Ephesians 1:3 — a few thoughts

My daily reading had me in Ephesians 1, a familiar and favorite passage. It seemed a good idea to share just a few thoughts with you from verse 3 —

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ

Blessed! the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ.... [DJP]

Thought the first: the threefold repetition of different words for "bless(ing)" should caution us against always assuming that every word has exactly the same meaning every time it's used. Here, the same author in the same breath uses the word in two senses. When applied to us (the second two uses) it means something like "to bestow a boon"; when applied to God, it means something like "to give praise and glory for bestowing boons."

Thought the second: every one of these blessings are the possession of every last genuine Christian, with no further distinction. Unlike Pentecostals and Deeper-Lifers, Paul never envisions a two-tier Christianity. To him, there are only two tiers, period: in Christ, outside of Christ. In Christ, one possesses every one of the spiritual blessings of which he speaks.

(I develop this a bit more in The World-Tilting Gospel. < /shameless plug >)

Thought the third: the blessings are expressly said to be spiritual. Paul knows full well that God has not, in this life, blessed us with every worldly blessing. Far from it (1 Corinthians 1:26-28).

But it is clear that the apostle's perspective is that, in being blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ, our lot is far better from those who have been blessed with every worldly blessing outside of Christ.

Thought the fourth: note that Paul goes on to detail what he means by "every spiritual blessing." He means election, adoption, redemption, predestination. Those who kick at those Biblical truths are kicking at God's richest provisions for all His children.

Thought the fifth: Paul is, as we see in chapters 5 and 6, writing to husbands, wives, slaves, slave-owners, and children. And what does he write about, in writing to these people? Spiritual truths in the heavenlies. To be specific, he writes to children, to slaves, to ill-educated commoners, about election and predestination and God's plan for the ages. There is no sign that he would have had any patience with those who hold back those truths as too advanced, meaty, or deep for common Christians.

Thought the sixth: this blessed truth, which drives Paul to praise, is true of you and me if we are in Christ, period, without further qualification. If you are out of work, all this is true of you.  If you are in a rough marriage, all this is true of you. If you are in poor health, all this is true of you. If your kids are breaking your hearts, all this is true of you. Nothing on earth can alter or affect this truth.

But only if you are in Christ.

Are you?

If so... blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Illogical logic example: "proof" that the Tea Party is racist

I know a lot of people would like it if the Tea party movement were racist, so they could marginalize it, and ignore it. All I know for certain is that there have been rivers of accusations, but ne'er a trickle of actual, unambiguous, unmanipulated evidence.

But I want to focus very briefly on a bit of "logic" I heard Wednesday on Michael Medved's show. A very polite caller was trying hard to pin "racism" on the Tea Party. One of his proofs went like this:

1. Do you deny that most of the Tea Party is white?
2. Doesn't that prove that it is racist?

I didn't think that either the guest-host or his guest (R. Emmett Tyrrell) got to the heart of that progression, beyond heartily denying the charge. Well, one of them did ask whether the NBA was also racist by the same token, but the point seemed to elude the caller entirely.

I think part of why they didn't hammer the heart of the charge is that the charge itself puts one on the defensive. Honestly, how do you prove you're not a racist? "Some of my best friends are ____" is ridiculed as a response — but why isn't it actually a pretty good answer?

Regardless, it is deucedly hard to prove a negative. "Here, look! Here's a picture of me not being a racist!" Worse, the more you defend yourself, the guiltier you look.

And let's face it, to most of the accusers, the evidence phase of this trial is a mere formality. It's like Sherriff Cobb in the movie Silverado promising, "We're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging."

What I wanted to ask the caller is, "Do you have evidence of rivers of 'colored' people trying to join the movement and being shut out because of their skin-color?"

(In fact, I wanted to ask the caller if he wanted to join up, right then and there. When he declined, I'd ask him whose fault that was.)

I think the same thing about the GOP. One hears constantly that the GOP has to "reach out" to "people of color." Well, okay, fine... but how? First, show me evidence that "people of color" are trying to get in to the party, and are being shut out in some way. Then, stop that.

Why is the onus on conservatives to explain why more people of color don't join their efforts? Why, rather, isn't the onus on non-whites to explain what their issue is with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with individual liberty and responsibility in a Judeo-Christian moral framework, with protecting babies, with sanity regarding marriage, with opposing tyranny and securing our borders? Why isn't the onus on them to explain why they want to support efforts to regulate everything, legislate everything, tax everything, flatten everything, turn everyone into dependent and subservient wards of the State?

In particular, why isn't the onus on non-whites who profess faith in Christ, yet voted for a man who opposes every distinctively Christian value they hold, a man with whom they share (or should share) no bonds except pigmentation? Church parking lots with cars still bearing Obama stickers — there is a problem.

I think that's where the burden of explanation lies. In saying that, I am also confessing that I don't know the answer. I know of some forces that have contributed... but if you show me a manure-pile, and I then dive into it, it isn't you who has the 'splaining to do.

I'll be completely candid. I don't know one conservative, private or public, who wouldn't weep for joy (virtually or actually) to see "minorities" pouring into the conservative movement and filling up positions of leadership.

Also: everything I've just finished saying about the conservative movement goes double for Calvinistic Christians.

So in sum: I'm not even close to being convinced that the blame for white majority numbers among conservatives — or Calvinists — lays on whites themselves.

Not even close.

"Taking a step of faith" — a few thoughts

There are two kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who know about Francis Chan's decision to leave his pastorate for an array of various activities
2. Those who'd say, "Who's she?"

"She" is a he, Francis with an "i." He's an author, a pastor, a surferdude, and whatever fame he had was multiplied by Justin Taylor finding him newsworthy. Now, that's fame.

Chan did at least a video and some written communication explaining this decision, which you can see at the link. Doubtless there will be more. I have not watched the video, I won't make it a focus of study. I just want to offer a few remarks about his written explanation. My focus is really the remarks, and not Francis Chan himself. His words form a springboard. Clear enough?

They're a springboard because they reflect phrases one hears among "evangelicals," phrases which I think haven't been examined closely enough. I'll single out two.

The target quotation

...Lisa and I believe God is calling us to take a step of faith. We believe we are supposed to move into a major city such as LA, San Francisco, or New York. ...I’m still not completely sure of everything, but it feels great to be living by faith.

"God is calling us... we are supposed to move"

The whole picture summons to mind the call of Abram, which I think is probably either deliberate or semi-deliberate. Is that a fair allusion?

This is what a Biblically-minded interviewer would ask Chan. "Are you likening this move to Abram's move from Ur?", I would ask. To anything like an affirmative response, I would follow up with this: "So are you saying that you received an inerrant, verbal, prophetic, morally-binding revelation directly from God, apart from Scripture, telling you that you needed to walk away from your pastoral commitment abruptly and go off doing other unspecified things?"

If he means anything else, Chan is drawing from some spiritual authority other than Scripture. That is what a Biblical writer would mean, unless it were Paul speaking of the effectual call to salvation (which clearly does not fit). "God is calling us" must mean that, to a Biblically-oriented Christian.

If Chan is saying he receives direct, prophetic, inerrant revelation, he should be made to say so up-front, so that all Christians can see his orientation and respond accordingly. If he is not, he should be held accountable, encouraged to drop the spiritualized lingo, and made to say whatever the truth is. "I was bored"; "I was curious"; "My kids hate it here"; whatever. Say it, and take responsibility for the decision. Don't try to put it off on God.

This matters, for reasons I've explained literally countless times. Note: "we are supposed to move."  That is the language of moral obligation. If Chan does not do this, then — if he disobeys a commandment from God that he leave his pastorate — he is committing a Hell-worthy sin.

Again, Chan needs to be called on this. Christians who look up to him need him to be called on it. Should they do the same? If they "believe" God is calling them to leave their jobs in IT Support or truck-driving or whatever, the jobs by which they feed their families and pay their creditors, are they similarly morally-obliged to lurch off in that direction? How can they tell? How did he?

One more.

"...take a step of faith... it feels great to be living by faith"

What does Chan mean? In the Bible, faith was defined by its first mention. Remember where that was? Why, it takes us back to Abram once again: "And he believed [Yahweh], and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). What we have here is two things:

1. A word from God
2. An embrace of that word

That's faith, in a nutshell. That is what it is in Scripture. It is a response to a word (or words) from God.

Brings us right back to the first issue, doesn't it? Did Francis Chan have a direct word from God? I know of no Bible verse saying "Francis Chan should bail on his church." Or anything like it.

So how is this a step of faith? I know, I know it's common Christianoid coinage. And I think that's bad. We should mean what the Bible means, or stop saying it. Specifically:

1. When I trust Christ alone for my salvation, with no backup plan and no supplements, I am stepping out in faith.
2. When I invest my time and energy in studying the Bible, worshiping God, laying up treasures in Heaven, I am stepping out in faith.
3. When I fix my hope completely on the grace to be revealed at Christ's return, I am stepping out in faith.

I could go on and on, with about as many specifics as the Bible has verses. But you catch my drift, I hope.

Further, Chan says it "feels great" to be living by faith. No doubt. So, the guys who go to work 5:30-2:30, 8-4, 9-5 — are they living by faith? Can they feel great? The guys who count the cost, who make plans, who take counsel, who are responsible and rational and God-honoring in their use of their brains and means, who do not try to blame God for decisions that are theirs to make, who maybe stick with a job for 5, 10, 20, 40 years — can they feel great too?

I think they should, because that's the Biblical way to make decisions.

Now, perhaps Chan means, "I have come to the conclusion that this is the best stewardship of the gifts God gave me. I did so for the following reasons: ____." Or, "I did so for reasons I discussed thoroughly with my wife and with some wise, Biblically-faithful counselors." Then he should say, "I still have a responsibility to provide for my family and pay my bills in the following way. I would never presume on God to foot the bill for irresponsible, impulsive behavior, and I would not want to encourage anyone to behave that way. We trust God to bless the preaching of His word in new venues, as He has promised."

But he didn't say that. And he needs to be called on it.

Why?

I've already said, but repetition is sound pedagogy, so here goes: because Chan has chosen to become a leader, and people look up to him.

There are scads of impulsive, glandular, irresponsible Christianoids trying to blame God for their immaturity, impulsiveness, and irresponsibility. These are precisely the terms they use as a pretext. It makes them look holy and spiritual, but in Biblical terms, they are not.

As I do the math, I just am not seeing the numbers indicating that God benefits by being shamed by more irresponsible, immature Christians blaming Him for their lame behavior. Just do not see it.

Maybe — and I really mean this, sincerely — Chan has a bevy of wonderful, solid, God-honoring reasons for making this decision. He should feature those reasons centrally, if so.

Otherwise, I see this as a harmful example. Teachers are judged harshly for what they say and how they phrase it. We should know that, going in (James 3:1).

Therefore, I'm not asking too much, and Christians at large should ask no less.

UPDATE 1: I have written a response to the suggestions that I am obliged to listen to Chan's video, or read this or that other statement, before I may this letter he wrote. That post can be found here.

UPDATE 2: one of the comments in this meta became the feature of another post.

On blogging: philosophy, etiquette, strategery

General intro

As I've said elsewhere, I believe in the promise and reality of blogging. The apostle Paul either would have done it, would have had his trainees do it — or both. It's a mode of outreach bristling with tantalizing potentials.

So I get glaze-eyed when people announce they're sick of it, they're giving up on it, this, that, whatever. I look for an explanation. Maybe something burned them; if so, it's wise (I opine) to recover and get back to blogging. If bad commenters/bloggers drive out good bloggers, the terrorists win.

Or maybe the retiring blogger found a more fruitful outreach, like being offered Rick Warren's pulpit while he reforms his worldview. Or something. If it's more fruitful and precludes blogging, go for it. Otherwise, if you've something worth saying, stay with it.

I have some thoughts I'd like to share on... well, see the title. Do I have the right to pontificate? Oh mercy me, no. But I think I may have accumulated the cred to offer some pointers born of experience. Apply as you see fit, remembering that your mileage may vary.

Philosophy

You need to decide what you intend to accomplish. If you just need an ID so you can comment on blogs, then don't bother writing any posts. If you just want to post occasional updates about your family, go for it, and be content with the 3-22 visits you get a day. (Truly, I'm not being sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with that as a goal.) If you just want to offer 2-5 very important thoughts that you can refer people to later, that's fine, too.

How do you decide?

1. Pray for God's help in thinking it through.
2. Invite (and listen to) counsel from wise friends with the time to give it (Proverbs 15:22; 20:18; 27:6b, 17).
3. Consider where your passions lie.

Expanding on number three: maybe you look at some blog you admire and think, "That looks easy and fun. I want to do that!" Sure... but are you writing now? Have you always written, a lot? Have people enjoyed your writing? Have you journaled, written letters, created stories, done essays — without being forced to do it by a teacher or boss?

See, if you don't love to write, your blogging-impact will be minimal. You have to keep writing, if you want people to keep coming. If you don't love to write, then keeping writing will become a ball and chain. It won't be fun for anyone. So don't.

Having done this, then...

You need to pursue your goal. Be disciplined. Write. Keep writing. Write more.

What are some practical ways to do this?

1. Always have some recording-device with you — pen and paper, smart-phone, PDA, something.
2. As you read the Bible and books and papers and web sites, jot down thoughts that strike you which might become a post.
3. Do the same as you hear sermons.
4. Do the same as you walk, wait in line, watch TV, drive (safety first).
5. As soon as you can, take any of these ideas and start a post. If it bubbles out full-blown, finish the post. If you only have a nub, start it and do an outline to be finished later.

Strategery and etiquette

So let's say you have your goal in mind, you have some idea what you're doing, you have something worth saying, and you have skill in saying it.

Naturally, you want people to read it. You don't want to be talking to yourself in a grand echo-chamber. You want to make a difference, have an impact — unless, as I said, you just want family and a few friends to drop by occasionally for personal updates.

How do you do that? I offer a do, a don't, and two do's.

Do read broadly. Go to a number of blogs. See how the effective writers are doing it. You probably already know who they are. Check the blogrolls at Pyro and elsewhere for ideas. See who your favorite bloggers tend to quote, and read them. Develop your own tastes. Learn from the accomplished and experienced.

The next is important, and I will shout it.

DO NOT abuse your hosts by littering their comment-threads with self-serving ads! Maybe I'm only speaking for myself — but I very much doubt it. I think few things in the world are (A) more annoying and (B) less effective than comments which read "Nice blog. Come check mine out (link)."

You've written about the deity of Christ, about the fall of America, about penal substitutionary atonement, about marriage... and someone comments, "Nice blog. Come check mine out (link)."

Do that, and three things are likely to happen.

1. A few will indeed visit - once.
2. The host will think dark thoughts of you.
3. Most commenters will think the same.

You only get one shot at a first-impression, and that's a bad way to take it.

A much better idea is....

DO write brief, concise, meaty, well-phrased, relevant comments engaging the posts on your favorite blogs. What gets me to visit the blog of a complete stranger I've never heard of in my life? A great comment. I don't care who it is, I don't care if (s)he is a no-name: if (s)he posts a sharp, witty, pithy comment on my or anyone's blog, I am going to click on the name, go to the profile, and visit that blog.

Now, in this context only, it may be perfectly fine to say "I think A, B, and C about this post, and wrote a bit more about it here."

But that is the best honest way to attract readers. Go to blogs people read, read them, and interact meaningfully and (if I may say it this way) tastily. Folks will legitimately want to know more of what you think.

Do have something worth reading once they come to visit. Many times, a pithy commenter at one blog becomes a verbose rambler at his own. The comment draws visitors once, but a barrage sends them on their way. Better to write two really good concise posts than one long, rambling one.

Which seems like a good note on which to end.

Hope this helps.

Fascinated by a grossly-overused word

M'man Andy Naselli had a post on the Harry Potter books, in the meta of which I made some comments which were then roundly-ignored. But two comments after mine, a writer begins, "I am fascinated by the argument that...."

Oh. My. Gosh. "Fascinated"? Are you? Are you really?

So, the argument makes you drop everything, sit down limp and slack-jawed, and just ponder? Ponder in rapt engrossment, in helpless musing and reflection? Eyes glazed, all other activities or responsibilities forgotten, as this one concept holds you as a helpless captive?

Really?

The reason this poor soul came into my cross-hairs is that I am just saturated to bursting with the over-use of the adjective "fascinating." You aren't? Oh, then subject yourselves to fifteen minutes of Dennis Prager (if your head doesn't explode under the unceasing barrage of first-person singular pronouns), or of Michael Medved.

I mean, good heavens, how do these two men ever get anything done? EVERYTHING fascinates them! Everything! This argument, that point, the other subject; this book, that person, the other movie. It's all "fascinating"!

Nothing is mildly interesting, nothing is worth noting, nothing is of passing import. It's all "faaaaaaascinating"!

Honestly, how do you get through your day, when every single object of thought causes your hands to release what they are holding, your jaw muscles to let go, and your legs to collapse? When everything seizes hold of your undivided attention, keeping every power of the brain in a vicelike death-grip? How? How?

...

Okay, I feel a little better now.

I think the Inigo Montoya hypothesis is what most likely applies here — only not about the word "inconceivable."

When "damned" isn't a swear-word: a few words about cancer

Some words are irredeemable. For some words, there is no context in which they are not offensive and wrong, and surely under the condemnation of Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4.

"Damned" is not one of those words. It's a janus-word; it can turn either way. If you're throwing it at an uncooperative computer program, or a stripped screw, or a car, or (worst of all) a person, I think it falls under that condemnation. Christians should never use it thus.

However there is a sober Christian use: to describe the reprobate, the dead who are under God's eternal sentence of condemnation. Then it is a substantive, and it is appropriate: the damned, people justly without hope forever.

Or it is properly used as a simple adjective to describe such a person or fate. The KJV uses some variation in 15 verses: damnation (11 verses), damned (3 verses), damnable (1 verse). Each translates a Greek word for "judgment" (i.e. krima, krisis, katakrima, etc.).

And so I have said (for instance) "damn cancer, anyway," and meant it. When I do, it isn't a pique. It's that I hate cancer, a lot. I see it as yet another dark, death-dealing fruit of the Fall. When Adam heard God warn him that, if he were to eat the forbidden fruit, môt tāmût — "You will surely die" — he had no idea the black, teeming, swarming hordes of pestilent miseries that lay behind the words.

Or so I hope, charitably. But I've often wished that I could flash back in time, and show him. Show Adam a montage of what was lurking behind that shiny, delightful-looking fruit. Show him what his moment's disregard of God, his attempted twitting of his Creator, would bring on himself and all his children.

Would it have mattered to him? No clue. I've known enough people to walk into (and persist within) absolutely ruinous, idiotic sin, completely heedless.

So I see cancer as a result of Adam's sin, of the Fall. And I see cancer as having no part in the new heavens and the new earth. When God deals with sin and its effects, He will deal with cancer.

My first memory of cancer was a little seven-year-old boy named Todd, who lived just down the street from me. Little Christian boy, and I was a new Christian myself. He had cancer. Horrible, just horrible; heart-breaking. He died in 1975, and his mother actually wrote a book about it.

Then I remember a friend's dad, lung cancer again. And others. There have been minor bouts in my family as well.

The worst of course was my dear father. Walking into work today, I spoke with a man older than I, who talks on the phone with his 91 year old dad every morning. Older than I, but his dad still lives. I really envy him.

Now, were my dad alive, he would be 103. Bet he might have made it, too. His was a long-lived family, and Dad was in very good health at 86.

Until that damned cancer took him.

My dad died of bone cancer, after months of painful mis-treatment under the misdiagnosis of arthritis. "Heart-breaking" is a pale description. I had dreams for months and months after his death. Cancer is such a vicious tease, such a robber, such a heartless, cruel villain.

The pastor of the church we're attending has a special ministry to cancer sufferers; a fellow in that church recently learned he has bone cancer, and is clearly and quite understandably scared.

So yeah, I feel about cancer as Joni does about her wheelchair. In her terrific talk at the DG conference on suffering, Joni speaks of finally seeing Jesus, of thanking Him for what He taught her through that wheelchair, and then saying, "...and you can send it to Hell now."

Amen.

And He can damn cancer there, too.

Before I leave this topic, however, I'd be remiss not to say one more word. Perhaps you have cancer; enough people stop by this blog from all over that it is possible.

What you need is life, life that no cancer can take away. There is only one way to find life, one source of life, and that source is Jesus, who is the Resurrection and the Life. He is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Him.

Learn how to find that life in Jesus, and come to Him. Because whether cancer lies in your future or not, death is a certainty. Only a fool faces death unprepared.

Don't be that fool.

At the 500K+ mark: on blogging — history, thoughts, and pointers

History. I think it was Hugh Hewitt's giddy discovery and promotion of blogging that finally moved me to dip my toe in, with that first post of 11/24/2004. Hewitt was so taken with blogging that he wrote a book on the subject, so he was beating that drum a lot as I listened on the drive home.

As with most things, I didn't understand it at first, then was slow to adopt. But ever since I became muzzily aware of The Internets in the 90's, since Algore's invention of them, I looked for ways to use the forum for Biblical witness. I was involved in discussion groups and forums such as FreeRepublic and other avenues that allowed any degree of free speech to Christians. Very often the setting was hostile, as it was when I was one of very few Christian voices on a Babylon 5 group which was often visited by its atheist creator, J. Michael Straczynski.

That was... lively.

In an attempt to make relatively untrolled discussion possible, I tried a couple of message boards. But they were invaded by unhinged trolls. One of them variously declared himself demon-possessed, and harped only on irrelevant anti-American themes. Banned under one IP, he'd get another. He eventually obliterated every last post by posting dozens and dozens of one-letter or two-letter "comments."

Somewhere around there I bought the http:www.bibchr.com site, to put up some of my writings. But it didn't allow for interaction, and I wasn't tech-savvy enough to make it a pretty or dynamic site. It continues (A) because of the simple URL, and (B) as a place for me to refer to my apologetic, Gospel, and Christian-growth writings, among a number of others.

Blog. So Hugh Hewitt (I think it was) got me into blogging...and someone got me to reading Phil Johnson's solo blog in particular. Wish I could remember who. I had known of Phil from his Spurgeon web site, and also from his bookmarks site. In fact, I'd tried to get listed on his bookmarks site.

EPIC FAIL!

I took to commenting at Phil's site, and others, and putting up my occasional posts on marriage, and Christian involvement in public life, and Pat Robertson. I even sort of tag-teamed with Phil, though I didn't know whether he knew me from Adam.

Then came the fateful email I've spoken of often, in which Phil invited me to team-blog with him and Frank (who I didn't know from Adam). I was so thunderstruck that I was afraid to answer. Surely Phil had the wrong "Dan." Just enjoy the dream one more day....

But it was real, and here we are. It's being a terrific blessing, and a terrific opportunity, and a terrific way to network. I'll write about the opportunity aspect in another post, Lord willing.

This blog is probably what you'd call a moderate-traffic blog, while Pyromaniacs is a high-traffic blog. I may average 700-800 visits a day during the week, which is... startling. But at Pyro it's more like 3000. There, we passed a million a long time ago. It will take me longer to get there.

But let me just finish with two disparate thoughts:

1. I really believe in blogging. F. F. Bruce's Paul: the Apostle of the Heart Set Free was disappointing in many ways. But one thing stood out. Paul was a man who used absolutely every ability, every aspect, every opportunity he could lay his hands on to do one thing: spread the Word. I have no doubt whatever that he would either be a blogger, or he'd have his apprentices at it. What other way to catch people from all over the globe, any hour of the day or night, and give them the Word? I believe in it even more today than the day I started.
2. Do you want more people to read your blog, but you're nobody? Two simple rules. (1) Do not link-troll. (2) Do interact with excellence. Simple as that. Few are more obnoxious than first-timers who say "Great site! Please come see my blog, tell me what you think!" All you'll give yourself is a stink around your name. Plus, few will do as you ask. Perhaps nobody. But if you go and get to know blogs you like, spend some time, get to know what's going on, interact meaningfully and articulately and pointedly and succinctly — then others will say, "Hey, this brother/sister is pretty sharp. Wonder if (s)he has a blog." And before you know it, Bob's your uncle. And maybe you'll still be nobody, but some somebody will give you an opportunity. Then, who knows?
3. Do you want people to keep reading your blog? Make short posts, as a rule. I know bloggers whose comments are models of pithy succinctness... and then their posts are 20000-word epics. Avoid that.

One Dan's opinion, your mileage may vary.

"Mystery"

"To say that something is mysterious
is not to say that nothing can be said of it."

(D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? [Baker:1990], 229)

Good men = good views? Yes, and not necessarily... respectively

This starts with m'man Andy Naselli noting that Dr. Thomas Schreiner has evidently gone from amill to premill.

Well, that's great. I'm happy for Schreiner, he should be premill. Everybody should be premill. You have to understand, to me, that's a bit like saying that someone has gone from thinking the world is flat to thinking it's more of a spherical sort of thing: that's great, I'm happy for you, welcome aboard... er, what took you?

I've been listening to Schreiner's sermon.
In it, Dr. Schreiner makes the point that "good Christians have different views on the millennium" — and that will be my focus.

The professor is absolutely right. I'll go one better: excellent Christians, some of the very best Christians ever, hold different views on the millennium.

I'll be more expansive still — and anyone who's heard me much, has heard me say this.

• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think that attaching spiritual significance to sprinkling water on babies makes any kind of New Covenant sense, and further think that it has some relation to what the Bible calls "baptism."
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think churches should be run by majority-vote.
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think the Christian Church is Israel, and that all of the OT prophecies of judgment on Israel are literal and apply to ethnic Israel, while all of the OT prophecies of blessing are spiritual and apply to the post-Pentecost church.

Anyone who knows me knows I don't say these things to "sound gracious," or to "sound humble." To me, those statements are duh-statements, on the level of saying that water is "powerful wet stuff." I mean, good heavens — Machen? Calvin? Knox? the Hodges? Warfield? Dabney? E. J. Young? John Owen? Hel-lo? You're kidding me, right?

Here's the problem. The implication some people would draw from this statement is, "...so these other views are good views, too."


Well no, they're really not, to my mind. At least not equally.

For instance, that baby-sprinkling thing. It is not a good view. It is a bad view held by good (excellent!) men. I have heard it explained by men of whom I seriously think very highly... and it just gets more and more absurd with each telling.

Or take the "spiritual Israel" thing. Splendid men hold that view. But it's not a good view. It's a bad view held by good men. E. J. Young was one of the most wonderful OT scholars ever to put words on paper. But when he explains that Isaiah 2 is all about the Christian church's missionary efforts, but Isaiah 4 is about literal judgment on ethnic Israel, that isn't the text talking. It's a good man expressing a bad view.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. I've been in countless discussions where, "Well, ____ holds that view" is adduced as if it were an argument. As if I'm going to say, "What? Carson? You mean D. A. Carson? Great howling potato bugs, I'm changing my view!"

Insofar as the point is "It isn't as it only pinheads believe X; after all, A B and C are hardly pinheads, and they believe X," I grant the point. Just don't try to make more of it than it is. Great men can be wrong. In fact, great men are always wrong about something.

And the greatest of the greats would be the first to admit it.

This comes up afresh in some connection with today's Pyro post. Unless I've pre-emptively headed them off, I'll be very surprised if someone doesn't say, "But Dr. FamousEvangelical loves the TNIV, Professor Calvinhead was on the committee, and Pastor BelovedPreacher thinks pluralizing singles wins more souls than Whitefield ever did."

And I'll say, "What a great guy. What a bad idea."

The fear of man lays a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe
(Proverbs 29:25)

POSTSCRIPT: isn't this awfully arrogant of me? Since arrogance is a sin, and I'm woefully vulnerable to any sin, that's a strong possibility. All I can tell you is that, in these cases, my honest thought is that the data is really strong and clear, and my honest feeling is along the lines of "Good heavens, if even a pinhead like me can see that...."

Depression (bi-polar and otherwise) and jerkiness

I don't really have a feel for Mike Adams as a writer. He alludes to attending church; his bio says he's an ex-atheist and has an MA in Psychology; he publishes on Townhall, so he's some kind of conservative... but that's about it.

Adams just wrote You Aren't Bipolar, You're Just a Jerk! If you're interested in the topics of depression in general, or bipolar illness in particular, give it a read, then come back. If neither interests you, feel free to give this post a pass. But please read Adams first if you mean to read on here. (And btw, if you start, try to finish it — I think he takes a few unexpected turns.)

*** *** *** *** ***

All done? Welcome back.

I find Adams' post a maddening mix of the brilliant and the irresponsible. There are countless folks who really do need to read it, take it to heart, stop hiding themselves behind lame excuses, get the heck over themselves, and grow the heck up. They might also read this post, and get a clue.

But equally there are others who would read it, and simply be crushed and broken by his uncaring, ham-fisted, over-simplistic over-generalizations.

Remember: "Whoever sings songs to a heavy heart is like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, and like vinegar on soda" (Proverbs 25:20).

Also remember: "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15).

Bipolar? I don't understand "bipolar illness," the current name for what used to be called manic-depression. But I knew a sufferer very well, years ago, and weathered several cycles with this poor soul. I could not for the life of me draw the line between the "OK-(s)he-can-do-something-about-this" and the "only-medication-can-help." I'm pretty confident both are there — given the catatonic state I witnessed on the one hand, and the frenetic, days-without-sleep, on-cocaine-without-the-cocaine behavior.

Depression? I know depression a little better, more's the pity, because I've been there. I was there deeply, and for years. That was years ago, thank God, but the memory is as vivid as the monitor in front of my eyes. And I'm still more inclined to melancholy than its reverse. ("Full of angst" was a startlingly on-target observation a dear friend once made.)

During one particular extended period, I did everything Adams said. I gave myself for others, again and again and again. It made me feel more depressed and alone. I exercised, every day, sweat pouring off me. I prayed. I memorized.

Now, I can also tell you things I should have done differently. My point is neither that I was the helpless victim of an external force, nor that I even really fully understand what happened.

My point is that simplistic, hand-dusting, "There-that-ought-to-fix-it" formulas (when presented in that manner) probably do more harm than good.

People are different. (Deep, eh? I'm full of stuff like that. It just flows.)

I can prove it.

Look at Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Totally different temperaments.

Look at Nehemiah and Ezra. Totally different temperaments. (Further, check this post.)

Look at Johns MacArthur and Piper. These worthy, productive, God-loving gents were being interviewed at a conference. Piper mentioned a period of depression he had gone through that had lasted years.

Pause.

"Years?" came MacArthur's incredulous question.

See, these men are just put together different. MacArthur simply cannot imagine being down or blue for that long. It isn't in his makeup.

But obviously Piper can. And obviously I can. For myself, I wish I were more like MacArthur than Piper in this regard. But ah, well. I am what I am, and that's what I need to deal with.

Obviously this could be a very long post, and it isn't going to be. I'll just close with a few thoughts.

1. A depressed person should talk with his pastor. He should read Scripture. He might check out Lloyd-Jones' Spiritual Depression. He could try what Adams suggests, all of which are good ideas as far as they go.
2. If those measures, undertaken seriously and prayerfully and with persistence, don't address it, maybe it's something else.
3. People trying to help depressed people should study Scriptures about patience, longsuffering, and compassion. They should eschew simplistic quick-fixes. What worked for you may not work for someone else; if it doesn't, it doesn't mean you're better than someone else.
4. Remember, identical symptoms can have totally different causes. Here's Bob. Bob says he is a Christian. Bob is plagued with guilt. What to do? Simple, right? Tell him the blood of Jesus covers all his sins, he's saved by grace, leave it at the Cross, and move on, right? Right — unless Bob is plagued with guilt because he is walking in known, unrepented sin; unless Bob is shaking his fist in God's face every day. In that case, Bob doesn't need comfort. He needs repentance. He may even need to become a Christian.

So, was this post everything I can say about depression?

No sir, no ma'am.

It was just a few thoughts provoked by Adams' column.

Now, discuss.

UPDATE: there is now a re-posted companion-piece over at Pyro.

Memorial Day: Kevin DeYoung's thoughts, plus one

Kevin DeYoung posts on Why Memorial Day is Worth Remembering (h-t-Justin). DeYoung gives five good reasons, and it's worth a read.

I'd just add a sixth reason: as Christians, we must never forget that our freedom in Christ is not free. It costs us nothing; it cost Jesus everything He had to give. Jesus "loosed us from our sins by His blood" (Revelation 1:5). He gave His soul, His life, His shed blood, to pay the price to set us free (Matthew 20:28).

The freedom purchased for us Americans by our soldiers is of infinitely less value, that is true. They were not spotless and pure as Jesus was, also true. Not all died completely voluntarily as Jesus did, also true.

However, that I can homeschool my kids and worship publicly where I choose; that I still have some degree of freedom to criticize the current administration;that my native language is American English instead of German or Japanese or King Georgian English or Arabic — this freedom is not mine for free. Other men died that my family and I might be assured this freedom.

It's worth a day to recognize that fact, and pray for our living troops that more of them not be honored by it next year.

Star Trek afterthoughts

(This is a follow up to the previous Star Trek impressions.)

Star Trek (the original) was a series with a very definite worldview: atheistic, secular humanism.

Its vision was of mankind naturally outgrowing all its violence and hatred, and coming together in a massive global (then interstellar) Federation. This wasn't just a plot-device. It was creator Gene Roddenberry's alternate religion.

Tim Bertolet discusses both Roddenberry's humanism and his personal immorality and egotism here and here. It's sad but hardly surprising to find that Roddenberry was a womanizer. Based on decades of observation, very frequently it's just this simple: scratch a virulent anti-Christian, and you simply find someone who wants to have a lot of immoral sex.

Which maybe explains Hollywood. But I digress.

Did you know Roddenberry went to a Baptist church as a youngun? Here's what he later said:

I listened to the sermon, and I remember complete astonishment because what they were talking about were things that were just crazy. It was communion time, where you eat this wafer and are supposed to be eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. My first impression was, "This is a bunch of cannibals they’ve put me down among!" For some time, I puzzled over this and puzzled over why they were saying these things, because the connection between what they were saying and reality was very tenuous. How the h___ did Jesus become something to be eaten?

In fact, we learn that Roddenberry was in church because of his mother, and was mostly interested (sexually) in the deacon's daughter. Not a deep man, not a good listener, and not a profound thinker.

And that was the world of Star Trek. Not only no God, but no recognizable human religion whatever to speak of in the original series. This was by Roddenberry's design.

It contrasts starkly with Babylon 5, which came along a couple of decades later. Creator J. Michael Straczynski, though himself an atheist, dealt thoughtfully and more realistically with issues of faith and religion.

This worldview is a pipedream, however. It ignores man's dilemma and deepest needs, and God's provision for both.

So I watch the movie and notice that at one point an authority-figure says: "Godspeed."

That's unique, in the ST universe. Will the rebooted Star Trek do the Roddenberry, stick its fingers in its collective ears and do a "La la la I can't hear you" on the subject of God? Or will He come up?

Answer that and you answer whether future ST movies will be stimulating on more levels than fun, laughs, and special-effects eye-candy.

Not that I'm opposed to fun, laughs, and special-effects eye-candy, mind you.

New category: moderate Calvinism, 5-point Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, and...

...silly Calvinism.

By this I mean the sort of Calvinism that looks like a self-parody. It takes the truth of God's sovereignty and blots out other balancing Biblical truths such as human responsibility and the evil of evil.

It's the sort of Calvinism that shrinks from calling bad things bad things, as Scripture certainly and unhesitatingly does — even right up against God's sovereignty (i.e. Genesis 50:20).

For instance: I love and respect John Piper. He's done me great good, and I expect he's going to do me a lot more good. I get and give and recommend his books and sermons.

But I'm not a Rom-Piper-an Catholic with Piper as my pope. I'm not obliged to rubber-stamp everything he says and does.

But I think sometimes brother Piper gets a little... well, giddy.

For instance, as I remarked, Piper's statements about Obama on the eve of the election were regrettable and unhelpful, as I remarked at the time. Since then he's evidently discovered to his chagrin (the very thing we here at this blog all knew full well long ago) — that Obama is a merciless, doctrinaire, pedal-to-the-metal pro-abort extremist. Well, that's fine. Welcome aboard, Dr. Piper. The nation could have used your unambiguous voice before the election, but it is welcome now as well.

And yet Piper speaks of "our new President, over whom we have rejoiced...." Um... huh?

Okay, well, that's ambiguous. It could mean... well, I don't think it's a helpful or careful statement. It's nothing I'd ever imagine myself saying.

But that isn't my example of silly Calvinism. There are examples of it (IMHO) in the meta. One that struck me that way is this good brother's comment:

Do you rejoice over the cross or do you weep over it? It was the greatest evil ever committed. And at the same time, it was the greatest good ever accompished! Just an example of how the two can be together in the same event. Praise God for the cross!!!

(NOTE: I had further dialogue with that commenter, who seems like a good guy, and may not himself have been making the point I'm criticizing. So this is not a criticism of him, if he doesn't hold this thinking. It is a criticism of the thinking, and of whoever holds it — and a caution to all of us Calvinists to watch how we express ourselves. HSAT....)

Er, yeah, I certainly do rejoice in the cross, in God's plan of redemption, in Jesus' love-to-the-uttermost, in its wonderful fruits. The statement in itself is a very good statement.

My problem is the context.

Had I been a contemporary, would I have spoken of "Herod and Pontius Pilate, over whom we have rejoiced"? I really don't think so; and I think that, had a friend uttered the words, I'd've slapped him.

So: I can say that it's a good thing that a (half-)black man was able to win the Presidency in America, given our shameful distant history.

But I think I am obliged to say that the election of this man — whether he were white, black, purple or green — is not a good thing, and I do not "rejoice in" him. I can rejoice in good God may bring out of humbling and chastening America for its asinine choice of the greater of many evils; but not in Obama himself and his evil plans.

When we say things like that, as Calvinist, we look silly. Worse, we make Calvinism look silly. Should a victim rejoice in her rapist? Parents rejoice in their child's murderer? Would-be grandparents rejoice in the abortionist who butchers their grandchild?

And, worst of all, since we (I) think Calvinism sees God as the Bible portrays Him, we risk making God look silly.

Da Point: Let's not get our heads so in the clouds that we lose them altogether. We look silly, and that's bad enough; but far worse, we make the sovereign God we talk about look silly.

Biblical Christianity Statement on Mary

I read with mixed emotions — almost all bad — Chuck Colson's reflections on the passing of apostate Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus, co-perpetrator with him of ECT. Among other troubling and baffling things, Colson bubbles that the dithering of ECT has continued apace. Particularly, "We've been dealing with Mary for the last year and a half."

My. For a year and a half.

Well, I'm always willing to help.

So let me just step up and slice the Gordian knot for them. Here's my statement on Mary:

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a pivotal yet relatively minor figure in the New Testament, of no more ongoing direct personal impact on the lives of Christians than any other exemplary (yet flawed) redeemed sinner depicted in the Bible.

There. Done.

Glad to be of help.

PS — you might find amusement in this old post on B2W, and my comments on it. Doesn't look like I've shifted much.

Deep Thought #1

Miserably unhappy and immovably arrogant

is a bad, sad combination.

Cf. Proverbs 30:21-23