During the summer of 2004 our family moved to the Nashville metro area to begin to walk towards  the beginnings of a work with young adults in that city.  In October 2004 we held our first public gathering for the Inversion Fellowship - a group of young adults that I have walked with over the past 3.5 years.  In this first short years of Inversion’s existence we wanted to create a culture that wrestled openly with the issues of life, theology and mission – living very much on the ground of contemporary culture.  We didn't hire the coolest band in Nashville, we didn't have laser light shows and we didn't call people to simply get married, be happy and settle down with a little Jesus on the side. Our hope and prayer was to find life and satisfaction in the goodness and greatness of God and then to give our lives together for the Kingdom. 

We also thought it wasn't "cool" to not read or think deeply about the issues of truth and life.  We value laughing deeply together but not remaining ignorant about the intersection of truth and life. One of the bi-products of this turned into a series of short booklets (some are a bit more bookish) that we just finished and have "self-published" for our peeps in Inversion.

The following is from the Inversion web site where the booklets are available as free downloads for anybody who might be encouraged by these works...sample covers are below.  There are nine books covering various subjects.  You can see the complete listing here.

We want to thank the many upside down people of Inversion as love for them was a huge part of this work.  Most importantly we thank Jesus – our God and Savior - whose love, fame and mission gave meaning and hope to the work of our hands.  We pray these are of some use to him and his continuing work in the world in the days to come.

Church Historian Michael Haykin is also a poet as well as a writer about all things in the Puritan era...I really found his poem entitled Modern Sex quite interesting:

No metaphysical union here
Nor majestic ontology—
Only animal pairing
That come break of day parts,
Not to share a glance again.

No talk of Love,
nor Companionate meeting of flesh—
Only business
That ploughs the field
For lucre and gain.

Embodièd worship
And Glory gone—
The squalid alone is left,
Confusion, chaos, and coal
Without regal Fire.

Michael A.G. Haykin
Modern Sex ©2008.

There is a short video interview with Anthony Bradley discussing Black Liberation Theology availble on YouTube. This appeared on CNN's Glen Beck program.

(HT - Darin Patrick)

I recently read a post by my not so punchy friend Owen Strachan over at his blog Consumed.  Owen has been wrestling out loud about Christian believers and their relationship to (or non relationship to) Mixed Martial Arts (MMA).  MMA has become wildly popular through the Ultimate Fighting Championship, aka the UFC.  He was provoked by an article in NY Times Magazine and some comments made by Mark Driscoll - a pastor and fan of MMA. His main question could be surmised by some simple questions: Should Christians beat the hell out of each other or enjoy watching other men do so?  Does being tough and masculine mean an endorsement of barbarism? Now he might not say it that way, but this seems to be the essence of his struggle.  I think this is a valuable struggle as our relationship to violence is a long tragic part of the tale of human history.

This question gets to the much larger issue of the role of violence in life and in the life of a follower of Jesus Christ.  This post does not seek to raise the pacifism/just war discussion in any detail but let me state at the outset that I do not see pacifism as tenable either practically or biblically.  Let me just say that the if you are a pacifist you will probably find much to disagree with when reading the coming reflections on ultimate fighting and mixed martial arts.  But I will make one promise to all the pacifists reading. If the evil horde invades; those who believe in a civil and noble defense will protect you, your home and family.  You're welcome.

So, to reflect on fighting in general and ultimate fighting in particular I propose just a few things.  First, I will make some observations which I will call my recommendations.  These will be a few small reasons for "why we fight."  Second, I will offer a rejoinder to qualify the beastly urge in all people to desire license rather than morality when dealing with delicate issues.  Fighting is not a good thing, but it is a real and unfortunate permanent feature of human existence in a fallen state.  I wish I could just shout - STOP FIGHTING, can't we all just get along and the whole universe would realign to our wishes.  Yet because the world is full of human beings, like you and me, there may be times when it is necessary, in defense of what is good, to punch someone in the throat. 

Recommendations

My first recommendation is this.  There are times when men (and I do mean male men) must fight for what is good, right and true. 

The great philosopher Kenny Rogers once used a thought experiment called The Coward of the County to explore the struggle that men have in relationship to violence.  A violent father who had made bad choices and caused great harm teaches his son:

Promise me, son, not to do the things Ive done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It wont mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man.

The advice is well taken by the son until the life and limb of a loved one is violated by a group set on evil doing...the boy, having learned the lesson from his father and become a man, ends the treatise with the similar but slightly different chorus:

I promised you, dad, not to do the things you done.
I walk away from trouble when I can.
Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek,
And papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man.

When do we fight...it must be in defense, for what is right, when there is no other option and when we must win.  Sam Wise Gamgee once encouraged his good friend Frodo with words I recommend for all men and women. 

Frodo: I can't do this Sam.

Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?

Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.  

Some things require a fight.  Not all things - not greed, lust, covetousness - things all too often fought for in the world of men.  But the misdeeds of the vile and violent does not mean that others should never fight - in fact, it is precisely the reason we must. 

To learn to fight, you must fight...

It is my opinion that certain men should be trained to protect the common good and provide peace so that human society can flourish in goodness, truth and beauty.  Additionally, Christians have a great interest in a just state and a protected citizenry due to the commands and structure found in Romans 13.  Historically Christian thinkers Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and many others have argued that defensive, just wars are sometimes necessary.  I found this message to come through powerfully just last night as my wife and I finished up Season 1 of the CBS television show Jericho.  In the finale, men were called to fight an aggressive invader with life and limb on the line (perhaps another post, but I find this to be a great show).  Yes, there was the token blond girl with the gun, so feminists you can be happy to fight as well, but the reality in the show demonstrated a common theme in history.  At times a band of brothers must be arrayed to fight and physically beat back a sinful invasion.  If this be the case, men must learn to fight during peace time as well as war time.  Those in the military are taught fighting techniques - martial arts, wrestling - lets just say they learn MMA.  Where are these techniques developed in peace time?  Where do men grow in toughness, discipline and fortitude when the enemy is at bay.  They learn through hard work, training, drills and sport.  In fact, in sport, better ways to wrestle are actually developed in relatively safe, controlled sporting environments.  As a wrestler for most of my life, I know this to be true.  Come try and take me - I am more prepared than most.  I suppose we could eliminate every sport but, say, golf...but I do not think that would be used by the marines to learn to fight and win war.

So we do not want a culture of violent thugs and brutes without honor.  What we really need is a society of men who live in meekness and strength, virtue and passion and strength under authority.  I will grant it is here that mixed martial arts is a very mixed bag.  It has both thugs and men of character slugging in the octagon.  Such is life.  Pull for the guy that is not a thug. 

The Bible uses fighting as a metaphor for life and spiritual growth

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

It seems to me if this be the case than God's Word expects us to know what fighting actually is and that we should know how to do it.  Now this is one of those chicken and egg problems in theology.  Did God use fighting to accommodate a violent people in order to teach them of our greater spiritual battles with the world, the flesh and the devil?  Or did God understand he made the world and we would have to fight while living life outside of Edenic perfection?  In other words, because of the fall there will always be some sort of fight.  My thought would be the latter.  For humans to grow food...it is work, a fight.  For humans to create order out of the thorny, thistled world of sin...it is a battle, sometimes literally.  For humans to communicate, have honest commerce, to act according to conscience...it will be a fight.  For humans to overcome sin, find forgiveness, live in righteousness, be reconciled to God...it is a fight, but the battle is the Lords.  For followers of Christ to deny the flesh and turn their wills to God daily...it is a spiritual fight. 

If you hold to the presupposition of an inspired Scripture then you must see that God wants all of us to know what "fight" means.  It is human to struggle - internally and externally.  It is a wrestle with our own depravity and that of others.  Robert Hawkins, one of the characters on Jericho, was asked a question by his teenage daughter: Who are the good guys and who are the evil guys? His answer - there aren't any such thing.  Some my take offense to that, but I find it biblical.  A human being is always a mixture of good (imago dei) and evil (sinful depravity and rebellion).  Jesus said it this way: there is none good but God.  If this be true, there will be a fight and God desires to teach and shape his people in the midst of the battle.

One last note is appropriate before moving on.  It is interesting that Paul is telling his younger padawan Timothy that he is to fight the good fight of faith.  As such I feel it is the fathers of a culture which must teach young men to respect and honor women, walk in self control and know when to fight and when not to.  Hence Kenny Rogers. Fatherless societies become base and excessively violent.  When Dad is at home young men can be strong and self-controlled...respectable - such men are exactly what we need.  They are in my opinion what every radical feminist desires. Unfortunately she has seen too much of the former to find much use in men.

Rejoinders 

Now to MMA.  Any sport that involves the movement of the body risks to some degree bodily harm.  My Mom will testify that she freaked out every time I wrestled and played a football game.  As such any sport must have rules designed to make the competition as immune from death as possible.  Yet sometimes this too is unavoidable.  People die every year playing football, soccer and walking across the street.  We can do as much as we can to prevent death but it is simply not avoidable - it is amazing that I made it to 35 without wearing a bike helmet growing up!  So football has rules to prevent very dangerous contact (head to head, hits on QBs etc). Amateur wrestling, even soccer, have rules to prevent this type of contact.  There are underground MMA arenas without such rules; I find that deplorable and do not recommend any of this barbarism.  UFC has evolved from its early, more deplorable days, to have many rules.  The UFC now has just these type of rules; a very long list of fouls which are designed to protect the combatants.  

One final rejoinder about MMA culture.  Let me be very clear.  The culture surrounding the UFC is base.  It is hyper sexualized, full of some non thinking men and there is much disrespect for competitors and opponents.  If tattoos bother you, the UFC will provide lots of them to see.  Maybe the one place in the world that has more than the NBA.  Like boxing, basketball, football, etc. there is also a huge gambling culture that surrounds it as well.  I believe the UFC's ownership is connected to the gambling industry.  I do not support this any more than I do people betting on the Tar Heels in the NCAA tournament.  Additionally, there is also an offshoot of the fighting culture that will likely continue to spiral downward into madness and barbarism. 

Yet does this culture's existence not mean that it is precisely the place for the gospel?  Would it not be good to enter and tell of Jesus the saving one in such arenas?  Could not respect for opponents, civil sportsmanship and godly masculinity provide a contrast in the middle of the UFC world?  Could it not mean that Matthew 5:16 - so let your light so shine before men that they might see your good works and praise your father in heaven - might be true in UFC world as well?  If such worlds are not engaged - the only direction they can go is downward. Or one may conclude that it is unredeemable.  Some human activities do degrade to this status.  I do not think this is so of the UFC.  So I watch the UFC with guys I teach and lead; I also discuss it as a fan with non Christians.  I also teach godly masculinity and I believe we need to be able to mature and be able to discern and live the difference.  To do otherwise is to put one's holy head in the sand. This course of action seems to quench any mission in culture and is pretty lame as well.  I would rather put my hand in the hand of God and walk out into the darkness...and let him light the world.  Yes, even the world of ultimate fighters.

I fight authority, authority always wins – John Cougar Mellencamp – circa 1984

The subject of authority is a bit of a sensitive one in our culture today.  At the dusk of Western Civilization we have brought our individualism and autonomy to its logical conclusion.  We have a profound disrespect and disdain for authority.  Yet rightful, God ordained authority is a good gift and necessary for our lives.  No person is an island, no person need to operate without being under a good authority for their lives.  Yet authority is often abused where human beings go on trips of power over one another.  Indeed, Jesus once said it this way: 

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,  27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Matthew 20:25-28 ESV

So there is a lording over and a servant sort of authority with the latter being both commanded by Jesus and more pleasant to live under.  Nobody likes to work for a boss who is a jerk, a little Napoleon with an King Kong sized ego.  Yet simply because some authority is abusive does not mean that all authority is bad.  In fact, Scripture shows us that good and just authority is the outflow of the plan of God. 

There are many layers of authority surrounding each person all the time.  Parents are responsible authorities in the lives of their children; the worldview of MTV notwithstanding.  Governments have a God ordained authority in the lives of their citizens; the worldview of the anarchist notwithstanding.  Pastors have a responsible authority for those in their care and men have a responsibility for their families.  The latter will cause squirming in both irresponsible, passive men and the women who despise them.   Yet how do all these spheres interact.  What follows will only be a brief attempt to theologically state my theological perspective on authority for follows of Jesus.  I will proceed according to certain assumptions so I will briefly lay those out so it will be easier to track with me. 

First, I believe that God is the highest authority for all creation and every human being…whether we believe in God or not.  His authority is then vested at various levels through various institutions – the home, the church, the state.  Second, I believe that the church and state have different realms of responsibility given by God so I support the separation of church and state and oppose theonomy.  Third, I believe the Holy Scriptures are true and binding over all humanity but they are NOT the instrument and code of civil government so I also oppose theocracy.  Fourth, I believe in human conscience in relation to parenting and believe that Moms and Dads to be the primary authority in raising kids; children are not wards of the Republic.   Finally, I believe the church and the individual Christian are bound to conditionally obey all governments under which they are living.  In other woods, unless the government is ordering/compelling one to sin, the government should be obeyed.

Authority from the ground up

Children and Parents

The Scripture in several places declares an order to the human family in that children are to obey their parents and parents are to love, instruct, teach and discipline their kids.   In the 10 commandments we find that God tells us to “honor your mother and father” (See Exodus 20).  Additionally, this is restated in the New Testament in Ephesians 6:1-2 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Furthermore the same passage encourages fathers to “not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”  This of course echoes the call of Deuteronomy 6 for parents to teach their children to know and follow God.  When this responsible authority is abdicated in the home children grow up lonely, insecure and many times turn to alternative “families” such as gangs or other groups to find identity.  Additionally, when parents do not both love and discipline children, the kids do not develop respect for authority.  As a result kids can be either pressed towards rebellion or live in complete unruliness.  Spending time in fatherless communities or watching one episode of Super Nanny will suffice as examples.   This unit of the home is then under the care and authority of local churches and its leadership.

The Authority of Pastors

Pastors were once held in high regard in our culture but times have changed.  First, there is a lack of trust in church leaders who through repeated moral failure or financial scandals have repudiated a respected and holy office.  Additionally, today’s church shopping consumer mindset in matters of religion makes the pastor out to be a producer of religious goods and services.  If someone does not like the product – be it preaching or instruction, many will just move on to another house of worship or a new religion to suit their purposes.  If a pastor tells someone he is acting like an idiot by running around on his wife and to knock it off, the man can simply move on to a man who will not challenge his sinful behavior.  Yet it is clear in Scripture that God places his people in churches for their good by giving them spiritual authority. 

Hebrews 13 teaches us this in two ways.  First, the pastor/elder is to set a good example:  Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7).  Second, we are to obey our leaders and submit to their care:  Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you (Hebrews 13:17).  

It is to be said that churches should give much care in calling their pastors.  Scripture insists that such men be wise, responsible, godly, qualified men (See Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3).  Pastors and other Christians in the church should walk together in community so that families are cared for and that parents are instructed and helped lead their homes.   Finally, there is a lost calling not practiced by many cowardly clergy and passive Christians which must also be a part of life together—that of discipline.  Frankly put we should call each other to high standards of integrity, our marriage vows, loving our kids and doing what is right in our communities.  If someone sees me screwing up I really want to be called to account; this is good and should not be neglected in the churches.

The Authority of Government

Followers of Christ and their families are shepherded in the church by qualified pastors or elders.  Churches also exist in a broader culture under various forms of governing authorities.  Let us be clear that Scripture is not silent on the believer’s relationship to government.  We are to pray for our leaders and submit to their government.   Two passages of Scripture are quite relevant, 1 Timothy 2 and Romans 13 – we’ll quote them at length:

1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior.  1 Timothy 2:1-3

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:1-7

The clear teaching of Scripture is the government is given by God to enact and enforce good conduct in a society.  Wrong doing should be punished and the government has been given the sword to hold evil doing at bay.  This means that Christians in all manner of governments are called to be good citizens.  Now, a huge rejoinder must be made.  It is also clear that government should not be obeyed when it commands and compels its citizens to do evil and disobey God.   There are many examples of this.  The Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 and the apostle’s civil disobedience when commanded not to share the gospel in Acts 4 are the most often cited.  When a government is compelling evil, the believer has a duty to do what is right and refuse the unjust law.  A modern example would be a doctor refusing to obey a government which might compel him to perform abortions.  It is my opinion that non violent civil disobedience is the path in such cases and that taking up arms against a government is not advisable unless in self-defense.  I will leave that complicated discussion for other days.

Separation of Church and State

Both church and state have been called by God to govern and have authority in the lives of Christians.  The church is a body of believers called out by God together as a covenant people by the gospel.  As such the highest authority in our lives is the Word of God, the Scriptures.  Yet each church is in a realm of state authority as well so the lines of separation must be discussed.  Historically, the Roman Catholic Church and the magisterial reformers (Luther, Zwingli and Calvin) held to a unification of church/state.  The state was legitimized by God and the church endorsed this legitimacy.  Additionally, the state enforced and permitted the establishment of religious authority and unity in a realm. This view had long standing back into Greek and Roman times.  A state and its gods were one.  However, this was questioned by many reformers and evaluated in light of Scripture.  Did not Jesus teach that the rule of Caesar was different than the rule of God?  Does not a marriage between worldly power and the church have a corrupting influence on both?  Such questions in Western culture led the founders of the American experiment to articulate clearly the relationship between church and state.  It is found in the well known establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment of the US Constitution.  Here is how it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  

The meaning of this statement is quite clear but the implementation has always been a bit fuzzy.  What it means is that there will be no official state religion or church in our country.  Additionally, the government will not prohibit law abiding citizens from freely practices their religion.  It does not make a religion free zone in any portion of society nor does it create a religion of which all citizens must participate.  It means we have freedom of religion – a gracious gift to the people of America.   If this is the case and I take this to be a just solution, how are the authorities of church and state established.

The Authority of State – Natural Law

Many thinkers in history, particularly Aristotle, Aquinas and John Locke have taught that there is a law built into human experience which dictates to conscience basic categories of a just society.  I do not time here but I discussed various types of law briefly here (Christianity and Nation States...Law and a Just Society).  Natural law would be defined in the Christian tradition as follows:

Natural law is the law “written on the heart” (Rom 2:13) – the conscience by which people know Good and Evil – right from wrong. Sin mars this faculty in man, but it remains none the less. These are things that people “Can’t Not Know” – i.e. that Murder is wrong, it flows from the moral nature of God and presses upon people. People suppress this and hold it down in wickedness, many becoming callous as to be seared against God’s witness in conscience. See Romans 1,2. This is shared by both regenerate and unregenerate – though our Reformed brothers (and I am very reformed) some times do not like saying that non-Christians know right and wrong. Thomists think Natural law is evident to right reason, reformed scholars say that the noetic effects of sin blur, mar, even destroy this capacity in people. Though some make room for “common grace insights” i.e. that murder is wrong.  Some recent works on Natural law would be found in the writings of Princeton scholar Robert George and J. Budzizewski of the Unviersity of Texas at Austin. 

The state then governs in accord to the law written on the heart expressed in basic morality found in all cultures.  The so called “second tablet” of the Ten Commandments is reflective of such basic moral foundations.  The natural law is an expression of God’s authority on all peoples and we disobey this moral law to our own peril and distruction.

The Authority of Church – The Word of God

Christians however are called to a higher authority than even the state, the authority of the Word of God.  Scripture is the Supreme Court in all matters of life and teaching for Christian believers.  It is to be obeyed and headed out of love for Jesus Christ who is revealed in this Word.  It reveals the laws of God which demonstrate to us our sinfulness and need of grace.  It reveals the gospel by which we are saved and restored to right relationship with God.  It reveals the mission of the church in the world as the inbreaking of the ultimate rule and reign of God in the Kingdom of Heaven.  It reveals that we are citizens of two realms…the Kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God.  Scripture instructs us as to when civil disobedience is warranted while simultaneously calling us to submit to just and reasonable laws.

In this age church and state are separate spheres of authority with Scripture guiding the church.  When Jesus returns he will set up a perfect divine monarchy with himself as King of Kings.  Aristotle once wrote that the best government would be by a perfect and virtuous ruler.  Yet none of this metal is to be found among the sinful throng of humanity.  In the current state of affairs it has been said that democracy is the best of all bad forms of government.   Yet a day will come when authority will be always good, kind and just.

Conclusion

During our days in this age of history we are called to love rightful authority and submit joyfully to it as a gift from God.  We are also called to stand against injustice in its various forms.  Parents should embrace responsibility and children should submit to their parents.  Fathers should be responsible for their homes and families, pastors should willfully and humbly shepherd the church and all citizens should obey the laws of their lands.  None of this will happen in perfection so love must cover a multitude of sins.   The ultimate high treason against authority is humanity’s rebellion against God.  In this case the highest of rulers came to earth as a lowly servant.  This servant died to save rogue rebels from the justice they deserve.  All of history will one day be wrapped up when that same servant will come back again with full authority to judge the living and the dead.  We may bow our knees today in light of his love and grace or face the fury of the wrath to come by persisting in our rebellion.   When we realize that we can entrust ourselves to a fully loving, fully good, fully justice God – we realize that this is an easy choice to make.  May he reveal this to you by his Spirit and may we find repentance and faith.

Many have heard John Piper's opinions on the prosperity gospel that is peddled in American churches and growing around the world.  The Atlantic Monthly even had an interesting look upon the prosperity gospel phenomena in the growing churches of Nigeria (this is a great article to read fully - the prosperity stuff is on page 3). Back to Piper...a portion of Piper's message has been set to many videographical expressions...the one below I think is the best I have seen to date.

(HT - Justin Taylor) 

One of the guys on the staff at our church asked me an interesting question today.  John Farkas, who just recently started blogging here, sent me the following request:

Give me your perspective on Calvin's 3 most important contributions.  Try to keep it to about 100 words (150 if you must)

I have to confess that I sinned against keeping it brief, but I did ask for forgiveness.  Here is my response which may get some fun comments from John Calvinists out there.  Here goes.

----------------------------------------

John,

Sure thing. I am a bit of a fan of the reformed view of God, the gospel and the church so I have many positive things to say about the contributions of Jean Calvin...I'll try to stay at three but will likely sin against the word limit. 

Ad Fontes 

Calvin was trained in France during a transition time in western culture.  The medieval catholic church was in great need for reform and humanistic studies (not secular humanism, but the study of man and culture) were on the rise in Europe.  One of the beacon calls of the era as ad fonts - to the sources.  The call was to return to the classical roots of western culture.  Additionally, church scholars applied this to theology.  That to form Christian doctrine one ought to go to the sources of Christian faith - namely, the inspired writings of the New Testament...the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  Calvin sought to craft a thoroughly Bible based theology and literally wrote the first Protestant systematic theology when he was only 27 years old: The Institutes of the Christian Religion.  A word about Systematics.  Today there are many who do not like a systematic theology - the cry is for narrative etc.  I get that and affirm narrative theology, biblical theology etc. Yet all systermatic (in the way of Calvin) seeks to do is not reduce the Scriptures teaching about something (say the identity and work of Jesus) to one part of Scripture.  Calvin and those who like systematic just want to say ALL that the Bible says about Jesus, not just part of it.  For instance some might say Jesus is a nice, pacifistic teacher in looking at the sermon on the mount.  Yet to not look at the exalted Christ of Revelation who comes with a sword to strike the nations would give you a one dimensional Jesus whereas the whole of Scripture gives a much more 3D, full view.  Calvin sought to form doctrine by treating all of Scripture.  I think that was a great contribution - he certainly was not infallible and I don't agree with all his conclusions, but this is a lasting contribution of his.  By going "to the sources" Calvin and other Protestants affirm the idea of God's revealing himself to us in Scripture.  Man, left alone with his imaginations, will only create idols as he seeks to create God in his own image.  I also think that applying this view to the arts gives art a "narrative framework" which to live within.  The rich narrative world of Scripture can give birth to art that is truly good and beautiful rather than that which is created by man with an unsanctified imagination.   

Unique Theological Contribution to understanding Jesus and the Church

To my knowledge Calvin was the first to articulate a rich typological view of Jesus as seen in the Old Testament offices of Israel - the Prophet, the Priest and the King.  Calvin taught that all of these foreshadowed the work and ministry of Jesus himself and then that Jesus extends that ministry in and through his church.  In the Old Testament - Prophets, Priests, Kings - Israel's life was structured by these offices, which served as types - these were the three offices which were "anointed ones" - those anointed by God and set apart to serve his purposes^[1] The Prophet (1 Kings 19:16 - ) speaks the Word of God and Calls People to repentance, to God and His Mission.  The Priest (Leviticus 21:10 - Chief priest anointed with oil) intercedes between God and people facilitating worship and ministry.  The King (1 Samuel 10 and 16 - Samuel Anoints Saul and David, 1 Kings 1:39 - Zadok anoints Solomon, Jehu in 2 Kings 9 anointed by Elisha) ruled under the authority of God and his Word, guiding and shepherding a people through life.  The King protects, provides, and serves his people. Calvin saw this in Jesus' Ministry as a consummation of all the types. 

John Calvin --- Moreover, it is to be observed, that the name Christ refers to those three offices: for we know that under the law, prophets as well as priests and kings were anointed with holy oil. Whence, also, the celebrated name of Messiah was given to the promised Mediator.^[2]

Jesus is our Great Prophet (Hebrews 1:1,2)- He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets - his word is God's word.  Jesus is our great High Priest - Hebrews 8:1,2 - We HAVE such a high priest, he intercedes for us, brings us to the father, covers our sins with his sacrifice of himself - there is one mediator (1 Tim 2:5, 6).  Jesus is our Covenant King (Psalm 2, Psalm 110:1; Matthew 1:1-4; Revelation 17:14) - He is our covenant King, our good shepherd, not one of his sheep are lost, he will guide us home, we will live and not die if we trust him.  

Additionally, his ministry extends in the Church. The prophetic Ministry of Jesus extends when the Word of God, the gospel is preached.  The priestly ministry of Jesus extends in the Sacraments - the new covenant is mediated by Jesus, in his church. Baptism serves as the entry sign into the covenant and the Lord's Supper as the continuing sign of the covenant.  Finally, the kingly ministry of Jesus extends in Church Government and Discipline. God gives elders to the church to guard the doctrine of the church, pastor/shepherd/love the sheep, and discipline us towards godliness and holiness.

All of this flows from Calvin's unique insight into the continuity of the covenants and the Old Testament pointing penultimately and typologically to Jesus, the Christ. 

Bible teaching and Commentary 

Many people fail to realize that Calvin was primarily a Bible teacher.  His sermons and commentaries remain a wonderful gift to the church that are available online for free - http://www.ccel.org/index/author-C.html.

Church sending, Pastoral Training and Cultural Transformation 

Something that is unknown about Calvin to many is that they trained hundreds of ministers and sent them out all over Switzerland and France.  Many of these young men went into France and were slaughtered for their preaching.  It is no historical mystery why the Protestant movement did not flourish as much in France - they were massacred.  Finally, there is good little book that I believe I heard referenced by Tim Keller on the influence of Calvin's theological vision on shaping the City - it is called Light of the City.

OK, I sinned against the number of strengths and word limit - forgive? 

^[1]In the Old Testament priests (Exod 29:7, 21), prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), and kings (1 Sam 10:1) were anointed for special tasks  James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, electronic e., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1991), 38.

^[2]Jean Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis.; Reprint, With New Introd. Originally Published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), II, xv, 2.

Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live henceforth in a new way as committed disciples of Jesus. Baptism signifies a watershed point in a human life because it signifies a new-creational engrafting into Christ's risen life.

J.I. Packer

There is nothing more central to Christian faith than the person and work of Jesus the Christ.  There is is nothing more central to his work and message than the gospel - the good news of what he has done, is doing and will do in redeeming sinners and this fallen world.  In walking together as the church in every age there are few things more central than the sacraments/ordinances of Jesus which he gave to us as means by which we follow him.  Yet there have been few things which have brought up as much debate as the two sacraments - baptism and the Lord's supper.  Now if you are saying, wait a second, there are seven sacraments and this was firmly decided and articulated at the council of Trent.  If you thought that, you are Roman Catholic and demonstrate the disagreement that surrounds these discussions.  Yet most Protestants look to the Bible for those things that Jesus commanded us to observe until his second coming and almost all agree there are but two.  Some do want to add washing feet, but I don't think the case is that strong on that one.  So we have two. 

This essay has very small goals.  I will briefly treat the different views of baptism held by those who see that baptism and the Lord's table have deep signifying and meaning related to the new covenant.  Evangelicals today can treat baptism as almost optional - nice to do when you want to, but not essential.  While it is not "the way someone" is saved - for this is by the work of Christ on the cross, by grace and by faith alone.  Yet something is lost today in small views of baptism. I am looking mainly here at covenant baptism - that baptism signs the believer and seals her as part of the church, the covenant family of God. In evangelical circles, I am speaking of baptism as viewed by those in reformed traditions, who trace their views back to Scripture in the Protestant view. 

There are many debates with baptism.  Who should be baptized and the related question about the age at which is should be done.  Additionally, there are debates about method - immerse, pour, sprinkling, shaken, but not stirred.  Here I only want to look at these questions. 1) First, the relation of baptism to the new covenant 2) Who then should be baptized.  For after answer these I get a bit less concerned.  Though I believe that immersion as the NT model, I find no problem with sprinkling, pouring, or dipping if/when environmental circumstances come into play.  Alas, I am offending already.  Let me just get to the issue - how should we understand covenant baptism - should it be for babies or not?  OK, this is for my PCA and Reformed Baptist type friends.

Agreements

There is a wonderful agreement about baptism from Reformed types.  We all believe the following:

• Baptism was commanded by Jesus (Matt 28:18-20)
• Baptism marks a person as part of new the covenant community - it is the outward signifier that a person is under the new covenant of grace

Now when we come to the question as to when it should be applied; here we find our differences.  Reformed Presbyterians typically baptize infants on the eighth day as a sign of the covenant and a confession of the faithfulness of God to his promises.  Baptists wait until a person has expressed explicit faith in Jesus and applies baptism after the new birth rather than birth.  Lets look very briefly at support offered for both positions.

Baptism after Birth (Paedo Baptism or Infant Baptism)

It is a no small task to rightly give the traditional reformed view of baptism.  For that I refer you to a volume entitled The Case for Covenental Infant Baptism edited by Greg Strawbridge. Here I only want to highlight a few of the biblical/theological arguments for baptizing infants:

• In the New Testament we see statements that the promise of the gospel is for you and your children and those who are far off (See Acts 2:37-39).  The promise in the OT included children so in the New Covenant it does as well. 
  
• Household baptisms - there are several circumstances in the NT where "households" were baptized.  Acts 16 has Lydia and her household as well as the Philippian jailer's household being baptized.  1 Corinthians 1 has the "household of Stephanas" being baptized.  The assumption here is that infants and/or children would have been baptized as well as those who had believed.
  
• There is a symmetry seen between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism as the sign of the covenant.  In the OT the children of believers were included as members of the covenant community and in the NT this is the same.  Baptism signifies such membership and thus should be applied to children. As such the person is subject to the blessings and curses of covenant membership (see Deut 28).
• Church tradition – it was and early and long standing practice in church history to baptize infants. 

Baptism after the New Birth (Credo Baptism or Believers Baptism)

• Makes note that in the Bible there are no recorded instances of infants being baptized.  Every record of baptism in the New Testament are of people who have placed faith in Jesus Christ. 
  
• Household baptisms are an argument from silence and hence prove nothing as to who was actually baptized.
• There is a break in continuity between Old and New Covenants.  Though baptism is the sign of the new covenant, it is applied not simply to males...but all who believe.  As such the time of application is also different.  It follows regeneration/new birth exemplified by repentance and faith.
  
• Meaning of baptizmo - the meaning of the word baptism in the New Testament means to dip or immerse.  Sprinkling of babies would not be in view.  Though this gets a bit towards the "mode" debate, it is clear that baptism should be reflecting a "burial/death with Christ" and a raising to live a new life (See Romans 6).  People also walked down into water to be baptized.  Jesus in the gospels and the ethiopian in the book of Acts (See Acts 8).  These rights seem to describe adult actions and is reflective of believers.
  
• Practice of the church.  One of the earliest documents we have of early church practice, The Didache, gives details on the practice of baptism and it reflects believers baptism. For instance you cannot "order an infant to fast two days before his baptism."
  

So what do we make of this.  First, I agree that we should not loose the meaning of baptism as "sign of the covenant."  When baptism was taught by some early Christians to "remove original sing" (this was Augustine's view) the desire and motive for baptizing infants was enormous.  If a person was not baptized he was not saved.  This doctrine is not taught in Scripture but became a big deal in the church. If baptism is the means by which God removes original sin, then you must baptize as soon as possible.  Hence all matter of reasons, theologies etc were made to explain the application of baptism.  The Roman church invented the doctrine of "limbo" to keep babies out of hell if they were not baptized and the Reformation brought into question the "saving power" of baptism.  The reformers were clear that it is the gospel that saves, God saves sinners, not their baptism.  However, many reformed churches created a sort of half-way view which is reflected in covedannt infant baptism.  My thought is that once you sever baptism/salvation, yet maintain baptisms proper meaning and symbolism as a outward sign of conversion (see Packer quote at the top) then it must be applied when it signifies an actual state of affairs.  The person has been saved, then they ought be baptized.  Reformed thinkers acknowledge that the earlier view that baptism saves is flawed.  Here is the great reformed theologian Charles Hodge's take. I will give the entire context of his 8th point arguing for infant baptism and then ask some questions.

On this point all Christians are agreed. All churches —the Greek, the Latin, the Lutheran, and the Reformed —unite in the belief that infants need "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" and the renewing of the Holy Ghost in order to their salvation. The Reformed, at least, do not believe that those blessings are tied to the ordinance of baptism, so that the reception of baptism is necessary to a participation of the spiritual benefits which it symbolizes; but all agree that infants are saved by Christ, that they are the purchase of his blood, and that they need expiation and regeneration. They are united, also, in believing that all who seek the benefits of the work of Christ, are bound to be baptized in acknowledgment of its necessity and of their faith, and that those who need, but cannot seek, are, by the ordinance of God, entitled to receive the appointed sign and seal of redemption, whenever and wherever they are presented by those who have the right to represent them.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Originally Published 1872. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 3:557. 

I have made bold the above portion of the quote to emphasize the right turn that is made by Hodge. He is right to say that the Reformed have separated salvation from the ordinance, he is incorrect then is shifting back towards the view that those can receive who have not exercised faith.  If he would end his sentence above with the word "faith" I would find complete agreement. Yet because of his theological system, he takes on the clause I have highlighted.  We should be baptized upon our acknowledgment of its necessity (it is commanded by Christ) and of our faith. Period.

If this be so, we ought to apply the sign at the time someone enters the New Covenant, and believe it or not, all are agreed that this happens at the new birth.  Now what are some in the Reformed tradition afraid of loosing in the process.  I believe it is children's place in the covenant community.  This indeed would be a terrible loss that I stand with them against.  Yet I believe we can maintain the "sanctification" or "set apart nature" of children of believers because Scripture actually teaches this in 1 Corinthians 7.  We do not need to baptize them to signify this.  We can hold up and pray for the babies (boys and girls) and then baptize if/when they become spiritual babies when they repent, believe and are regenerate.  I love the interpretive framework of covenental theology; I just don't see that I must submit to something absent from Scripture in order to see the holistic covenant of grace in the Bible.

So where does this land me.  Well, sort of in a half-way house I suppose because the current edition of the doctrinal statement of Jacob's Well has this half-way position that drives both my baptist and covenant friends nuts.  Though it is the position of two of my heroes - John Bunyan and John Piper. Bon Appetit - I know so many of you will not be pleased - smile.

ARTICLE VI Ordinances/Sacraments

SECTION A – At Jacob’s Well we only perform and teach baptism by immersion for believers who profess personal faith in Jesus Christ. We believe that water baptism is symbolic of the fact that we have repented from our sins, we have been cleansed of our sins and God has forgiven us, we are buried in Christ in death and have risen with Him in newness of life (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:36–38; Romans 6:3–5; Colossians 2:12; Acts 10:47). Additionally, baptism is the sign and seal which marks a person’s entry into the new covenant community of the church. This is our only practice of baptism, though we will allow people into membership who have been baptized by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion as long as it was performed by a biblical local church, the person evidences conversion and where the baptism was performed in the name of the triune God.

For those who were raised in a paedobaptist (infant baptism) tradition we will ask the following questions:

1. Have they biblically thought through the position and can defend it from Scripture?
   
2. We must know what they think baptism accomplishes for an infant? Once a child is baptized is he or she under the federal headship of Adam or Christ?
   
3. Are they traditionally and experientially biased towards this position due to their own infant baptism and theological tradition?
   
4. Will they submit to our teaching and practice of believers baptism
   

SECTION B – The Lord’s Supper shall be observed weekly in light of the following biblical purposes:

• A memorial of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus: Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
  
• A visible proclamation of the gospel: 1 Corinthians 11:26
  
• An eschatological foretaste of the coming Kingdom: Luke 22:16,18
  
• A Participation/Communion/Fellowship with Jesus and one another to receive spiritual nourishment from him through the ordinance – 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; Luke 24:30-31; Revelation 3:20; John 6:35-58

I saw these posters online and thought they provoked many thoughts and ideas.  However, I find these sorts of statements, though provocative, to be far too simplistic.  I have no issue with the center poster - it is beautiful to me...the outer images however make me ask a few deeper questions.

There are two books that I am greatly anticipating this spring, one of which just shipped from Amazon.com and will soon arrive in one of the sheik little brown boxes to my door step.  The two books are the kinds that you hope to be able to give to others who have questions about Jesus or the historic Christian faith...but will not be too simplistic or boring to actually give to someone.  The books are written for different audiences, but I think the reader of the POCBlog will love both.

For the Sophisticated Skeptic and the Thoughtful Believer
(Updated - There is now a dedicated web site for the book) 

 
The Reason for God:Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller, Penguin, 2008 Hardcover | 9.25 x 6.25in | 320 pages | ISBN 9780525950493 | 14 Feb 2008 | Dutton Adult

Keller is a well known Presbyterian minister at Redeemer Prebyterian Church in New York City.  He was recently interviewed in Newsweek magazine (see The Smart Shepherd) and is well known and loved in the missional/theologically driven church planting movement.  The book is a work of Christian Apologetics which is sectioned into two main parts.  Part I, entitled, “The Leap of Doubt” an exercise in defensive apologetics seeks to answer some objections to Christian faith:

1. There can’t be just one true religion
2. A good God could not allow suffering
3. Christianity is a straitjacket
4. The church is responsible for so much injustice
5. A loving God would not send people to hell
6. Science has disproved Christianity
7. You can’t take the Bible literally

The second half, entitled “The Reasons for Faith,” the move is to more positive apologetics and shaping a case for the gospel.

1. The clues of God
2. The knowledge of God
3. The problem of sin
4. Religion and the gospel
5. The (true) story of the cross
6. The reality of the resurrection
7. The Dance of God

This book will surely interupt my current reading and jump to the front of the line.  I may however tell Keller to wait as I really want to get to After the Baby Boomers - How Twenty and Thirty Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion by Robert Wuthnow .

To purchase Keller's new book Westminster Books has it for 15.47. If you have some car time allotted in life, there is also an audio book version (read by Keller) which Westminster books has for 18.87

For the Indie, Emo and Younger Crowds - And Just About Everyone

 
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Crossway Books/Re:Lit 2008, Hardcover, 5.5 x 8.5 inches, 256 pages, ISBN: 9781581349757.

If there is anything that the Christian faith is centered upon it is the person and work of Jesus.  Far too often he is the subject of much revisionist theology, much cultural invention and just plain misunderstanding.  In this work you have pastor Mark Driscoll and theologian Gerry Breshears doing a marvel team up to put out some biblically faithful yet relevantly communicated Jesusology.  From reading Mark's other books and having interacted with Dr. Breshears on a few different occasions I really look forward to this book.  Driscoll's wit, erudite mind and humor will certainly come through as will Breshears theological care and acumen.  You want good theology and the laugh out loud - this is the book.  I think this is one you could give to any non Christian person under 35 without any concern.  Jesus will be honored, the Bible's actual teaching about him on display and by God's grace  the reader just might meet Jesus in the process. 

Amazon has it for cheap here. The sermon series upon which Driscoll based the book is also online for free (audio/video) at Mars Hill Church's web site.  Audio book coming in March.

JI Packer - who is really getting up there in years - wrote this endorsement:

“This book reveals Mark Driscoll as a highly powerful, colorful, down-to-earth catechist, targeting teens and twenty-somethings with the old, old story told in modern street-cred style. And Professor Breshears ballasts a sometimes lurid but consistently vivid presentation of basic truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.”

J. I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College

Wrestler and Ultimate Fighter Matt Lindland wrote this one: 

“This book presents an honest view of Jesus without giving in to the pressure to soften him up. I had to grapple with the real vintage Jesus. This is a Savior worth fighting for.
Matt Lindland, 2000 Olympic silver medalist in wrestling; top-ranked middleweight mixed martial arts fighter

There are two passages in the first chapter of 2 Timothy which brought me to thinking about a theological issue which is of some debate in the church. 

First, Paul states that he thanks and serves God "as his ancestors did."  Second, Paul describes the faith of Timothy's mother and grandmother being the same faith which he genuinely possessed.  Paul's ancestor's were Jewish as were those in the matriarchal line which came before Timothy.  It is very possible that both Timothy's mom and grandmother were Christian converts, but the passage seems to hint at continuity between Old Covenant faith and New Testament Christianity. Of course this is of much debate as discussions about the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church continue until this day.  In this essay I will lay out ever so briefly four theological views that relate the relationship of Old and New Covenants, Israel to the church and surrounding theological issues.   In conclusion I will then give a few reasons why I favor a stronger continuity between Old and New Testaments and thereby make all my old guard dispensationalist friends shriek with pain.  Just kidding-but they would be a bit pissed.

Dispensationalism (D) - This view holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical descendants of Jacob with the church beginning at Pentecost and the church is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament.  Israel and the church have different roles/destinies in the end times  and all promises made to ethnic Israel in the OT will be fulfilled to ethnic Israel in the end times.  Salvation of some people under the Old Covenant is by obedience to the law-some have said this amounts to two different ways of salvation-one by the law, one by grace.  This view sees a strong discontinuity between the OT and NT and sees two distinct "peoples of God."  It sees God working very differently during different time periods of history (dispensations) changing his way of dealing with humanity during seven different dispensations. The "Kingdom" in the New Testament refers to the literal, physical reign of Christ on the earth during a millennium at the end of time.  It is a very Israel centric view and has the best end times charts and graphs. Proponents-The Old Scoffield Bible, 20th century Dallas Seminary, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler and Charles Ryrie. Recommended Book-Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie.

Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) - Similar to the old school dispensationalists, PD holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical people and that the church begins in the book of Acts.  It maintains the church/Israel distinction but teaches that both OT and NT people are saved by grace through faith in God's promise.  It sees more continuity between Old and New Testaments but maintains that the promises to Israel in the OT are for the ethnic line to be fulfilled in the end.   It leans more towards the covenantal view as it acknowledges the covenants as progressive moves forward towards God's plan in Christ.   It also breaks with the old D view in that it sees  hints at the church in the Old Testament but it is unclear and as the church/Gentile inclusion was a mystery yet to be fully unveiled. Proponents-Darryl Bock, Craig Blaising, Robert Saucy, Contemporary Dallas Seminary. Recommended Book-Progressive Dispensationalism by Darryl Bock and Craig Blaising.

Covenant Theology (CT) - Covenant Theology is an understanding of God's work in history that has much more continuity between Old and New Testaments.  It sees Israel as both the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham and considers God unfolding a large covenant of grace throughout history.  An original covenant of works was made with and broken by Adam in the garden and the plan of God to redeem a people for himself set forth in the covenant of grace. Some also teach there is a "covenant" of redemption that took place logically prior to creation within the Trinity. The distinction between the church/Israel is not made as it sees God always having a people with whom he relates by covenant.  Israel is called and defined by its covenant relationship to God not simply ethnicity.  God's  elect people are "one people" and the universal church has always existed in both Old and New Testament.  It sees many direct prophecies related to the church in the Old Testament and views the church as God's Plan A throughout history and the final culmination of the covenant of grace.  It views the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 as the same as Luke 22:20, both are for spiritual Israel (the seed of Abraham by faith) according to Hebrews 8.  It usually equates baptism and Old covenant circumcision as the sign of the covenant AND holds it should be applied at the same age.  CT therefore practices infant baptism of the children of believers...sometimes on the 8th day. Proponents-John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Reformed Seminaries, Presbyterians, Walter Kaiser, Michael Horton, JI Packer, RC Sproul and Bruce Waltke. Recommended Book-God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton.

Modified (or New ) Covenant Theology (NCT) -  Is similar to CT in that it sees strong continuity in the covenants of God and sees the church as spiritual Israel and heirs to the promises of God.  It is somewhat of a halfway point sharing much in common with Progressive Dispensationalism as well as Covenant Theology.  It is not as succinct a system of theology as the above, but is a way of seeing and reading Scripture in a promise/fulfillment hermeneutic.  It rejects the baptism/circumcision symmetry of Covenant Theology and holds that baptism is for believers but sees the same united redemptive framework in the biblical covenants. Additionally, it finds the CT view that their is a "covenant of redemption" within the Trinity speaking beyond Scripture. The decree/purpose of Father/Son/Spirit to creation/redeem is there but it is not described as a covenant. As CT and many within PD it holds to a now/not yet view of the Kingdom of God known as inaugurated eschatology.  Along with CT this view sees the Old Testament as containing typological references to the church in the OT that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  In contrast NCT sees the OT law differently than CT.  CT sees the OT laws divided into various categories-civil, laws pertaining to sacrifice/worship and moral laws...with the moral still binding.   NCT sees the entire OT law as a tutor to bring us to Christ and completely done away with in the New Covenant superseded by the law of Christ.  This is an area where CT and NCT knit picks tend to scrap and NCT has more in common with some dispensational thought.  Proponents-Typically Reformed type who hold to believers baptism. Though DA Carson, Mark Dever, Tom Schreiner do not see themselves fitting neatly into any camp, they typically are mentioned along with this view.  Though John Piper distinguishes himself with his own view, his is closer to this position than any other.  See What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? Recommended Book - New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel.

This is but a very small flyover of some of the theological views on how the Old and New testaments "fit together" in theological unity.   Personally I favor the approaches that see continuity between the covenants as one unfolding plan of God.  Additionally, the book of Hebrews declares the Old Covenant as abolished and the covenant by which he relates to all people is that of  the one made with the blood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 8-10).  Furthermore, Ephesians and Galatians teach that Jew/Gentile are one in the gospel. I believe that God has always related to his people by his grace and that his plan of redemption unfolded through the various covenants in biblical/redemptive history.  See our article Introduction to the Old Testament for more on this at the Inversion Web Site.   I find much to appreciate in all these systems but find the most affinity with the latter three. Old School Dispensationalism is a hard one for me to swallow but those who still hold to it are usually "all in."  Our Inversion staff team most appreciates the Progressive Dispensational and New Covenant views.   For those who don't want to buy books please check out these various systems at  Theopedia.   For those who are completely dizzy in all of that jazz please lose no sleep over it.  Smile.

One of the unique biblical images God uses to teach us about life, walking with him and serving others are attached to the end of our arms.  The hands are used for various purposes in both the Old and New Testament to reflect and teach us biblical truth.  Paul's letters to Timothy have one of these purposes, the laying on of hands by pastoral leadership, on full display.  In this essay we will look briefly on how God uses "hands" throughout Scripture concluding with a treatment on how Paul uses laying of hands in the epistles to Timothy.

Handy Metaphors in the Old and New Testaments 

There are many references to hands in the Old Testament but there is an overarching theme for each of them.  Hands represent action, the state of one's heart that finds itself into the world.  Hands represent what we do, the actions we take and how our intentions are reflecting by character and works.   We see this in hands being described as clean or unclean.  For instance,  clean hands represents a righteous life (see Job 17:9, Job 22:30, Psalm 18:20-24, Psalm 24:1-6, Psalm 73:13).  Clean hands represent holiness of life and unclean hands represents a heart that is vile and wicked.   The book of proverbs talks about hands that shed blood as being the hands of the guilty and wicked man.  Furthermore the New Testament also talks about lifting up holy hands indicating the same thing.  This is all a matter of the heart, though it is expressed with metaphors of the hands.  Jesus made it clear that washing one's hands do not cleanse the inside of a man's heart; but the work of our hands is indicative of the condition of our hearts.  Additionally, the nature of our work is seen in our hands in such prayers as Psalm 90:17 which reads: Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!   Here we find people asking God's favor upon the work of their lives.   Jesus also uses a hand metaphor to talk about a manner of life in response to God's call on us.  He tells us that no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).  So it is a clear metaphor in scripture that the condition and action of hands represent the condition of the heart before God.

Finally, though he has no physical hands, God's own favor and work is expressed with the language of  "his hands."  The work of deliverance  and redemption wrought by God in the Exodus is repeatedly described as being through "his mighty hand and outstretched arm."  God's favor is expressed by his hand "being upon us."  After Nehemiah goes before the King to ask for assistance in his work to rebuild Jerusalem we read this wonderful verse: And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me.   When the hand of God is upon a people it is a sign of favor and his working on their behalf.  This continues in the  New Testament when Jesus is said to be raised from death and seated at the right hand of God.  This is the place of power and authority beside a great King.  To finish this essay we will further discuss how power and authority is symbolically and actively transferred to people through the laying on of hands.

Laying on Hands 

Placing hands upon someone today to pray for them is becoming more and more common in evangelical churches.  I find no problem whatsoever with the practice as it indicates belief, faith and standing with one another in prayer.  However, the laying on of hands has specific meaning in Scripture of which I want us to be aware.    In the brief space that remains we will examine how the laying on of human hands indicates conveyance of blessing, judgment, transferring of guilt for sin as well as for the ordination of people in the authority of God for gospel ministry. 

In the Old Testament a father would convey the blessing and birthright to children and grandchildren through the laying on hands.  It was a transaction that was symbolic of a fathers generosity and favor upon his descendents.  Hands would also be placed by the priest onto an animal called the Scapegoat (Leviticus 16) which was being sent away from the people so as to take away their sins.  Additionally, a person bringing their own peace offering would place his hands upon the animal symbolically putting his sins upon the sacrifice (Leviticus 3:1-5).  Judgment upon a criminal was also demonstrated before the enactment of capital punishment by the placing of hands upon the offender.  The manner in the Old Testament is clear.  The authority to forgive sin, convey blessing, enact judgment was done in an official capacity in obedience to God's Word.  The authority of God and the action of God is visibly seen through the laying on of human hands.

In the New Testament we see Jesus speak some powerful words to the disciples before he ascended back to the right hand of God.  In articulating what has become known as the Great Commission, Jesus said the following in Matthew 28:  And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.  Here is the line of authority-the Father has placed ALL authority to Jesus.  Jesus then commissions his church to go in that authority and live the mission of God.  We see very clearly that authority is vested upon Jesus' followers through the laying on of hands.   This happens in several ways.

First, hands are laid upon the sick to pray for healing by both Jesus and his followers (Mark 6:5, Luke 4:40, Acts 28:8, James 5:13-15, perhaps Mark 16:18).  Remember, it is the power of God that heals the body not the person's hands.  The hands are a way of expressing faith and dependence and petition to God for healing.  One more point.  Even when the body naturally heals  it is operating according to God's design not independent of it.  So God is the source of all healing and he chooses whom he will heal and for what reasons.  We can pray in faith and trust him to work if he so chooses.  Ultimately, the final healing will come at the resurrection of the dead where we will receive immortal, incorruptible bodies and disease and death will be vanquished. Second, the Holy Sprit and spiritual gifts were at times imparted to a person from the placing on of hands and prayer (Acts 8, 9, 19).  Note again, it is not the hands which give gifts, but God who has the power and authority.  Furthermore, though this was a means by which God gave gifts he also does so without any intermediary.  If he wants to gift his people he can also do so directly.  The Spirit is also given to people today at the point of spiritual conversion and no apostle is required to convey this as Holy Spirit is promised to all who believe (Ephesians 1).  Finally, there is a clear laying on of hands to set people apart for church leadership.  In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas are set apart for missionary service.  In the pastoral epistles we see that hands are laid upon people, specifically our boy Timothy, to set him apart and confirm his calling to pastoral ministry.  In doing so the authority of Jesus is recognized and the calling of God confirmed by those who are current ministers.  Some see a pure line of hands back to the apostles themselves in ordaining to gospel ministry.  This is why Paul exhorts so not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure...for the appointing pastor/elders prematurely can damage the credibility of ministry by the work of the hands of warped and immature men.

This past Sunday I was privileged to teach with my good friends at Fellowship Bible Church in Murfreesboro, TN.  They are in the beginnings of a series entitled the Missio Dei.  My message was entitled Man's Need for God and focuses on the Fall and the need in the world for the gospel. 

40 Min - can be downloaded or listened to here: Man's Need for God. If you listen, feedback, questions and comments are welcomed. 

Though I am not an absolute pacifist in this age this movie is a great reminder that Jesus is the prince of true peace in the advent season.  Though at times perhaps necessary, war sucks - this video reminds me that Jesus teaches us a different way - blessed are the peacemakers...true peace comes through Jesus who reconciles us to God and them makes us ministers of reconciliation...

I wrote this on a pastors forum, and thought it might be of interest to some here as well:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The teaching authority of elders/pastors is always derivative from their concord with the Word of God.  This was true from day one of the church.  Before the canon was established, the concern was with the authentic apostolic nature of the message brought by a elder/pastor.  Of course in the early days this was established by those who were in direct contact with the apostolic churches - those founded by and established upon the teaching of the apostles.  This version of "apostolic succession" we all should heartily agree with.  Those churches which are in accord with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles are true churches.  Those who deviate widely from this teaching are not.  This gave rise to the importance of the bishop in the early church - he would be the one to establish sound doctrine.  When there was controversy between bishops - this gave rise to councils which deliberated upon this teachers - with the debate hinging upon the teaching of the Bible.  The canonization process was of great import as to determine the apostolic witness - the inspired writings vs. heretical teachings (be they from Marcion, Valentinus, etc).  The church "recognized" the canon as what it already was - the inspired Word.  The canon did not derive its authority from the church's ruling...

During the reformation(s) of the late medieval and early renaissance periods, the concern was to return to the sources (ad fontes) of Christian faith, namely the witness of the New Testament.  Where the church was currently deviant from the teaching of the NT, it should be "reformed" - The clear teaching of the Bible should set the course for the churches as it is the authority upon which the church is established...only upon the foundation of the Scriptures can an elder/pastor "teach with authority."  The formal principle of the reformation, that of Sola Scriptura - that each persona can read and interpret Scripture, is what McGrath is calling Protestantism's Dangerous idea.  It allows all manner of goofy and sinful teaching to be put forth in "the name of being biblical" which no other authority to adjudicate.  But the fracturing of the church by heresy did not come with Protestantism, having a guy with the hat on does not guarantee anything.  There have been heretics throughout history both pre and post reformation and the church has always had to clarify biblical orthodoxy.  The reformation had to wrestle with the question. "What if the guy in the hat gets it wrong?" - Of course the rest has been history. 

I both love and hate some of the realities of Protestantism.  There are a bunch of goofy interpretations and spins on the Bible, but yet basing the authority in a sinful man's ruling is no better path.  This is why someone's belief "ABOUT" the Bible is of great importance.  You cannot even debate in council - or on a forum :) - if someone who does not hold to the authority of the text.  At least we can wrestle under the text, if the text has authority.  If one does not believe in the authority of the text, one will say "it is all hermeneutics, all interpretation" - that there is no definitive meaning to the text.  This is why the issue of biblical authority AND hermenuetical outlook are so important.  If someone can make up "trajectories" to speak beyond the Bible, they will eventually err far from course.

Right authority ultimately comes only from GOD, we derive that authority from the book whose author is the same.  The early church leader's authority stood only upon the word of Jesus and the apostles - this we have preserved for us and our children in the New Testament.  Without this, there would be no rule to test doctrine...Of course Rome disagrees, for they have an oral tradition that lives through the magisterium.  They claim that the teaching ministry of the Roman church has never contradicted Scripture...I find this somewhat ridiculous and thus remain a Bible guy. 

Reid 

The subject of the atonement of Christ, what his death accomplished for human beings and the world, has been one of theological debate throughout church history.  The word atonement is defined by Wayne Grudem as the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.¹ Discussions of the atonement explore what it means when we confess, Christ died for us.   There have been many theories throughout history and in contemporary discussion.  The debate about the atonement within evangelicalism has reemerged in the past few decades as it has become a subject of controversy in both theological and popular circles.  In theological circles Joel Green and Mark Baker's Recovering the Scandal of the Cross brought criticism to the view of substitutionary atonement that many consider central to the gospel.  Emergent authors such as Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren have openly questioned the same.  What follows is a tiny sketch of some of the views of atonement offered over time.

Example Theory

Demonstrates how we too can suffer well and do good in standing against injustice.  His meek, submissive and non violent stand against imperial power is to inspire us, as humans like him, to do the same. Typically the divine nature of Jesus is minimized or denied with those who hold this view.  The view usually holds that God is not angry against sin and will not mete out justice to the sinner.  This is the view of today's universalists-those who believe all are saved.  It is sort of a salvation by being alive and having Jesus as your role model.  This view has a grain of truth, but for the most part misses the point of the cross of Christ.

Moral Influence Theory

The effect of the atonement is upon human beings and their moral choices, the cross does not do anything before God.  This theory was made popular by Peter Abelard a French scholastic theologian who lived from AD 1079-1142. The theory is that we would see that Jesus became one of us and died for us.  This act should make our fear of God dissolve.  Seeing that Jesus would do this demonstrates to us the love of God so t