Glory & Grace

Announcement

26 August 2009

We're making a move so that the blog, as it grows, can be more helpful. I hope it won't inconvenience anybody too badly, we think this will be best for the longer run. I've been instructed to inform you of two things:

New blog address: http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/

Update their RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/GloryGrace

Thanks for reading the blog. I hope, with God's help, to pick the pace back up as we move out of summer and into fall. SDG.

DMD @ 04:20

Tulips are for the garden, not theology

24 August 2009

I wanted this to have its own post because I think it deserves special attention. Ken Stewart also has an interesting article on the use of theTULIP acronym that can be found here. My take of his ideas: (1) the acronym is really of recent (early 20^th century); (2) it is not a very helpful device because (a) it doesn’t reflect the five points well at all; (b) has a more negative tendency than earlier defenders of the five points usually displayed; and (c) it tends toward a party spirit versus a defense of central Christian doctrine; and (3) it doesn’t adequately summarize Calvinism (IOW, Calvinism involves more than this acronym suggests).

I found the article to be interesting. I was simply unaware of the relative newness of the TULIP acronym. I have always objected to the unfortunate connotations created by TULIP (e.g., limited atonement and irresistible grace). And I have quite loudly contended that it is a mistake to call someone a Calvinist simply because they believe some (or even all) of the five points. Calvinism is much larger than the theological position taken in the Canons of Dordt.

DMD @ 14:36

Something to read

24 August 2009

Kevin Bauder provides a provocative installment for his series on the history of fundamentalism here. (If you missed the first installment, it’s here.) A few years ago I told Kevin that he was the William F. Buckley of Fundamentalism—to which he replied (or maybe I offered, can’t recall now) that if he’s Buckley, then I must be Rush Limbaugh! Kevin has thought deeply about Fundamentalism and about how separatist principles should be expressed, so I am looking forward to this series. Even at those points where we disagree (which are few), he always makes me think and wrestle through the issues.

An interesting review, by Kenneth Stewart, of a couple of books tracing the Calvinist resurgence in Britain and America can be found here. His concluding question based on reading Collin Hansen’s book, “If we [the PCA] are not numbered with the “new Calvinists” is that as it should be and are we indeed better off?”

DMD @ 13:14

Community, Yes. Collectivism, No.

20 August 2009

Although I didn’t hear it myself (for sanctification purposes I’m not listening to the news much these days!), apparently the president cited Scripture in the defense of his health care reform efforts. I’ve seen a couple of spots on the web that make reference to it, and one comment that I thought I’d pass along is here. The money quote from Victor Davis Hanson’s post is this:

Ironically, the religious trope would argue against the entrance of the state that would relieve citizens of their own moral responsibilities to help out family and friends in times of illness. It is no accident that secularism, agnosticism, and atheism are strongest in socialist Europe, where the government has relieved citizens of traditional moral responsibilities emphasized by religion

I agree completely and I think Hanson brushes up against a bigger issue that I believe we face in our culture—institutionalization. By that I mean the tendency to transfer individual responsibilities to institutions. I think, in many cases, we have allowed ourselves to slide past helpful cooperative effort into dumping off our duties to other people who have formed some kind of organization to do it for us. Collective effort isn’t bad, but we must be careful not to use it to excuse passivity. For example, tossing a few dollars in the offering plate for a benevolence offering should not replace a personal commitment to have open eyes to see actual needs and seek to meet those needs.

I am all for a robust sense of community, but very strongly opposed to collectivism. I think they are very different.

DMD @ 08:31

A Good Point Poorly Stated

19 August 2009

This is interesting. While I agree with Piper about the kind of translation which is best, I don’t think it is best to couch the difference in terms of having all the words. Two reasons (for now): (1) the evaluation of a translation isn’t really a matter of matching the number of words in the original text—I am sure Piper does not intend this impression, but he does give it by stating the case as an issue of having “all the words”; and (2) the point he makes against the NIV/TNIV translation in the video isn’t really that they don’t have “all” the words, but that they don’t have the right word—the Greek has gar which is translated for in NASB/ESV and now in NIV/TNIV. IOW, since they actually translate the word, they have “all the words” in this case (just the wrong one!). My guess is that Piper’s comment here is being influenced by the fact that gar is quite often not translated in the NIV/TNIV, mainly, I think, because they try to shorten their sentences for readability.

To be clear, I agree with Piper, on the principle, because I believe that omitting the logical connectors in pursuit of readability is a mistake. The goal of the reader, and expositor, is to get the meaning right and getting the meaning right demands following the argument of the text. The connectors are crucial to that task and reaching that goal.

DMD @ 12:37

A Wise Word from a Wounded Woman

19 August 2009

I came across an article on Jenny Sanford which was really quite interesting despite its location! Perhaps the most interesting was her take on why male politicians seem so susceptible to moral failure.

The question is why some men—specifically, male politicians—don’t seem to understand how extramarital affairs poison both careers and families. Having watched the species up close all these years, Sanford has a theory. “Politicians become disconnected from the way everyone else lives in the world. I saw that from the very beginning. They’ll say they need something, and ten people want to give it to them. It’s an ego boost, and it’s easy to drink your own Kool-Aid. As a wife, you do your best to keep them grounded, but it’s a real challenge.”

Wise words that should serve as a warning for those who possess (or seek) power and privilege!

DMD @ 05:43

Holding Out for a Better Offer

18 August 2009

The phrase in the title of this post is one usually associated with buying and selling (although sometimes it is used in courtship too!). A potential buyer makes an offer and the seller decides to pass on that offer in the hopes of a better offer down the road. This phrase came to mind this morning when I read Romans 8:25, “But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

The context makes it clear that the initial offer comes to us from the flesh (cf. vv. 12-13). It promises us payment that will satisfy certain of our desires. But because of the Spirit’s presence in our lives, we have the hope of a better offer, “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (v. 23). As long as we live in this present world, there will always be two offers—flesh and Spirit. The tension for us is that the flesh’s offer is already on the table. The “payment” can be delivered immediately. We can see it, smell it, touch it, and taste it. Not so with the Spirit’s offer. “Payment” is future and we cannot see it (cf. v. 24 “for who hopes for what he already sees?”).

Here is the heart of verse 25—our ability to hold out for the better offer is rooted in our hope. Paul ties them together in a cause-effect relationship: “if we hope…we wait eagerly for it.” Hope enables us to wait. The stronger the hope, the more eagerly we wait. So, how do we grow stronger in hope? A lot could be said here, but let me just draw our attention to where Paul started this section of Romans because I think it is the centerpiece of our hope. Back in chapter five, Paul wrote this, “hope does not disappoint because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. ⁶For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (vv. 5-6).

Those two verses introduce themes that Paul returns to in chapter 8: (1) hope (vv. 20, 24-25); (2) the love of God (v. 39; implied in our sonship too, vv. 14-16); (3) the Holy Spirit’s presence in us (vv. 9-11, 23); and (4) the death of Christ on our behalf (vv. 3, 11, 32, 34). We could summarize it like this, “Our hope is based on God’s love for us proven by the death of Christ and confirmed by the presence of the Spirit.”

Or, to return to the phrase in the title, we can hold out for that better offer because we are sure it will come—God loves us and will deliver what He promised, having proved that by sending His Son to die in our place and confirmed it by providing the down payment of His Spirit. The strength of our hope is directly connected to our grasp of these incredible truths. That means are ability to say no to the flesh’s offers is tied to our grasp of these truths too. Glorying in God’s love, Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Spirit’s witness to our adoption is the fuel that kindles the fire of hope. When our hearts are satisfied with these, we can hold out for that better offer.

DMD @ 05:57

A Poor Way to Grow the Church

17 August 2009

If you wondered what the poor might be good for, here’s one answer—helping them might be a “big draw” for your church. I know, they aren’t really saying that churches should use ministry to the poor as a growth strategy, but it sure seems that way. Especially when this post follows so closely to the one on serving before joining that I interacted with here. Basically, the two posts combine to say something like, “People might join your church if you let them get involved in community projects first, and one of the community projects that seems to be hot right now is ministry to the poor, so, if you want to grow, start doing something and invite people outside of the church to get involved.”

Three quick comments:

1. Though lip service is paid to benevolence as a legitimate ministry on its own, the whole point of the article is to motivate involvement on the basis of anticipated church growth. IOW, it is being advocated on utilitarian grounds and that seems to run contrary to benevolence as an expression of loving my neighbor as myself.

2. Ed Stetzer’s comment that ministry to the poor is a great way to “validate the gospel” is concerning. Perhaps it was simply a poor way of expressing his point, but it is hard to know what point that might have been. I certainly hope he wasn’t really speaking about the gospel being validated by something we do. Maybe he meant that our trust in the gospel would be validated. Even this, though, is a dangerous path to run. I am sure some will become apoplectic when they read this, but ministering to the poor doesn’t validate your status as a genuine believer or validate the gospel. Are we to conclude, for example, that Mother Theresa of Calcutta held to the true gospel because she served the poor or that her “faith” was genuine because she ministered to the poor? Validate was a very poor word choice in this context.

3. As is usually the case, the example of Jesus is cited, but then used selectively and improperly. Here’s what Stetzer says, “Even the unchurched in America know that Jesus came healing the sick and serving the poor so they are surprised to see Him represented by a church uninvolved in such activities. Churches would do well to be engaged with, and also to be known for, caring for the poor.” Follow the flow—Jesus came healing the sick and serving the poor; we should care for the poor. What happened to healing the sick—if Jesus did both, shouldn’t we? And how, by the way, did Jesus serve the poor? Did He open a soup kitchen or a food pantry? No, He miraculously fed them. Jesus used His miracle-producing power to heal and feed as evidence that He was the Messiah (Matt 11:1-6). To replace miracles with clinics and soup kitchens is to trivialize the miracles recorded for us in the Gospels. His argument works only on the surface, but can’t hold up to serious scrutiny. While I disagree with them, at least those who embrace the signs and wonders movement are consistent—the presence of the Kingdom means real miracles, not non-miraculous imitations. What is currently spreading in evangelicalism is a Kingdom Now perspective, but approaches to ministry that are actually Kingdom Lite.

There is room for a debate about whether and how the church should serve the poor (to use the Stetzer’s phrase), but that debate will be skewed if one of the factors is whether it will aid church growth or not. The issue should be obedience, not utilitarianism. I also think it would be very good to question whether we really are doing the same thing that Jesus did simply because we name our food pantry “The Five Loaves and Two Fishes.”

DMD @ 07:58

about me

audio

articles

mailbag

ministry links

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Inter-City Baptist Church
Inter-City Baptist School
Inter-City Christian Bookstore
Missions Mandate
Wayne State Campus Bible Fellowship

<< February 2010 >>
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28