture
Category

By In Culture, Family and Children

Knocking on the Paedo Baptist Door

Here is an older article by Tim Challies on when credo baptists should baptize their children. He is gracious with those who believe that young children can believe and be baptized, but he suggests that Baptists should wait until children are older, particularly the later teen years. This position is similar to Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is senior pastor.  I realize that the position Challies holds is not what all Baptists hold. But it is a common one and the dominant paradigm in my experience.  There are several points I want to make about this article.

First, Challies’ definition of “credible profession of faith” is not found in the book of Acts. He argues that someone must have knowledge and maturity in order to have a credible profession of faith. But almost every baptism in Acts immediately follows a response to the preaching of the Word. There is no delay to determine whether or not someone has knowledge or is mature enough to receive baptism. In Acts 2:41 3,000 people are baptized the day that Peter preaches to them. In Acts 8:12 we see that Philip baptized people who heard him preach the same day. At the end of the same chapter Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. There are numerous other examples in Acts (10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) of baptisms quickly following a profession of faith. There does not appear to be any biblical reason to delay baptism following a profession of faith. In some cases, like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, there could have been discussion about the faith. Even here it would have been only rudimentary. But almost every case in Acts there is nothing other than preaching and response. With the 3,000 on Pentecost there would not have been time to evaluate the participants knowledge and maturity. May be Challies is pulling his definition of credible profession of faith from another book of the Bible. If he is, he does not say so. This brings us to one of the central problems with the Baptist “credible profession of faith” approach. If we use the Biblical text then we baptize immediately upon “profession of faith.” That is the example in Acts. But with children and many adults Baptists often wait. Why? And if a Baptist would immediately baptize an adult who professes faith, why would they not immediately baptize a child who professes faith? What makes an adult profession of faith more valid than a child’s? In Acts knowledge and maturity is not a requirement for baptism. This means a four year old child who says, “I believe in Jesus” should be taken as seriously as a 24 year old.

Second, he does not mention a single passage that talks about children. The New Testament mentions children numerous times. It is odd to develop a thesis about baptizing children without at least referencing passages on children.

Third, he seems to think the only problem is baptizing children too early. But what if a child really does trust in Christ, which Challies says can occur, and we refuse to baptize him? Doesn’t that create doubt in his mind about his own conversion? What if credo-baptists teach their children that “your profession is not good enough?” Do Baptists create doubt by making them wait and then they fulfill the prophecy by acting unregenerate? Baptists tell their children, “We don’t know if you belong or not.” Then are surprised when the children act like they don’t belong. At the end of the article he states that by postponing baptism Baptists allow the child to pass through periods of uncertainty. But what if a period of uncertainty is created by postponing baptism?

Fourth, it sounds like he is arguing that we should not treat someone as truly saved until they leave their parents behind.  Where is the Scriptural proof for this particular point? Parents are told to instruct their children in the faith and the ways of Christ. If a parent does this well then Christ will be present in the child’s life from the moment they are born. An obedient child is one who listens to their parents and obeys their commands. This would include the command to trust in Christ. Where is the Biblical data that says, “Once someone shows years of being faithful then we can baptize them?”  Where in the Bible are parents told, “Wait to treat your children like Christians until they show years of faithfulness?” Again, this paradigm creates a culture of doubt for both parents and child.  Parents are never quite sure of their child’s standing and not surprisingly the child doubts any conversion as well.

Fifth, it is not inevitable, but there is a danger that his perspective leads to baptism by works. If you stay faithful after you leave your parents then we will know you are really saved. If you show enough theological knowledge then we will know you really believe. If you show enough maturity then we will know truly trust in Christ. Once we know you really believe, then we will baptize you. Under this view baptism is no longer an entrance into the Christian life, the beginning of someone’s discipleship (Matthew 28:18-20). It is an entrance to graduate school. It becomes a sign of spiritual maturity instead of a sign of God’s grace. It makes assurance of salvation through works a prerequisite to baptism instead being a fruit that springs from baptism. Need less to say, that seems backwards. I know that Baptists will refute this, but logically it is hard to see how baptism is not something you earn using Challies’ paradigm.

A couple of closing points.

A Baptist who refuses to baptize quickly upon a profession faith is not holding to the explicit pattern of baptism given to us in Acts. This might be fine, if they are drawing principles from passages outside of the baptisms in Acts. But an accusation often hurled at paedos, especially in popular books, is that we do not take seriously enough the explicit pattern set in Acts. However,  it is hypocritical of credo-baptists to accuse paedo-baptists of ignoring the explicit baptismal pattern in Acts when Baptists are doing the same thing with their profession of faith theology.

Popular credo-baptist theology often does not deal sufficiently with the New Testament passages on children.

Making someone’s acceptance into the people of God dependent upon their spiritual maturity would seem to contradict numerous passages in the Bible, including Jeremiah 31:34 where the  New Covenant includes the least to greatest. It can also create a works oriented paradigm and lead to doubt.  Creating doubt is one way we cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6), which makes doubt just as dangerous as premature baptism.

Finally, a Baptist paradigm rooted in Acts would baptize quickly upon profession of faith and would take the profession of a three year old as seriously as that of 23 year old. There is no reason to do otherwise, unless you  make maturity a prerequisite for baptism, which is unbiblical. Of course at that point they are knocking on the paedo baptist door. It is only a matter of time before someone opens and says, “Welcome, you and your children.”<>стоимость баннерной рекламы в интернете

Read more

By In Culture

The Death of Communication

It was a simple test and I failed it. It was so simple that I was celebrating before I even started it. In futebol, this is always a bad idea. Anything can happen in the four extra minutes after stoppage time.  A certain victory can be taken away with a beautiful header after a corner kick or an unexpected long-distance shot. But enough with sport metaphors. I was coming back from the beach with my boys. My cell phone stays with me at all times. As a pastor, I have noble excuses to keep it close. Hospital emergencies, counseling issues, but I digress. I am addicted to that marvelous ringtone. Scientists recently made some comparison to heroine addiction. But I know it’s not that bad. I can stop at any time. Right?

Back to the test. I had a 25 minute ride back home. I even put the cell phone a bit distant from the driver’s seat. Being a good Calvinist I am quite aware of my depravity. Goal: to make it home without touching my cell phone. Test: to wait to answer those life or death calls when I got back to the comfort of my home. Further, to allow those rings to simply disappear into sound heaven. I confess the first five minutes were tough. I tried. I even made it past the first red light. I had two whole minutes alone. The kids were quiet in the back. The sound of silence hurts. Those rings kept coming like Screwtape was trying to get into my brain. I kept assuming that each ring came from the same person asking, nay, begging for help. Then it happened.

I reached back to reach it at another red light, typed my password and quickly checked my e-mail. It only took five seconds. The e-mails were important. I could tell by their titles, but not important enough that they couldn’t wait 20 more minutes, or 20 hours. But the moral of the story is I fell. And great was the fall. a

I am finishing a certification in counseling, which has made me quite reflective these past few months. Reflective enough that I took that lesson in eating the fruit…I mean, checking my cell phone, and made a couple of applications.

The first one that comes to mind is that we live an age where communication has died a thousand deaths. In profoundly Shakespearan ways, it is dying and dying. There is that ring again. I have seen the videos portraying zombie-like teenagers engaged in the art of romacing their cell phones while their future wives are right there physically next to them (though she may possibly be romancing her new Note 4). Can we even talk anymore for five minutes without peeking at our ESPN NEWS app, or for the more sophisticated among us, the New Yok Times app. I am guilty. Mea Culpa. A counselor friend once told me that while he counseled a teenager for $75 an hour this young lady spent a near 45 of the 60 minutes carrying on a “conversation” with her boyfriend via text. She kept assuring the counselor that she was hearing everything he was saying. Doubtful.

It’s a strange age. The world is more engaging than ever, but we can’t engage ourselves consistently for a substantive period of time. Dostoyevsky once said: “Much unhappiness has come into the world because of bewilderment and things left unsaid.” Our world is unhappy beacuse so many have been distracted for so long that they no longer have anything to say. Conversation depends on soul and body. To be present in the body in our culture means to be absent in our soul.

The second application is that if conversation dies in more ways than one we cease to be human. We speak and others speak back. This is how Yahweh God made us. If by giving priority to an inanimate object–sorry SIRI–we trivialize flesh to flesh interaction we are of all people most to be pitied. God forbid.

So, I will test my self again. I will probably fail a few more times. But I will keep trying. I am going to leave that cell phone in the car when I have an appointment. I have silenced my ringtones for virtually all notifications. And if someone complains that I did not answer their phone calls or texts soon enough I will just have to tell them that I am fighting for the survival of communication among homo sapiens. I know they will understand.<>dlya-vzlomaпроверить регистрацию а

Read more

By In Culture, Politics

Unfortunate Boss: Springsteen’s Real Problem

Bruce Springsteen is one of my favorite songwriters. He and the E Street Band have been a musical inspiration to me for a number of years now. This doesn’t mean I like all of his material – in fact, there’s quite a bit I don’t like – but approximately 70 songs of his are top notch in my estimation. As spectacular as Springsteen’s live performances are, perhaps his greatest skill is his lyrical storytelling. He is able to communicate depths of human emotion in profound ways and he frequently centers on themes of faith, hope, and redemption. Fans will acknowledge a spiritual element in Springsteen’s music, even describing his concerts in terms of a religious experience. Springsteen’s lyrics may also be meaningful in the lives of many Christians, regardless of his own religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Over the years Springsteen has become known for political activism. With the hit song, “Born in the USA,” Springsteen entered into the arena of public policy, proving that he isn’t afraid to criticize our elected leaders. This week, he sparked controversy for covering Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” at a patriotic event in Washington, D.C. The song has anti-war undertones and takes jabs at the political elite. But this is by no means a bad thing! Politicians are not above reproach and we do well to expose immorality. In fact, libertarians and constitutionalists may argue that there is nothing more patriotic than decrying the abuses of power we witness day in and day out. (more…)

Read more

By In Culture

Kirk Cameron is saving Christmas with Douglas Wilson

Kirk Cameron Presents “Saving Christmas”

While Kirk Cameron’s “Left Behind” legacy hit the box office just over a month ago, now featuring Nicholas Cage, Cameron has been busy promoting a different kind of Christian movie. Saving Christmas is Cameron’s big screen attempt to restore our faith in the Christmas season. Cameron’s film hopes to provide,”a biblical basis for our time-honored traditions and celebrations, and the inspiration to stand strongly against a culture that wants to trivialize and eliminate the faith elements of this holy season.” Loaded with the tagline, “Put Christ back in Christmas,” I look forward to seeing what this movie has to offer.

Watch the Theatrical Trailer for Saving Christmas on Youtube. 

The Advent of Doug Wilson

Saving Christmas, which is set to debut on Nov. 14, was recently promoted on a video segment of Doug Wilson’s “ask Doug?” where Kirk revealed that it was Wilson’s writing that motivated the project. “One of the books that had a big influence on what’s in the movie was Doug’s God Rest Ye: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything,” said Cameron.

Watch God Rest Ye Merry | Kirk Cameron and Doug Wilson on Vimeo

Buy “God Rest Ye Merry” Today

Pastor Doug Wilson’s book is essential reading for anyone hoping to understand the profound symbolism found in the Christmas Holiday or who simply want to read about how Santa Claus once punched a man in the face at a church council. As Advent approaches, Wilson’s short book also features a read-aloud meditation and prayer for each day of our Advent season. (Advent season begins on Sunday, November 30, 2014.)

Click here to buy God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything

<>bonehostсамостоятельная раскрутка а yandex

Read more

By In Books, Culture, Theology

The Life and Legacy of J.R.R. Tolkien, Part 2

Tolkien grew and became a formidable rugby player, and also a linguist of first class. He was so gifted in languages that he began to form his own language. His intellectual interests increased, even more, when he started the Tea Club and Barovian Society.a And they would meet frequently for tea and discuss their particular interests. For Tolkien, it was Northern European Languages and Legends.b

He recited for them the Norse Volsunga Saga,  in which a dwarf is featured with a treasure horde and a magic ring. The Norse myths Tolkien found so fascinating even featured dwarves as underground metalworkers.

Tolkien’s gifts were conspicuous, and this eventually led him to change the literary world. It was his background as an orphan, home-schooled by a faithful and sacrificial mother, the influence by his local priest who cared for them and watched over his soul, and his affinity for strange languages that propelled Tolkien to be more than just another writer, but a writer who cherished his faith and heritage, and who did not abandon all hope when life seemed to crush him, but persevered in his gifts.

The Legacy of J.R.R. Tolkienc

Our world would be poorer without two other worlds: Narnia and Middle-earth,” said Christopher Wright.d Tolkien produced a mythology that was internalized. He produced a world that others could imagine. The casual reader or even the casual Christian reader will look at The Lord of the Rings and admire its poetic brilliance and the protagonists’ perseverance, but you need a good set of Christian eyes. The way you gain these eyes is by training them to see the world not just as a mechanical production of God, but as a witness and a testimony to the glory of God; to see the world through the story of God, and then to judge every other world (“sub-creation,” to quote Tolkien) by the story of God’s world. In other words, the story of God is the model for every other world. This is why we can watch or read anything decent in this world and immediately see facts that reflect the wisdom of God.

The Lord of the Rings is unique, because Tolkien himself wrote the following in a letter to a friend:

 The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work;…e

You may think this is strange because there is no Church, no acts of prayer, or worship in the Trilogy. This is where I think Tolkien offers probably one of the best observations on how to interpret his books, and also how to look at different works as a Christian. He continues his quote:

…it is fundamentally religious and Catholic, unconsciously at first…this is why I have not put in anything like “religion” in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”f

If we come to The Lord of the Rings trying to find “religion by counting how many times they pray or go to church, we will be soberly disappointed…we need to look hard at the shape of the story itself, not at discreet acts of religion.”g This is a rich application to our witness in our culture. The Word of God is more than a set of propositions we recite, it is a story we believe. While quoting Bible verses is fruitful, establishing the story of redemption can be even more fruitful. I tend to believe that the medium of literature is a great way of preaching the gospel story. The subtlety of Tolkien’s words is that when an unbeliever reads or watches Tolkien’s art he is first captivated by the brilliance of it, then he is confronted with a series of questions about good and evil, the depravity of man, the wise counsel of Gandalf, the courage of Sam and Frodo, and the determination of Aragorn. All these have the effect of confronting unbelief with a world they are not familiar.

The genre of fantasy carries the ability to communicate divine ideas. Tolkien wrote:

 Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode. Because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.h

Tolkien is echoing the orthodox understanding of mankind created in the image of God (Imago Dei). The reason we create stories is because we are imitators of the true Story-Maker. The best worlds are the ones that reflect and communicate our world. Good fantasy reflects our ability to create things after the likeness of God’s creation. Middle-Earth is a reflection of this world.i This is why it is so realistic. The narrative of Middle-Earth itself is the religious element of the story. It contains hints of the Christian message while refusing just to repeat it. C.S. Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia was explicit in writing a Christian allegory for children. Tolkien wrote a mythology. Just because a mythology did not happen doesn’t mean it cannot relate to the truth.j And this is what Tolkien did. At the end of the Rings trilogy, there is a happy ending to this world. The world at the end is made new. Evil is destroyed. There is lasting peace in the kingdom. There are many sacrifices made, indicating that to achieve the world we believe the Gospel seeks will demand sacrifices from God’s people. It means we may have to abandon the Shire and speak against Mordor. It means we may lose the things we most cherish like Aragorn going into exile for the sake of what he loves most. But in the end, Tolkien is establishing a story built on a heroic community of people, from all sorts of different backgrounds, imperfect, but loyal to the mission of defeating evil.

What then does the life of Tolkien teach us?

First, Tolkien was not a product of solitary imagination. He studied, learned, read vociferously. Tolkien’s mother believed in a good education. Not just a random education, but a particularly holistic education. Mabel wanted her priest involved in the training of her children. That little Catholic parish was acting biblically in providing for the widow and the orphan. Education matters. Why do we take such a strong stand on Christian education? Because a Christian mind needs to be shaped by the knowledge of the world God created, not the world created by chance.

Second, let me encourage you to read The Lord of the Rings trilogy if you have not. It is never too late to begin reading good literature.

Third, appreciate not just the explicit Christian writings, but also the classics. Build a library of good literature. This is a great legacy to leave your children and family members.

Fourth, understand that all literature is religious in nature. The author is always trying to communicate some worldview, whether good or bad. There is no literary neutrality.

Fifth, parents: read, read, read! Do you want to capture your children’s heart and mind? Read to them. Ralph Smith is a CREC pastor in Tokyo, Japan. I asked him last year in Minneapolis what he did to cultivate a love of learning in his children. He said: “We read the Bible, Shakespeare, and everything else out loud at home. I wanted them to hear the Word before they could fall in love with it.” This is a good application for children in worship. Why do we insist that our little ones remain with us during Covenant Renewal? It is because we believe that the Word – even before they are reading – is effective to their hearing. It builds in them a vocabulary that expresses joy and knowledge and truth.

Finally, and by far, one of my favorite features of The Lord of the Rings is their incessant love of food. There is constant feasting! In Tolkien’s world, food is communal. It is to be shared. It brings people together and accentuates joy. The importance of what happens around these meals makes the sacrifice of war worthwhile and lets the reader know there is something worth fighting about. This is the beauty of Tolkien’s writings. He turns every situation into an act of preparation for war. This is the language we use of the Lord’s Supper. It is food given to prepare us for war.

I hope Tolkien provides you some inspiration to look deeper at literature and realize again and again that this world is given to us, and that the worlds we create need to reflect and pay homage to the Creator of the World, namely Christ Himself.games mobi onlineпродвижение и раскрутка а в одессе

  1. A sort of prequel to The Inklings.  (back)
  2. Mark Horne, J.R.R. Tolkien, a Biography.  (back)
  3. Using many notes and inspiration from Mark Horne’s final chapter on the Legacy of Tolkien.  (back)
  4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2003/aug29.html  (back)
  5. Quote found in Brian Nolder’s paper God and Hobbit.  (back)
  6. Brian Nolder, God and Hobbit.  (back)
  7.  Ibid.  (back)
  8. Quoted in Nolder’s paper from Tolkien’s Fairy-Stories  (back)
  9. Tolkien does write that Middle Earth is this earth  (back)
  10. Horne, Legacy of Tolkien.  (back)

Read more

By In Culture

A Ballad of the German Reformation

For your 2014 Reformation Day listening and viewing pleasure: The Ballad of Martin Luther.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eglz9Yhqflo<>siteпродвижение web ов

Read more

By In Culture

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

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

<>примеры копирайтинга

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children

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.<>сервис определения позиций

Read more

By In Culture

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.

<>стоимость рерайта копирайтапродвижение  а интернет рек лама

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children

Chick-fil-A Founder Truett Cathy Dies at 93

The AP reports:

Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy died early Monday at 93. The billionaire rose from poverty by building a privately held restaurant chain that famously closes every Sunday but drew unwanted attention for the Cathy family’s opposition to gay marriage. Read more.

What a remarkable figure! Cathy’s productive life is a testament to a man who committed his life endeavors to the Biblical God. His business, a model-business, offers the greatest service with the greatest food; the perfect recipe for one of the most popular franchises in the world. Further, they honored the Lord’s Day in a profoundly un-American way. They emphasized that a successful business is a business given over to the Lord of the Sabbath.

Cathy’s contributions to society were more than simply delicious chicken sandwiches.

Cathy dedicated his time and resources to many philanthropic causes, focusing on those related to the welfare of needy children. He reportedly welcomed homeless children into his home and taught in Sunday school sessions. He fostered children for over 30 years, and took in nearly 200 foster children through WinShape Homes. WinShape Homes is a long-term foster care program that includes 11 foster homes throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

In 1984, Cathy established the WinShape Foundation, named for its mission to shape winners. WinShape Foundation consists of WinShape Homes, WinShape RetreatSM, WinShape MarriageSM, WinShape Camps, WinShape, College Program, WinShape Wilderness and WinShape International. In 2010, the foundation provided roughly $18 million to fund the development of foster homes and summer camp. Past donations from the WinShape Foundation include the funding of several college scholarships and marriage counseling programs. The foundation has awarded nearly 820 students of Berry College with scholarships of up to $32,000.

WinShape has donated, since 2003, $5 million to groups including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International and the Family Research Council (the latter two in the amount of $1,000 each), which strongly oppose same-sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community. 

In 2008, Cathy’s WinShape Foundation won the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic leadership which awarded it $250,000 towards future philanthropy, as a result of its contributions to society. The prize was created to further ideals such as personal responsibility, resourcefulness, volunteerism, scholarship, individual freedom, faith in God, and helping people who help themselves. It honors living philanthropists who have shown exemplary leadership through their charitable giving, highlights the power of philanthropy to achieve positive change, and seeks to inspire others to support charities that achieve genuine results.

In recognition of his philanthropic efforts through WinShape, Cathy received the Children’s Champion Award for Family and Community from the charitable organization Children’s Hunger Fund in 2011.

Cathy also had a Leadership Scholarship program for Chick-fil-A restaurant employees, which has awarded more than $23 million in $1,000 scholarships in the past 35 years. a

Whatever Chick-fil-A you may visit, workers are trained to politely respond to your requests with “My pleasure.” Cathy lived his life for the pleasure of God and it was that pleasure that led him to contribute to the lives of so many. He once remarked that “we are created for the purpose of giving.” His long life was a reflection of that glorious purpose.

Here is a video of this remarkable man:
<>google add wordsпродвижение  ов раскрутка и нтернет реклама

  1. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Truett_Cathy  (back)

Read more