MENU

Church
Tag Archive

On October 11, 2022 By In Church, Culture

A Creational Apologetic for Mockery

Several recent essays have offered a rich description of what has happened to the winsome phenomenon. Evangelical writers and theologians once known for defending the good have sought to minimize Gospel realities by maximizing opportunities for ecumenical endeavors. These endeavors did not produce the fruit expected, and, instead, it has led inevitably to the prodigalness of the evangelical left.

The result is a Babylonian conundrum leaving these figures defending the other side instead of protecting the voices most closely aligned with the cause of the Gospel. The winsome project has led to the adulteration of the good by compromising the good. My premise is that these authors have failed to see the Church’s role as that of protecting the creational order and priorities at all costs. These priorities negate the winsome strategy and advocate for something more distinctly aggressive regarding our relationship with ungodliness in this world.

To provide a bit of a rationale for what I call “A creational apologetic for mockery,” let me begin by offering some propositions and then conclude with some observations about the state of things in the Church.

First, I argue that creational theology compels us to use mockery against evil. Creation, by its very nature, is an apologetic against principalities and powers. Sun, moon, and stars are not merely heavenly descriptors but symbolic ones which proclaim the heavenly reality as the mode of operation for all of history. This reality presents the dignity of man, the labor of man, the complementarity of woman, and the establishment of priestly categories as fundamental antagonists to the attempts of evil men and their institutions to reverse the created order. Thus, the creation account supplants other accounts with an ideal established order and decency for both private and public arenas.

(more…)

Read more

On September 3, 2022 By In Culture, Family and Children

Dispelling Hospitality Excuses 

Guest Post by Randy Booth

“Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. 10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; 11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; 13 distributing to the needs of the saints, GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.”

―Romans 12:9-13

It’s a common trait of humanity (even redeemed humanity) to sit in judgment of God’s word. It all started in the Garden of Eden, where our first parents wanted to decide what was and was not good for them. God has some pretty good suggestions, some of which we’re willing to follow, but in other matters, we’ll need to think about it a bit more. We do need to be pragmatic. God’s word might work out for a lot of people, but sometimes, my extenuating circumstances lead me to conclude that it’s not going to work for me. There are exceptions to the rules which can exempt me.

Now hospitality isn’t the only area where we’re tempted to think like this, but it is one of the common topics where excuses for not following the clear and simple command of Scripture are frequent. Like Adam and Eve, we think we know better than God what is good for us. Below are several commonplace excuses why we can’t be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.” I hope to challenge them all.

1.       I’m Not Good at It.

We’re seldom good at the things we never do. Practice makes perfect. One of the reasons God wants us to be given to hospitality is so that we will get good at it. Less-than-perfect hospitality is still hospitality, and it is still obedience to God. Read a book (e.g., Face to Face, Steve Wilkins). Get some advice. Watch others who are good at it. Ask some questions. You can learn to do this. You can get better at it. But you can’t get better at it if you don’t do it. You know what to do (i.e., be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY”), now set out to learn how to do it. If needed, get some help doing it. If you do these things, the only reason left for not doing it is, “I don’t want to do it.” That would be a sin.

2.       My House is Too Small.

Your house can’t be that small. It might be crowded, but I’m pretty sure that many saints from the past, who were GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY, had houses smaller than yours. If you’re an American, your house is probably bigger than the houses of most Christians in the world. Moreover, you don’t even have to have a house to be hospitable; have a picnic!

3.       My House is Too Dirty.

If your house is dirty, there are two options: 1) clean your house; 2) swallow your pride and have people over to your dirty house. The command to be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY is not a conditional command. God doesn’t say, “Be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY if your house is clean.” Cleaning your house is an option; showing hospitality is not an option.

(more…)

Read more

On August 24, 2022 By In Church

A Review of Austin Brown’s “A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement”

Austin Brown’s A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement is a befitting title for such a bold endeavor. Brown challenges the status quo of TULIP orthodoxy right where it hurts most, in the middle. Limited atonement has long been the subject of many pugilistic enterprises in Reformational history, and Austin puts his typewriter to work forcefully in such endeavor.

Introduction

The book argues for a universal satisfaction view of the atonement (1) with the added qualifier that “Christ did not die with an equal intent for all men (5).” Brown seeks to exalt the Lombardian formula to a place of consistency (7), derailing the attempts of limitarians to absorb Lombard as their own. Calvinists of all stripes (cranky Dutch exempted) would affirm that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect (7).” Strict particularists, according to the author, wish to qualify to death the sufficiency of the atonement. They want to treat sufficiency as a potentiality divorcing it from universal expiation (14). But if such sufficiency remains in the realm of potentiality, then there are vast implications for strict particularists, namely that the universal offer of the Gospel is not a legitimate one (16). If Christ did not die for the non-elect, “there is no gospel for them” (20). The free offer, even spoused by strict particularists, fails to be genuine since it is not ultimately sufficient to atone for the sins of the non-elect.

Brown argues, following 17th-century Anglican, John Davenant, that the free offer is only genuine if the “death of Christ is applicable to all men (24).” Davenant sought to find a middle ground between Arminianism and Supralapsarianism. But Davenant is not the only one to oppose limited atonement in its modern definition. Anglican writer and friend Steven Wedgeworth, considering the history of TULIP theology, argues that:

Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[1]

Wedgeworth goes on to make a distinction between high and moderate Calvinists. He argues that the high Calvinist,

“…place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the “moderate Calvinists” allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God’s effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.”

It’s important to note that the Reformed tradition has built itself on various degrees of atonement language, and there have been exegetical disputes among certifiably Calvinistic figures. Therefore, to accuse Brown of any form of an Arminian spy within the Reformed camp is to miss the diversity inherent in such conversations. It is one reason that I rarely, if ever, associate Reformed theology with TULIP. Such associations minimize the depth of Reformed history by trivializing Calvin and Bucer’s rich sacramental theology and the profound political theories of the theonomic Puritans, not to mention the liturgical theology of the German theologian John Williamson Nevin, who sought to re-articulate a rich ecclesiastical vision from Calvin.[2] To limit Reformed theology to individual soteriology would be to mock the broad themes and emphases of the Reformation.

Brown makes helpful observations throughout, working carefully through key universal texts and showing that the exegetical gymnastics done by some do not comport with the nature or context of the passage. They cannot be limited when they are naturally meant to be universalized. Again, Brown is merely stating that there is a sense in which the atonement reaches the elect and another sense in which it reaches the non-elect; but in both cases, the offer is free and genuine to all.

(more…)

Read more

On August 23, 2022 By In Church

Ten Theses for an Ecclesiastical Conservativism

At a very practical level, the Evangelical Church has been injected with counterfeit spiritualities. We are a people looking for a city whose builder may only be in office for four years. Our temptation to veer to the side of the temporal is striking in our day, especially as the modern evangelical church founded largely by the disciples of the Billy Graham crusades willingly imbibes a distant ecclesiology from our Reformed forefathers.

For whatever reason, many have simply given up on the Church as a means of salvation or as a motherly figure (Gal. 4;26). The result has been a radical shift into politics and pundits as deliverers of human woes while forgetting the Table and Sacred Time.

But we should not be overly critical of only the evangelical enterprise in this country. We should be quick also to overturn the tables of those who opine sophisticated about the Church and her principles regulated by the New Testament alone and who view the endeavors of earthly politics to conflict with a spiritual kingdom.

These evangelicals, however well they dress their theological discourse, offer little to combat the profound changes in the ethical standards of our country. I am a Reformed, Evangelical Christian with the bona fides to prove it and the letters of recommendation from a fine seminary. I do not affirm the hierarchical structures of Rome or Constantinople, nor do I fall into the two alternatives listed above.

What we have before us is a time to go back to basics, especially if ecclesiastical anarchism becomes the norm in our age. Therefore, it seems good and wise to provide some basic theses on the prospect of a new American evangelicalism that does not despise the church, and which sees her role as fundamental in the re-shaping of the current political experience.

Therefore, I offer ten theses on this relationship:

Thesis I: Ecclesiastical Conservatism begins thinking about politics first as a churchman and then as a citizen of the body politic. His loyalty is first as a worshiper and then to his responsibilities to think about the politics of the day. The first must flow into the other and not the reverse. Our temptation to view government as the answer is a sign that we are eager to give up the role of the Church in society.

Conservatism observes the expansion of the state and the overreach of the government in areas where the Church should be independent. We, therefore, oppose such actions and accept that our fundamental duty is to obey God rather than man.

Thesis II: Ecclesiastical Conservatism affirms that the Church is central to the purposes of God in the kingdom and that from her flows the wisdom of God to the world (Eph. 3:10). Wisdom comes from above through the lips of ministers and the gifts of bread and wine. The lessons or rituals from D.C. should never take precedence over the Church.

Thesis III: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not embrace the civic calendar as her first order of business. It does not embrace the flag over the cross nor the pledge of allegiance over our pledge to the Christian Creeds. We do not substitute the worship of heaven for the worship of political victors. For this reason, candidates for local and national offices must have as one of their central priorities the freedom of the Church to be who God called her to be on earth (Mat. 28:18-20).

Thesis IV: Ecclesiastical Conservatism prays for her leaders every Sunday (I Tim. 2:1-3). If a Church’s political orientation does not acknowledge the Pauline necessity to pray for the good of the country through whatever leader sits in the White House, she is violating the primary focus of Ecclesiastical Conservatism, which is to be faithful to the commands of the Bible whether the Left or the Right is in power.

Thesis V: Ecclesiastical Conservatism cannot abide by the murder of the unborn, even if it becomes “the law of the land” or if it has the word “precedent” behind its laws. Further, there is no justification to vote for leaders who violate this fundamental assertion outright and whose trajectory contradicts this basic thesis. This thesis should be the starting point of any ethical understanding of politics. We rejoice with the overturn of Roe and Casey and diligently pursue to see that all 50 states abolish abortion laws within their constitutions.

Thesis VI: Ecclesiastical Conservatism understands the difficult decisions of parishioners in dealing with flawed candidates. Yet, we are not called to abdicate our role as citizens placed in a particular place in history (Acts 17:26). We believe Christians are called to make difficult decisions based on the body of information available and carefully contemplating the wisdom of their elders in the Church and people of good reputation in the community.

Thesis VII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not escape politics but embraces it as an expression of his faith in the world. We do not embrace a Gnostic view of history, nor do we embrace the ideology that says our disposition towards cultural and political things is divorced from our faith expressed amidst the congregation. Our faith as churchmen and churchwomen is carried out in the voting booth.

Thesis VIII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not put its trust in horses and chariots, but neither does it abdicate its trust that God rules over horses and chariots. God uses the power structure of Government to bring about his purpose of justice on earth (Rom. 13), and he acts by his divine providence according to the history of that body politic, whether they obey God or forsake his commandments.

Thesis IX: Ecclesiastical Conservatism is not a call to revolution through arms but revolution through the armor of God (Gal. 5). We put on the faith through song and sober living (I Thes. 5), which means that our primary tasks are more local among the body of people we call Church.

Thesis X: Ecclesiastical Conservatism views the first day of the week as the central day for the formation of his political thinking and doing. If his concerns display a greater interest in the things of the world over the things of the Church, he has committed idolatry and embraced a lie. He is, above all, a servant and worshiper of the Most High God to whom all praise and glory belong now and forever. Amen.

Read more

Is the Regulative Principle Scriptural?

On July 28, 2022 By In Culture, Music, Worship

The Human Body and the Regulative Principle of Worship

John Calvin’s convictions against instruments in worship developed into distinct forms of worship across the various Reformation churches. Calvin inspired a capella psalmody among the Scots via John Knox and the use of metrical psalms in the Church of England and its descendents. As Karin Maag writes a,

“John Calvin begun the project of versifying the Psalms in French during his three-year stay in Strasbourg from 1539 to 1541. But although Calvin had talents in many fields, this was not one of them. His attempts at putting the psalms into poetic meter were clunky at best, and were quickly abandoned.”

The task of Calvin’s metrical psalter was completed by his successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, and then the first English metrical psalter was printed by Robert Crowley, who was ordained by Nicholas Ridley – whom Beza called, “the English Calvin.”

Reformation Issues with Instruments

Calvin cites several issues with instruments but his concerns could be summarized by the “Regulative Principle of Worship” which teaches that, “…God sets the bounds and gives the basic patterns for worship. We are to do what God commands, since he is the one who alone can determine how he is to be worshiped.” b Under similar convictions, Calvin concludes that the Bible did not command the use of instruments in worship and thus to use them would be prohibited. 

Some have objected to this view by citing the use of instruments in the Old Testament and for worship in the Hebrew temple. In a sermon on 2 Samuel, Calvin writes: “the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices…” meaning to imply that they filled a ceremonial role and had been abolished with the advent of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. It is worth noting that Roman Catholic apologists of the medieval period looked to the Old Testament patterns of worship to justify the various doctrines of a sacrificial priesthood. Calvin’s view may have been formed partly in reaction to the severity of the idolatry he saw in the medieval Roman mass. 

Did the Early Church use instruments in Worship?

Calvin’s view against instruments was not new and could find precedence in the patristic church. In his article on Church music, Paul James-Griffiths writes: “Some of the Church Fathers, like Basil the Great, thought that cithara (like a guitar) players should be excommunicated from the church, and Ambrose was concerned that if Christians turned from psalm singing to playing instruments they might lose their salvation…” 

Strangely enough, it was a Roman Pope that was most successful in curbing the influence of instrumental music in the church. As Pope Gregory I reformed the 6th century Roman church and its rite for worship, the chanting (sometimes called “Gregorian Chant” anachronistically) that would develop over the next several centuries would emphasize the “word” over its accompaniment. It was the church fathers that first brought in the idea of a capella singing of psalms via the introits, graduals, and various antiphons of the communion liturgy. John Calvin admired Pope Gregory and frequently cites his example in his Institutes — noting Gregory’s emphasis on the word was not only limited to music, but also in his emphasis on pastors as preachers and as men bound by the limits of Scripture. Calvin’s appreciation is often noted in his calling Gregory the last good pope. c

So perhaps, one might imagine that Pope Gregory would’ve joined John Knox’s “Rascal Multitude” d as they reformed the Scottish Church. Unlikely. While the Scottish reforms removed organs, they also disbanded the church choirs, destroyed noted manuscripts, and aimed to destroy Gregory’s liturgical heritage developed in the Roman Rite and Western Christendom. There is a bit of irony in Calvin and the Scots removing instruments as “too catholic” when it was the Pope himself who removed instruments first. As the phrase goes, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

Is the Regulative Principle Scriptural?

The regulative principle is further expounded upon in Chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession, “As it is the law of nature” is used to describe how the example of sabbath history forms the pattern for Sunday worship. Appealing to the “law of nature” (or natural revelation) is not foreign to our theology of worship, as St. Paul points out in Romans (1:20-21) natural revelation proclaims God’s power and that we owe Him honor, thanks, and worship. For those attempting to see how instruments may conform to the regulative principle a similar deduction may be made as the Westminster Divines approbation of a “law of nature.”

If man is a worshipping being “without excuse” how is he to offer and return back praise? Some say in psalms, some say hymns, some say with instruments. All demand man to offer himself in worship.

In an article for Banner of Truth, Terry Johnson writes:

“Circumstances of worship are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence. An example of a circumstance would be the question of illumination at an evening service or the need for amplification of voices to be heard by all.”

If a man using his voice to sing conforms to the regulative principle, then the amplification of this same voice also conforms to the regulative principle. Thus the voice through the tool (or instrument) of the speaker remains commanded by God for worship, despite the lack of chapter and verse for microphones, speakers, and all their various snake-like wires.

Man as the model for Instruments

Many years ago, I sat under a lecture from James B. Jordan that made the case that all human instruments are modeled after the pattern of worshipping man. He made the argument that what St. John’s describes in Revelation 4-5 is heavenly worship accompanied by instruments. e And that string, wind, and percussive instruments are, according to Jordan, derivative of the human capacity to worship.

The various instruments are certainly analogous to human anatomy:

  1. We have string-like vocal cords that compare to harp, guitars, and other plucked instruments.
  2. We have wind-filled lungs that produce pitch through the throat to the lips–not unlike flutes or trumpets.
  3. We have hands to clap, feet that stomp, and flesh to drum.

Instruments and the Image of God

One could see then that the development of instrumentation in the temple is not some reflection of sacrificial identity, but rather the image of God taking dominion over nature. Just as the Angels sing “glory” at the Nativity when God became flesh–the people of the incarnation sing as they transform the gifts of creation into tools of worship. The pseudo-spirituality of denying instruments rejects our human identity as a worshipping body of flesh and bone. We don’t “gnostically” think praise with our brains, Psalm 95 teaches us to “worship and bow down” and to “kneel before the LORD our Maker.” We worship with our bodies.

These bodies were put in creation to take dominion through tools. In Exodus, Moses describes all skilled workmanship as the work of one “filled” with the “spirit of God.” f Natural labor’s role in dominion by erecting homes and learning trades is no less spiritual than the liturgical arts in God’s world. Therefore, the acts of worshiping God deserve not a truncated vision of human dominion, but the first and fullest since the worship of God as the chief end of dominion. Israel understood this and reserved its most beautiful and precious manners of workmanship for the Temple. Solomon’s extravagant use of timbers overlaid with gold, bronze altars, precious stones, and colored curtains amplified the God of creation. In the same way, instruments of worship elevate the human gifts of lungs, lips, and limbs to proclaim loudly the glory of God. Even more, did not St. Paul’s say that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit? Does He not now deserve the beauty and splendor of instrumental Temple worship? A step further might be to consider how the incarnation and our union with Christ transforms our notion of Temple. Does not Scripture say, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up…But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” (John 2:19,21) Christians who worship Christ this Temple, also have Christ the great High Priest – let us bring him the greater and more glorious worship!

Beyond the Temple’s beauty, worship with instruments was to have the power of dominion. The walls of Jericho fall to the final blow of the trumpets and David’s harp bound the King’s demons. If Worship is warfare, to go unarmed in a capella singing is to ignore the clear scripture example of so many of the Bible’s sainted accompanists.

Tools for Worship-based Warfare

Even Christ’s recasting of the dominion mandate as the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is prefaced with dominion by worship. In v. 17, we read “And when they saw him they worshiped him.” The language St. Matthew uses for worship is in the greek etymologically related to “proskynesis” as in bowing down before him (or literally to kiss toward, reminding me of the end of Psalm 2.) In response, Jesus claims “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Christians ought to recognize that Christ’s pathway to “discipling the nations” (v.19) and “teaching them” begins with worshipping. Don’t go into battle unarmed.

  1. Karin Maag is the Director of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies (in Hekman Library), one of the world’s foremost collections of works on or by John Calvin.  (back)
  2. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (2017, May 27). Q&A: Regulative Principle vs. Normative Principle. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=567  (back)
  3. In Book 4, Chapter 17: “Gregory, whom you may with justice call the last Bishop of Rome…”   (back)
  4. Knox’s Iconoclasm sermon instigated a 2-day riot against St. John’s on May 11, 1559  (back)
  5. e.g. “the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp”  (back)
  6. see context of Exodus 31:1-6, e.g. “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass…”  (back)

Read more

On July 19, 2022 By In Church, Culture

Ring Around the Collar

What the minister wears while performing his official duties is more important than many of us might imagine. When I came to Arizona in 2013, this congregation was used to having its pastor wear a suit, a nice suit, every Sunday. I did not own a suit like that, nor did I think that wearing one would help change the culture. So I preached my first sermon in a button-down shirt and tie, not a bow tie, and without a jacket. Several months later, I took off the tie and simply preached in a button-down. I preached one Sunday with the shirt untucked, which made me uncomfortable. As reformation proceeded in the congregation, the changes were reflected—perhaps too subtly for many to realize—in what I wore on Sunday.

After two years, we bought hymnals for the church, began using a modest but explicitly Reformed liturgy for the service, and I put back on a tie. As the worship became more consistently biblical, I wore a jacket with the tie. But I did not think then, and I certainly do not believe now, that the pastor should dress like a businessman. I am not the CEO of this organization. I am not running a company. I am a minister of Jesus Christ, a slave representing the kingdom of heaven, called to pray, teach, and care for this flock. So after a lot of thinking, studying, praying, and conversation, and with the Session’s blessing, in December of 2016, I took off the jacket and put on a preaching robe for the first time.

Presbyterian Churches do not have a dress code for their ministers. But though there is not a formal standard, it is unlikely you will see a Presbyterian minister wearing skinny jeans and flip-flops in the Lord’s Day service. In many Reformed denominations, the minister usually wears a jacket and tie on Sundays. Some might preach without a tie, but the jacket and tie are the unofficial uniform. Relatively few ministers wear a Genevan robe regularly, though they used to be very common in Presbyterian churches. Only three or four of the thirty churches in our presbytery use the robe regularly.

(more…)

Read more

On July 15, 2022 By In Theology

Postmillennialism for Dummies

One of the joys of speaking loudly around here is that I get to see some fine china broken in real-time. That’s a metaphor for views being shattered and replaced by something else, for those of you just tuning in.

The thing broken is a variation of pessimistic eschatology and it is being replaced with some happy, hopeful, and hosannah postmillennialism. Mind you, I am not so much concerned about the loyalty to the systematic category, but to the heart of the matter. Because es-cha-to-lo-gy has consequences for casuistry. Say that three times.

It pleases me to see folks going through that radical transformation and sending me notes about it. Just this last week, two brothers texted me separated by 30 minutes sharing with me their newfound dogmatism for stout-beer postmillennialism. And the good news is that they didn’t come into it half-heartedly. They did the hard work of research, reading, and repeating. It is an amazing thing to plant seeds for a long time, only to see them bear fruit much later. God seems to work like that on many occasions. I believe we are reaching a stage of massive theological conversions, and I have alluded to some of these factors before, but the postmil conversion is a fruitful blossoming of many seeds planted long ago.

I have been harping on the postmil “C” chord for a really long time and I think postmil eschatology is beginning to see a resurgence. This may be the result of ecclesiastical behaviors these past two years. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the churches who have been pushing against shut-downs and sundry silliness have postmil bones. Now, lots of other non-postmil flocks have come alongside our efforts, or later decided to peek behind the curtain, but the reality is that the majority of pastors I know who decided to fight the tide named one of their kids or their dogs, B.B. Warfield.

(more…)

Read more

On July 13, 2022 By In Culture

Reflections on Dobbs v Jackson

I was in my final year of high school when the United States Supreme Court handed down its controversial Roe v Wade decision, declaring a constitutional right to abortion and unifying the abortion licence across the country. To understand the significance of that decision, we need to recall that, unlike Canada which has a single Criminal Code applicable to the entire country, the Constitution of the United States reserves most of the criminal law to the individual states under the 10th Amendment. This is why, for example, the death penalty is still practised in some states and not in others. Prior to 22 January 1973, the legal status of abortion varied amongst the several states, with some being more permissive than others. After that date, the states were obligated to recognize a woman’s right to abortion according to a trimester framework. In the first trimester, a woman’s right to abortion was absolute. In the second, the state might regulate but not prohibit abortion. In the third, after the foetus was assumed to be viable, the state could prohibit abortion except in cases where the mother’s health is at risk.

Roe was decided based on a right to privacy the court claimed to find in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, citing as precedent the Court’s decision in Griswold v Connecticut (1965). There was one problem, however. The due process clause reads:

(more…)

Read more

On July 6, 2022 By In Podcast

Episode 100 of the KC Podcast: The Failed Church: Restoring a Vision of Ecclesial Victory

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 18:56 — 16.6MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | RSS

In our 100th episode, we spoke with the founder of the Center for Cultural Leadership, P. Andrew Sandlin. Sandlin is editor and contributor to a new work that challenges head-on the many failures of the evangelical church during the COVID season.

I truly believe that these essays will be a tremendous source of wisdom and insight in the days to come. I was honored to contribute a chapter to it and hope that you will order copies for your congregation and book studies. These essays can be studied individually, which will provoke a sturdy dose of conversations within the Church and the home.

Read more

On June 25, 2022 By In Culture, Pro-Life

God’s Mercy and the Spirit of the Age

Guest Post by Samuel Parkison

As I write this, it is mid-morning in the Middle East. I am looking over a balcony at the ocean, with the Arabian Gulf just a two-minute walk across the street, getting used to the sights and smells and tastes (and heat) of my family’s new home. Some of you know that for the better part of the past year, we have been working to move here for a career transition of sorts. I have come here to be a professor of theology at the first ever evangelical seminary in the Arabian Peninsula. There will be other occasions for me to share more about this particular venture; I’m simply pointing out that this is my new home. I am, geographically speaking, about the furthest away from the United States as I can be. And yet, never have I felt more of a bond with my “kinsmen according to the flesh” (cf., Rom 9:1-2), my fellow Americans, than last night while walking around a giant mall in the UAE when I received a notification on my phone that the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gratitude for God’s Mercy

The news stopped me dead in my tracks. My knees got weak, I felt woozy and had to sit down to concentrate just to keep the tears from coming out. So much gratitude. I never thought I would see this day. Of course, I have prayed for it. Hoped for it. Spoken and written about the need for it. But even when the now infamous draft-leak of Justice Alito’s opinion filled me with great hope, I confess it was difficult to keep my cynicism at bay. I have learned to brace myself for disappointment. But last night was real. So, while I am settling into my new home in the Middle East, I continue to rejoice with my countrymen.

No matter how you cut it, yesterday was a win for justice, which means it was a win for America, a people who have been incurring a mind-boggling amount of blood-guilt since 1973. We have been polluting the land with our wickedness and have been begging for the wrath of God Almighty. Think I’m exaggerating? Listen to how Psalm 106 describes child-sacrifice:

[Israel] served [pagan nations’] idols,

            which became a snare to them.

They sacrificed their sons

            and their daughters to the demons;

they poured out innocent blood,

            the blood of their sons and daughters,

whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,

            and the land was polluted with blood.

Thus they became unclean by their acts,

            and played the whore in their deeds. (Psalm 106:36-39)

The blood of innocent children idolatrously sacrificed in demon-worship (which, I would remind you, does not require the conscious awareness of its worshipers for it to qualify as demon-worship, per 1 Cor. 10:20), pollutes the land. My beloved nation has been doing this very thing on a nation-wide scale since 1973, with the body count of some 67 million deaths. The blood of our innocent has been crying out from the earth, calling for the just wrath of God which makes yesterday so great a mercy I can hardly bear it. What do we deserve? We deserve for God’s holiness to be vindicated by a swift and decisive judgment. We deserve to be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. We deserve to be decimated like Egypt was when God delivered Israel from captivity. We deserve for our walls to crumble like Jericho. And yet, what did we receive yesterday? Mercy. An invitation to repent.

Reactions from the Opposition

Now, as a reminder, we should keep in mind how modest of a ruling came down yesterday. This is important because I have seen a lot of curious reactions. There are two general reactions I want to call attention to here.

Reaction One: “You Aren’t Really Pro-Life Because You Don’t Care for the Vulnerable”

This reaction is represented in the memes and tweets that effectively deride pro-lifers like myself for not really caring about the babies, because if we did we would put our money where our mouths are, stop being so fiscally conservative, and get on board with big government policies that support women in need with medical care, adoption, foster care, etc. My favorite taunt along these lines is, “If you really care about the babies, would you support mandatory child-support for the fathers in every situation? Huh?” To which I reply with a hearty, “Yes! Absolutely! I am pro-expecting fathers to take responsibility for their offspring!”

To the challenge for pro-lifers to support the care of those in our society who are in desperate need of help, I simply agree. The question is, what is the best method for taking care of those in need in our society? My skepticism that big-government policies are the solution for taking care of the needy and vulnerable in our society does not come from my penny-pinching conservativism, it comes from the conviction that the government is intrinsically incompetent to do that work. I say “intrinsically” to emphasize that this is not a deficiency on the government’s part. That’s not what the government is supposed to do, and so it should not be surprising that it’s bad at it.

But even if you disagree with that position, we should point out that it is not as if pro-lifers have been neglecting care for the needy and vulnerable in our society. We have been accepting the challenge to care “holistically” with our dollars and time for decades. On every meaningful metric, it is the religious and pro-life demographics that are the most generous with their time and resources to non-profit organizations that do the work of caring for the orphan and widow without compulsion from their neighbors or government. This is the demographic overwhelmingly represented in foster care and adoption. This is the demographic that starts and funds and operates crisis pregnancy centers whose agenda are not simply to “end abortion,” but rather to care for families in general and needy and vulnerable mothers in particular. However, even if that were not the case, this reaction is a poor argument in favor of abortion. In my recent book, Thinking Christianly: Bringing Sundry Thoughts Captive to Christ, I interact briefly with this line of thinking. Here’s an excerpt from that section:

Let it be known that there is no necessary social prerequisite for getting to speak out against abortion. We should decisively put to death that foolish notion that says before objecting to murdering babies under the banner of “pro-life,” one must satisfactorily establish “pro-life” status by being on the forefront of orphan care, adoption, refugee ministries, homeless ministries, etc. These things are clearly consistent with being “pro-life,” but the increasingly common dichotomy of “pro-life” vs. “pro-birth” should be laughed out of the room. How, pray tell, is it possible to be “pro-life” without first being “pro-birth?”

This is a smokescreen, and to put the matter plainly, Christians who play along are suckers. The goal-post will always change for what constitutes as caring for enough issues to get to care about abortion. Hating “baby-hacking” requires no credentials, especially if those credentials are handed out by those who have no objection to “baby-hacking.” Frankly, I’m quite sure I do not want the approval of such individuals anyway. They can keep it.[1]

Reaction Two: “The Government Has No Right to Control the Bodies of Women“

This reaction seems to assume that what happened on June 24 is the making of a law to illegalize all abortion. But the Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did was deny that it was a “constitutional right,” which means that if a state chooses to enact legislation that prohibits abortion, that state is not being unconstitutional in doing so. States are not infringing on constitutionally recognized rights by enacting pro-life legislation.

Now, I actually do think abortion should be nationally prohibited, and not only for moral and theological reasons. There is a strong legal argument for the abolition of all abortion on the grounds of, at least, the 14th amendment (this has bearing on the “my body, my choice” argument. Abortion is not merely about a pregnant woman’s body, but also the body of her infant). But the point is that yesterday’s ruling did not force any state to stop performing abortions.

So, think about the mindset that lies behind, for example, protestors in California marching the streets with signs demanding the right to abortion. What exactly are they mad about? What are they protesting? They are mad about the fact that not every state must make abortion legal. That the citizens of a state like Oklahoma maintains the right to elect the representatives they want to reflect their values, which includes a high value for the unborn, is intolerable for these protestors. They do not want Oklahomans to have the ability to establish representatives who will establish and elect those laws. Protestors in California have lost literally nothing by way of “ability.” Their state has enshrined abortion with legislation in anticipation of the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But they are so passionate about mothers having the “right” to kill their pre-born babies that they are protesting other states having the ability to prohibit pre-born-baby-killing. Their own state protecting their ability to kill their babies isn’t enough: they demand that every state everywhere be obligated to do the same. Such a response, frankly, is madness.

Behind the Veil: What’s Really Going On

As a Christian theologian, I have to also point out that this is not only irrational, it is demonic. I’m not calling people on the other side of this issue demons, mind you. No, they are not demons or sub-humans, they are image-bearers of God himself, having more dignity and worth, and value than they themselves could possibly imagine. I am saying, rather, that the spirit that possesses a group to take to the streets in angry opposition to the verdict, “baby-killing is not a constitutional right,” is not a spirit of love and goodness and justice, but rather a spirit that arises from the domain of darkness (cf., Col 1:13). I am quite certain that most of the individuals vehemently opposed to yesterday’s ruling “do not know what spirit they are of,” but that does not make their clamor for abortion any less demonic. The crowd that boils over with rage over the prospect of mothers losing the ability to kill their children is possessed by a dark mindset indeed. What we see (and will continue to see in the coming days) with violent threats and attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers is the removing of the veil. The veneer of love and gentleness and justice is being peeled back and the darkness of the culture of death is showing its true colors. It is losing all motivation to be seen as loving and is perfectly content with showing its rage.

Still, I can’t help but suspect that many of the most passionate men and women clamoring for more death are driven by shame and guilt. They shout for abortion as an effort to shout down their own consciences. They have the blood of abortion on their own hands, they know it deep down, and they wish to silence that part of them that accuses. So they stop their ears and cry out that the evil they participated in is “good,” and the good that would have protected their children from execution is “evil.” Rather than applying the balm of grace to their sinful self-inflicted wound, they ignore the wound and try to convince themselves that there is no sin to repent of. They may be throwing rocks at the windows of crisis pregnancy centers, but they are aiming at that part of their souls that knows what evil they have committed. To those, I would simply say, “Give up trying to silence your conscience. It won’t work. You know what you have done. So go ahead and let your conscience speak. Let it call the sin, sin. Then, and only then, will you be in a position to hear a better word, spoken by the blood of Christ. He does not silence the accusation by pretending like it’s not there, he silences the accusation by answering it with his own blood. He does not invite you to ignore your sin. He invites you to let him deal with it in a decisive way. You are not beyond redemption and forgiveness and healing. But it is only those who know themselves to be sick who will seek out a Doctor. So, seek him out; he is not far.”

Concluding Prayers

What now? Well for starters, we should unflinchingly celebrate this surprising mercy that God has shown us. We should praise God that at least some states in this country will slow down on racking up the unfathomable debt of blood-guilt they have been incurring since 1973. We should praise God for the lives that this will save. We should thank God for the gift of sacrificial saints who have worked tirelessly for decades to see this ground made (while many of us cynically doubted that their efforts would succeed). We should thank them for their faithful endurance, and say, “You were right; God bless you and your longsuffering work!” We should thank God for the common grace of a justice system that does some good (even if it is imperfect).

And we should pray for revival. We should pray that our culture of death would disintegrate and that righteousness be established. We should pray that the hearts of those possessed by the spirit of rage and bloodthirstiness would be turned. We should pray that such individuals would have ears to hear their cries for death afresh, and that they would be shocked by the revelation of what their own voice sounds like; shocked into repentance. We should pray that they receive the cleansing blood of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins (both the sin of abortion and the sin of celebrating abortion). We should pray that God would hallow his name, and make his Kingdom come and his will be done here on earth as it is in heaven.

He could do it, you know.

Don’t forget that Nineveh was converted with a five-word sermon. I can’t think of a better invitation to pray for big things like this than the (previously) unthinkable reversal of Roe v. Wade.

[1] Samuel G. Parkison, Thinking Christianly: Bringing Sundry Thoughts Captive to Christ (H&E Publishing, 2022), 105.

*The image for this post is a depiction of Pharaoh demanding the death of Hebrew babies in Exodus 1. It seemed fitting.

Samuel Parkison received his Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from @MBTS). He is the Associate Professor of Theology (Gulf Theological Seminary in the UAE). You can find him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/samuel_parkison

Read more