Can You Accidentally Break the Third Commandment?

Posted on 10 April 2013 by Seth Meyers

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Recently, David de Bruyn has been insightfully plowing up the ground of the third commandment. But in my context, another question has been raised.

I have heard church members commonly say under their breath, “Isus” or merely “Sus” as an exclamation when something surprising happens, as they’re playing ball, or just in general language as a “filler.” However, this comes from the Afrikaans’ name for Jesus Christ. As such, they are breaking the third commandment if it is strictly interpreted.

Is it possible to dishonor God’s name even if you are using a language that you do not know? Is this kind of dishonoring so serious that it should be church disciplined?

The first question I’d answer in the affirmative. But for the second question, I would lean toward the negative for these reasons.

1. We are all ignorant about God to some degree at all times on all issues. All sins are committed within the context of some kind of ignorance. Yet this lack of knowledge does not remove our culpability seeing as we have a responsibility to prize God, thinking clearly and consistently enough about Him that we will be able to obey all His commands perfectly.

2. The Bible has examples of people who sinned ignorantly. When Uzza touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was probably not thinking that he would be required to pay the ultimate price for that seemingly insignificant action.  (1 Chronicles 13)

The next question is trickier to answer for me. How should the church posture itself toward someone who openly takes the Lord’s name in vain, but yet wants to join the church and be involved? I want to say “Yes” but can I?

The name of God represents His infinite dignity. So young people in church should not be allowed to speak of it in a flippant, trite, or passing manner. But our God is a Father who knows that we are dust. So young believers should receive from us a generous allotment of time as they grow in this particular command.

Posted in Ethical dilemmas, Orthopathy | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Birthday of the Church

Posted on 8 April 2013 by Seth Meyers

When was the church born? When did it start? Here’s two well-known voices:

His [the Holy Spirit] coming to fill the assembled disciples at Pentecost establishes the church of the New Covenant. Clowney, The Church, 28.

On this point we cannot agree with those Premillenarians who, under the influence of a divisive dispensationalism, claim that the Church is exclusively a New Testament institution, which did not come into existence until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost… Berkhof, 571.

If the church began in some sense at Pentecost (Clowney), then how can Covenant Theologians (CT) affirm that the OT believers were in the church?

If the church began in the OT (Berkhof), then what was the point of Pentecost? Was it merely a helpful add-on to their faith, but really not essential? If it was essential, then how can we explain that the OT believers did not have it?

I recognize that CT will argue that the church existed as believers in Israel during the OT, but the point still remains: if you press for an OT church, the worth of Pentecost is downplayed to some degree. If you flatten the distinctions between the two sections of Scripture, then the most obvious distinction–the coming and permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit–is also ironed out. To exalt the meaning of the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2 is to speak of distinction from the OT, and that is a very difficult shibboleth for many CT’s.

Is this a possible explanation for why Robert Reymond in his otherwise very helpful Systematic Theology devotes a mere 4 pages out of 1,093 to the third member of the Godhead?

Posted in Hermeneutics | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Seven Basic and Brief Pointers for Writers

Posted on 8 April 2013 by Seth Meyers

Though I wasn’t able to figure out how to smoothly reblog this post, I am certainly able to figure out how to cut and paste this excellent list from Doug Wilson.

_____________________

In no particular order of importance, I would encourage those who want to learn the wordriht life to approximate something like the following:

1. Know something about the world, and by this I mean the world outside of books. This might require joining the Marines, or working on an oil rig, or as a hashslinger at a truck stop in Kentucky. Know what things smell like out there.

2. Read. Read constantly. Read the kind of stuff you wish you could write. Read until your brain creaks. Tolkien said that his ideas sprang up from the leaf mold of his mind. These are the trees where the leaves come from.

3. Read mechanical helps. By this I mean dictionaries, etymological histories, books of anecdotes, dictionaries of foreign phrases, books of quotations, books on how to write dialog, and so on. The plot will usually fail to grip, so just read a page a day. If you think it makes you out to be too much of a word-dork, then don’t tell anybody about it.

4. Stretch before your routines. If you want to write short stories, try to write Italian sonnets. If you want to write a novel, write a few essays. If you want to write opinion pieces for the Washington Post, then limber up with haiku.

5. Be at peace with being lousy for a while. Chesterton once said that anything worth doing was worth doing badly. He was right. Only an insufferable egoist expects to be brilliant first time out.

6. Learn other languages, preferably languages that are upstream from ours. This would include Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon. The brain is not a shoebox that “gets full,” but is rather a muscle that expands its capacity with increased use. The more you know the more you can know. The more you can do with words, the more you can do. As it turns out.

7. Keep a commonplace book. Write down any notable phrases that occur to you, or that you have come across. If it is one that you have found in another writer, and it is striking, then quote it, as the fellow said, or modify it to make it yours. If Chandler said that a guy had a cleft chin you could hide a marble in, that should come in useful sometime. If Wodehouse said somebody had an accent you could turn handsprings on, then he might have been talking about Jennifer Nettles of Sugarland. Tinker with stuff. Get your fingerprints on it.

Know when to stop.

Posted in Lists | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Play with Fire

Posted on 7 April 2013 by Seth Meyers

A respected evangelical scholar addresses the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Here is all he wrote on the nature of the torment that unbelievers will experience:

“This suffering, however, is probably more mental than physical, since otherwise the fire could be expected to consume him.” Bock, 1370

He has no other comments about the nature of the punishment except that it is “permanent.” 1363

There are several reasons this line frustrated me, but I’ll focus on the metaphoric fire issue. (“more mental than physical”)

Reasons the metaphoric fire position frustrates me:

1. Inerrancy is brought into question. Even if the words are metaphors, then the meaning of those metaphors is to communicate feelings in the category of terror. Have you ever read someone’s account of metaphoric fire where they clearly expressed the terror of such an experience? The closest I have ever come to such a treatment was by Randy Alcorn in the novel Dominion. (And no, I’m not totally sure that Alcorn holds to the metaphoric fire position. I did email him twice and his secretary responded with links to articles that did not clarify.)

If the meaning of the specific word is to communicate terror, and we interpret it in such a way as to remove that emotion, have we not tampered—to some degree—with inerrancy? We didn’t like the meaning of a word, so we interpreted the word as a picture which allows us enough wiggle room to not be pinned down.

If this is not what is happening, then someone who holds to this position should attempt to clarify things publicly. This may never happen because eternal torment is already viewed as too harsh by many people today.

Furthermore, if fire and torment in Luke 16 are metaphors then shouldn’t they be metaphors in Matthew 5:22, Mark 9:43, 2 Thess. 1:8-9, et. al.? What is to stop “and the evening and the morning were the sixth day” from being a metaphor for millions of years? Or “out of the belly of the fish” in Jonah 2 could be a metaphor for in the middle of hard times. Or “Jesus coming in the clouds of Heaven” could be a metaphor for Roman soldiers coming with the dust of the road behind them. At what point do we say, this is not a valid hermeneutical practice anymore, this is an invalid theological presupposition?

2. Perspicuity is brought into question. Obviously, there are hard statements in the Bible, but this doesn’t have to be one of them. The words in their most natural meaning do not contradict any other Scriptures. Maybe Luke 14:26 is not perspicuous because it appears to contradict other Scriptures. But Luke 16 does not. The only hard thing is that we don’t like it. Not that it creates some contradiction or hermeneutical difficulty. Therefore, the metaphoric fire position removes those portions of Scripture from the hands of laity.

3. Evangelism is potentially discouraged. Somewhere I read once that the mainline denominations could trace their lessening interest in foreign missions to their rejection of certain aspects of God’s judgment.

4. The metaphoric fire position implies an accommodation with cultural or scholarly sensibilities that are repulsed by some of the clear wordings of Scripture. Bock’s response hints at academic gamesmanship. He had 20 pages on the rich man and Lazarus (in a commentary well over 2,000 pages). This story is possibly the clearest and most extensive treatment that Christ gave to the destination of the lost, but he couldn’t find time or space to define clearly or defend the doctrine of Hell.

Certainly, he said many good things. The majority of which were not debated. And yes, he had good insights into a number of different aspects. I’m not bothered at the numerous good things in his treatment, but where there was controversy, he didn’t say much. Why? Because he was totally ignorant? Of course not. Because he didn’t want to start a fire? Possibly so. And if so, then that’s what bothers me.

Posted in Hermeneutics, Orthopathy | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Complete Package: Prosperity Theology Doesn’t Come by Itself

Posted on 25 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

Jesus came to save us from poverty not the wrath of God. That is probably the most succinct definition I can muster for the money message so common in the churches of the developing world. But this one doctrine–like any doctrine in all systems–can’t stand alone. Below is a brief catalog of the ingredients that prosperity stew needs to taste right to the contemporary connoisseur.

Redefined Faith

So to the aid of this New Testament distortion comes a renovated teaching about faith. Thomas Goodwin, leader in the Westminster Assembly, defined faith in these transporting terms:

As the soul sees the spiritual excellency and the glory that is in Jesus Christ, so the will doth set the highest value and esteem upon that excellency that is in him, a value and esteem far above what a man hath for all things whatsoever; and this is to believe.

A lesser son of greater sires wrote,

Saving faith is an ability given by God to agree with the historical facts of the Gospel and to commit to those facts and their implications.

However, the prosperity gospel requires faith to be a kind of force that actually creates reality. In this skewed universe, God has faith and He has to obey those who have this supreme, new age power. Faith is disconnected from believing the Bible and resting in Christ, and has mutated into mindless positive thinking.

I have even been told by business men when they failed to provide the services that I needed and they offered, that I must refrain from saying anything bad or disappointed because I will attract more business failure to myself. How’s that for a convenient way to avoid offering customer service?

By insisting that faith is a power that Christians must harness to get what they want, the leaders have a way to get off the hook when their people are poor. The prosperity gospel cannot handle a robust, Biblical treatment of faith. A faith that is Christ-centered, otherworldly, rejoices in tribulation, hates sin, and is content to be poor as long as God is glorified.

The Little Gods Doctrine

The prosperity gospel also needs an emphasis on the divine nature of humans. Men have to convince themselves that they are actually god. It actually amazes me that this can even be considered Christian doctrine. Yet, there it is on YouTube waiting for all self-professing Christians to walk out on this blasphemy.

As the shtick goes, men are gods because they were made in God’s image. They are gods because God makes us His children which supposedly infuses or releases divinity in humans. But mainly, men are gods because that’s the only way they can defend their unbiblical thinking about money and comfort. Because of our godlike status, we can demand Jehovah to do things for us, and He has to obey.

Charismaticism

At this point some Christians who had previously followed the point and agreed may be frustrated. Yet, agree or not, charismaticism plays a major role in the prosperity gospel. Not all charismatics love money, but all those who love money as it is embodied in the prosperity gospel (that I have ever met, read, or can imagine) also hold to the continuation of the sign gifts.

How do spiritual gifts like tongues, prophecy, and miracles support prosperity theology? Prosperity needs visible demonstrations to offer to their adherents. Rather than looking not at what is seen but what is unseen, they follow modern revivalism with a fixed addiction to tangible shows of power, excitement and interest. Very Wimber-esque, or more properly Finney-ish.

So, here is a brief delineation of the key cogs in the machinery of prosperity theology. Others could be added, but these three are essential. They cannot be eliminated from the system without losing something integral.

_____________________________

In case it is not widely known, Hank Hanegraaff and John MacArthur have done excellent jobs in serving the church by offering some highly readable book-length critiques of this movement. They both quote widely from original sources, and the quotes alone are worth the price of both books.

Posted in Prosperity gospel | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Another Self-esteem Corrective

Posted on 25 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

Ah! If you had no devil to tempt you, no enemies to fight you, and no world to ensnare you, you would still find in yourself evil enough to be a sore trouble to you, for “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”

Charles Spurgeon

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Who Needs the Gospel the Most?

Posted on 22 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

Who Needs the Gospel the Most?Sometime ago, I made this chart in an attempt to rank the need among the least-reached people groups of the world. This chart was made to supplement the excellent work done by the Joshua Project which places a majority of their weight on the category of “percentage of evangelical.”

If you can offer improvements please do. There’s also a longer version available upon request–sethmeyers@odbm.org.

Posted in Missions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Should a Pastor Cancel Church Services for a Funeral?

Posted on 21 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

Funerals are common in Africa with an average life expectancy under 50 in most countries. In South Africa, funerals are often held on Saturday or Sunday, and rarely in the middle of the week. Furthermore, it is culturally expected for funerals to have a large attendance. (Somewhere around 300-500) The service and burial are held in the mornings around 7-10 am.

If the service is on Sunday, should a pastor go? Should he go if it means he has to cancel church? Should he encourage the church service to be canceled so that all the members can support the bereaved? In Luke 9:60 when Jesus said, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the Kingdom of God.” is this the kind of thing He was talking about?

Experience in a village setting, a few years of pastoral care, and reflection on the nature of man suggest these observations and conclusion.

  1. Families can choose what day they want to bury the deceased. There is no cultural requirement to do it on the Lord’s Day morning. And this seems to fit other patterns I’ve noticed. Children are often scheduled to pick up their grade reports on Sunday morning from the schools (why not any other day of the week?). Civic meetings are often held on Sunday mornings. Sunday burials seem to be—for the most part—an expression of a cultural ambivalence toward a consistent prioritization of the Lord’s Day.
  2. Funerals are common. First, the services may be canceled several times a year or more. Secondly, because they are a sadly normal way of life, you will have the chance to support the community at other times. And since so many people attend each one, it is not as if the pastor will be shockingly conspicuous by his absence (unless the pastor is the only drop of milk in a bowl of chocolate).
  3. African funerals are multi-day events. Often the funeral will begin a week in advance with nightly meetings at the house. The attendance grows throughout the week culminating in the morning burial service. The weeknight meetings begin throughout the afternoon as people drop in to visit and talk. Some stay for hours, some for less time. On Wednesday-Friday, the grave is dug as well as cleaning and preparations at the house. After the service, those closest to the family have to break down the tent and clean up. If a pastor wants to communicate love and support, these times are more opportune than the burial service to be involved.
  4. Burial services come in stages. The first service is at the home for an hour or so. Then everyone shifts to the grave for another hour while the men shovel the dirt and place the bricks on top. Then everyone regathers at the house for a full meal. It is possible, though not common, to leave before the meal if the attendee is willing to forego a well-cooked, free meal and conversation.
  5. Our commitment to Jesus Christ should be of such intensity that others could mistake our natural affections as being a kind of hatred. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

From these observations, I’ve reached the conclusion that services should not be canceled.

Posted in Ethical dilemmas | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

What is Man?

Posted on 19 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

“I was wishing that I came of a more honourable lineage,” said Caspian.

“You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” said Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth.”

C. S. Lewis, Prince Caspian

Posted in Orthopathy, Quotes | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

An Orthopathic View of Christ

Posted on 16 March 2013 by Seth Meyers

Then the Prince commanded that a herald should be called, and that he should, in the midst and throughout the camp of Emmanuel proclaim, and that with sound of trumpet, that the Prince, the Son of Shaddai, had, in his Father’s name, and for his Father’s glory, gotten a perfect conquest and victory over Mansoul.

John Bunyan, The Holy War

Posted in Orthopathy, Quotes | Tagged , , | Leave a comment