Shai Linne

This weekend Westminster Presbyterian Church (our church here in Lancaster) hosted what was a most unusual event for our congregation.  In the middle of our 18th Century Puritan meeting-house style sanctuary, we hosted a hip hop concert.  It was the kind of cultural clash that I know the Lord loves to see happen.  A church of predominately white middle/upper class folks opening up their sanctuary to a hip hop artist from Philadelphia is the kind of cultural line crossing that should be happening in the Church today and its the kind of event that stretches congregations to the point of discomfort, and that’s good for everybody when such stretching is Biblically based.

I personally was most moved by the event.  For those who may be unfamiliar with Shai Linne, his style of hip hop (which he calls “lyrical theology”) is jam-packed with Reformed goodies.  He can define and defend a doctrine of the Reformed faith in a four-minute song better than some preachers can do it in an hour.  How many hip hop artists do you know are out there penning songs about limited atonement or total depravity?  How many do you know are outlining the covenant of grace in their songs?  How many hip hop songs have you heard that resemble a chapter of John Owen’s, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”?  Shai does all this and more.  His songs aren’t just lessons in theology, they come across as love songs for the Church.  Yes, its his passion for the bride of Christ that made Shai Linne’s performance so stirring.  He spoke of Christ’s bride being multi cultural.  He spoke of the preaching of the Word of God as the true means in which the Church engages culture.  He shared his passion for the purity of Christ’s bride and the dangers of a Church who bends and shapes itself to culture pointing out that, “those who hate God’s Truth won’t hate it any less just because you set it to hip hop beats or have a rock band presenting it.”

For me though, the most moving thing about the event were the testimonies shared after the concert by those in our church who went in skeptical of the event.  After Shai’s concert pastor Troy Debruin invited Shai out to share his testimony and then opened up the floor for any questions.  At one point Shai asked if anyone was there who was skeptical of the event.  He asked if they would share their thoughts on the concert having now experienced it.  Several shared their experiences and all of them were positive, but the one who stirred me the most was the congregant who said, “Westminster is very deliberate about making our sanctuary into a reverent place of worship.  I was most concerned about a lack of reverence in this concert.  However, after seeing it, I have to say this was one of the most moving events I’ve ever attended here.”  I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve been to hundreds of concerts in my lifetime of all sorts.  I’ve never seen a concert, even at Westminster, which had that level of both theological substance and reverence.  Shai wouldn’t agree with what I’m about to say as he’s made himself clear that his music is not intended to supplement preaching, but going to that concert in my mind equated to listening to an hour long sermon set to beats and bass lines.  It was truly an amazing event.

Check out Shai Linne’s music or read his blog, “Lyrical Theology“

Steve Nichols: Gheens Lectures at Southern Seminary

Steve Nichols: Gheens Lectures at Southern Seminary

I went to one of my favorite blogs, Between Two Worlds, to see what was new and Dr. Stephen J. Nichols was starring back at me! It’s good to see him getting recognition. We’re very blessed to have him as part of our local church congregation at Westminster Presbyterian Church and also as part of God’s Church. Tear it up, Nichols!

Posted using ShareThis

“A Case for Amillennialism”

I have to say, its rare that I recommend a book to someone and they actually do the work of finding and reading it.  So when the writer of “The Dysfunctional Parrot” actually informed me that he ordered “A Case for Amillennialism” by Kim Riddlebarger, I was quite pleased.  We have had some friendly discussion around eschatology in the past so I thought he would benefit from reading the book.  It turns out another commenter on his blog thought the same thing and ended up recommending the book as well.  Here we are a month or so later, and Dysfunctional Parrot has posted a great review of the book.  Does he end up pitching a tent around the Amillennial camp fire?  No not really.  What he does do is give an incredibly fair review of a book that defends a theological position that some in Fundamentalism would have you believe is a bunch of liberal ”over spititualized” hooey.  

‘Cause you know, no one has spread liberalism like St Augustine…

Happy Reformation Day

From Luther’s trial at the Diet of Worms:

“However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.

And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire. . . .”

Thereupon the Orator of the Empire, in a tone of upbraiding, said that his [Luther's] answer was not to the point, and that there should be no calling into question of matters on which condemnations and decisions had before been passed by Councils. He was being asked for a plain reply, without subtlety or sophistry, to this question: Was he prepared to recant, or no?

Luther then replied: “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Walking through Heidelberg part 48

Lord’s Day 24

Q & A 62

Q. Why can’t the good we do
   make us right with God,
   or at least help make us right with him?

A. Because the righteousness
   which can pass God’s scrutiny
      must be entirely perfect
      and must in every way measure up to the divine law.^1
   Even the very best we do in this life
      is imperfect
      and stained with sin.^2

   ^1 Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10 (Deut. 27:26)
   ^2 Isa. 64:6

Q & A 63

Q. How can you say that the good we do
   doesn’t earn anything
   when God promises to reward it
   in this life and the next?^1

A. This reward is not earned;
   it is a gift of grace.^2

   ^1 Matt. 5:12; Heb. 11:6
   ^2 Luke 17:10; 2 Tim. 4:7-8

Q & A 64

Q. But doesn’t this teaching
   make people indifferent and wicked?
   A. No.
   It is impossible
      for those grafted into Christ by true faith
   not to produce fruits of gratitude.^1

   ^1 Luke 6:43-45; John 15:5

The Scriptures say a lot about “good works” and how they aren’t really all that good.  The reason for this is because sin has so destroyed and stained mankind that any attempt at doing good is like someone killing your spouse and then turning around and giving you a puppy.  The offense that we’ve done to God through sin is so great that our attempts at doing good is pitiful at best.  They carry no merit with a perfect God who demands perfection.  Fortunately for the believer, we are covered in the righteousness of Christ.  Because of Christ’s righteousness we are now capable of bearing fruits that are pleasing to God.  They don’t add to our salvation since salvation is already achieved at the cross, but they bear testimony to the redeeming work of Christ in our lives.  Its because of this, good works become a necessary part of the Christian walk.  The confession rightly says, “It is impossible for those grafted into Christ by true faith not to produce fruits…”

Subscribing to Christian labels

In my trek to a reformed theology I’ve seen many Christians caught up on the subject of labels. For those who were raised with a reformed theology it doesn’t seem to be an issue. In my experience, it’s with those that come from a non-denominational camp that have the biggest bone to pick.

It’s not that hard to figure out either; for non-denominational people obscurity is in their very name (or label). If they took one class on Church history they’re bound to leave with a few foreign labels tied around their necks (e.g. reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, protestant, etc.). But they’d deny them all solely in favor of the Christian label. To me, this is contradictory; they’ve shed all labels to defend one they’ve deemed acceptable. What makes that particular one acceptable and all others unacceptable?

I actually embrace labels. But there was a short period in my youth where I didn’t even want to associate myself with the label of Christianity (gasp). It’s true. My entire reasoning rested upon the zealous antics of one Jerry Falwell. Even though in retrospect the late Mr. Falwell was a brother in Christ some of his more popularized opinions had me cringing (ahem, Teletubbies). Why would I, being a Christian, ever want to be associated with other asshole-Christians like Falwell? Not that Falwell was inherently an asshole-Christian, but at the time that was my thinking.

Now that I’ve grown up a little it’s easy for me to see I can’t escape asshole-ism in any large social group; it’s true with political parties, neighbors and even friends. Well, there’s that and the question of why I would abandon the Christian name to guys like Falwell instead of trying my best to reclaim it for Christ and restore some integrity to it. I find it’s more appropriate to use labels beyond the name of Christianity to separate myself from Falwell’s fundamental ways so as to not get caught in the same mold.

Even though my problem with labels wasn’t exactly the same as the one I’m talking about here I can relate to disassociating from an idea.

“… and ’tis always a defect in language, in such cases, to be obliged to make use of a description, instead of a name.”

What Jonathan Edwards is saying here is that it’s an abuse of the English language to not allow labels to encapsulate description. I believe he is showing labels in the appropriate light – that they merely describe and nothing more. They’re not something to live and die by as some do, but rather something to assist the majority in understanding what one believes. I for one take it as a courtesy to be able to understand where someone is coming from upon the declaration of Pentecostal, Baptist or reformed-charismatic. I’d find it annoying and a waste of time to sit through another Christian’s long explanation of their beliefs every time I wanted to get to know them better just as I’d find it annoying and a waste of time to explain all the attributes of the #6 combo meal when ordering instead of simply being able to say “I’ll have a #6, please”.

For those who don’t subscribe to labels it really isn’t helping other people much because the opposition will label them accordingly anyway. In a sense, one who does not subscribe to labels is in danger of being labeled (or therefore labels themselves). For instance, if I were to ask someone if they belonged to the Democratic party or the Republican party and they answered neither would the majority of Americans not call them a moderate? So we see that if one doesn’t subscribe to labels they inherently have subscribed to the label of “no labels” and in addition the opposition to whatever label they’re trying to avoid will naturally label them appropriately anyway.

Most Christians look to Edwards with great respect. He’s many pastors’ favorite theologian, including Dr. John Piper. I don’t bring this up to suggest we simply conform because a “real smart dude” embraces labels, but I am suggesting that if “real smart dude” does embraces labels and sees the opposition as a defect of language then we should at least consider that. Also, consider that every brilliant author on our bookshelves more than likely subscribe to an array of labels. If they don’t they’re surely in the minority and their book has had to subscribe to a few anyway.

Our world history and American history were really no different at churning out labels than our Church history was; however, our proximity to the border seems to take care of most discrepancies there. But why accept historical or cultural labels? We may call ourselves Americans because of citizenship, but within that why do we call ourselves Democrats or Republicans as opposed to anything else? Why are these labels unquestionably acceptable for even a Christian, but reformed, Calvinist or Arminian somehow are not? Is it because our reputation is at stake; after all, who wants to be known as unpatriotic?

With respect to the majority if one label is acceptable and another is not then we must conclude that the underlying idea of the acceptable label is more important or at least more protected than the underlying idea of the unacceptable label. In other words, if one is acceptably a Republican, but unacceptably a Calvinist (but they believe in both underlying ideas) then we must conclude that the Republican idea is more important to them than what they believe concerning the doctrine of irresistible grace. I’m sure someone will argue, but how would they be able to justify using the label of Republican, a label that hasn’t even been around as long as Calvinism? If the issue of rejecting labels is at hand then by default the issue of accepting labels is at hand. In this case, the label of Republican has been accepted by this person which begs us to ask by what standard it hasn’t been rejected. And then more importantly why the label of Arminian or Calvinist hasn’t meet that standard to the degree that Republican has.

It’s clear that the label of American is more defined within the label of Republican just as the label of Christian is more defined within the label of Calvinist or Arminian. Is it not more important to be clear about exactly who we are in Christ than it is to be clear about who we are in America or literally anything else for that matter? I don’t think so. I think we’d all agree that our Christianity is the most important thing in our lives. What then holds some Christians back from subscribing to the labels within as descriptors?

I believe the difference between an American label and a Christian label is moral superiority. If one is a different type of American from another it is perfectly acceptable (as America’s two-party system is acceptable), but if one is a different type of Christian from another it’s perfectly unacceptable (as Christians harboring division are unacceptable). Subscribing to a label within Christianity forces one to segregate themselves away from the majority that are simply believers in which case both sides see the opposition as smug or prideful, being morally superior. I find this to be understandable but only to a degree. There is a point at which we offend God in favor of not offending other Christians, but only if we believe there is one true religion and one true non-contradictory doctrine of that religion described in the Bible.

It makes more sense for those who believe the Bible is fallible and errant to reject all labels aside from Christianity than it does for a sola scriptura believing Christian to embrace them. If we’re confident about what we believe what difference does it make if we offend other Christians who hold opposing doctrinal viewpoints by utilizing a label to encapsulate a description when we already adhere to the underlying idea? But if we’re unsure of exactly what we believe or are postmodern in our thought it makes more sense to avoid all labels lest we’re put in the spotlight and have to answer for them.

Penn is gifted a Bible

Today I was clicking through a local church’s fan page on Facebook when I found an embedded YouTube video from Penn of Penn & Teller. He does a “Penn Says” bit on YouTube. I’d embed it here, but Penn has disabled the option for his videos to be embedded. You’ll need to visit this link to watch it: A gift of a Bible

In the video he tells the story of a “good man”, a fan, he met after a show that gifts him with the Gideon pocket-edition of the book of Psalms. The fan writes his contact information in the front so that if Penn had any questions he’d know where to find him.

Now, Penn is a known atheist, but his response to this action was incredibly interesting – Penn seems to be genuinely moved at the fan’s gesture and expresses an encouragement of his motives. In the video Penn shows that he understands that if God is who he says he is and hell is real then it’s absolute truth that a non-believer would incur God’s wrath and go to hell. In fact, he knows it so well that he gives the example of someone about to be hit by a truck and how he would be forced at some point to tackle that person. He then goes on to say that the issue of everlasting life is more important than the truck example. In other words, he understands that the fan has done exactly what he should be doing if everlasting life is absolutely attainable.

I can’t help but relate this to Ravi Zacharias’s apologetic against postmodern thought in part 3 of The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society. I find it curious that an atheist recognizes absolute truth, but some Christians refuse to do the same with their postmodern approach. After watching this I’m convinced even Penn would consider a postmodern approach to the gospel to be ludicrous. Atheism is absolute; it only makes sense that an atheist would take the same approach to Christianity.

At one point Penn asks this:

“How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

Wow. I haven’t been challenged that much by most pastors I listen to. He’s suggesting that we must hate those we do not try and proselytize – that Christians have access to the most important information ever possible and that it could only be pure hate that would keep us from sharing that gift with anyone who could possibly not know it. I’m floored.

In the end Penn chalks the fan’s actions up to being merely good, and says that with that type of goodness it’s okay to have that deep of a disagreement between belief and non-belief. Penn is open to talking with this fan because of the fan’s right attitude and rightly so; I wouldn’t expect Penn to feel any other way.

This video leaves me asking tons of questions though. I’m interested in what Penn feels he can attribute evil to, what makes good inherently good and why the idea of a God even exists in our reality. At some point Penn will have to reflect on this situation and determine what makes this man good at all.

Reason to rejoice!

I just want to take a second and celebrate with our very own Justin Carroll and wish him and his wife a very happy 5th Wedding Anniversary!  The covenant of marriage is powerful and yet its been so perverted and cheapened in our day and age.  Congrats Justin and Dee and thank you for taking a stand against the trends of our culture by preserving God’s oldest institute.  We pray that the Lord will continue to be the foundation on which your household is built.

Peace Among Opposing Viewpoints

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:14-20)

The Church has a lengthy history with many viewpoints and interpretations. Discourse is something every Christian will face; not to mention the name of Christianity alone is enough to do this in a secular world.

Who of us isn’t guilty of heated debate at some point? I for one am. It’s been too often in the past that debates have started good and ended bad. But God is constantly challenging me to think differently about how I see the opposition through to the end.

Recently I’ve been reading Timothy Keller’s book, The Reason for God: Belief In An Age of Skepticism and listening to Dr. David Calhoun’s lectures from the Covenant Theological Seminary course called Ancient & Medieval Church History. Both of these works at times have carried a similar message of peace among opposing viewpoints.

In Keller’s book he encourages the reader to understand no one escapes a leap of faith whether it’s morality, God or indifference towards the idea of God. The idea here is to level the playing field; to help everyone see each other as peers and not merely wrong. This helps people engage each other amicably and without arrogance or overbearing offense.

In Dr. Calhoun’s lectures he highlights what’s considered the Church’s first apology, Dialogue With Trypho by Justin Martyr, the account of a two-day theological debate between Justin and his Jewish friend, Trypho. Justin describes points in the discussion where he uses his conversion as a talking point, where Trypho states how sad it is that Justin gave up the teachings of Plato in favor of Christianity and where they debated the Scripture of the Septuagint versus the Scripture of the Talmud. Dr. Calhoun points out that overall the debate is extremely courteous. In fact, Justin notes that Trypho was delighted with it saying they had uncovered more than he had expected and that if they could do this more frequently they should be greatly helped in searching the Scriptures. Trypho, knowing that Justin is set to sail and on the eve of departure, sweetly asks that they be remembered as friends when he is gone. Justin then prays for Trypho and wishes him well.

It’s unfortunate that the remainder of Church history has not reflected on this debate more. Here we have a shining example of how debate sharpens our knowledge of Scripture and how it can be done in such a way as to create a bond in those who hold to very separate theological viewpoints.

I think these themes of peace also stood out to me because of a recent discussion I’ve had online with an acquaintance of mine. We have very contrasting ways of approaching the Bible; mine being predominantly a Western method and theirs being a predominantly Eastern method. And there’s a good possibility we both disagree even about that statement! But, one thing I’ve been very thankful for is that even though we both stand by our theology we’re able to challenge each other respectfully and not digress into unnecessary side-remarks, mincing words or other cheap debating techniques. I highly value our discourse and hope that there will be ways to continue it in the future.

I have no doubt that Keller, Calhoun and Justin would ultimately give the glory to God in their encouragement of peace; after all, it was his idea to begin with.

“Young, Restless, Reformed” A Book Review

I feel I should preface this review by saying that it has taken me longer to write this review then it did to actually read Collin Hansen’s, “Young, Restless, Reformed“.  I’ve never written a book review before so this is new ground for me.  I’m not quite sure of the proper “book review” etiquette so I apologize in advance if I’ve broken some “book review golden rule”.

Collin Hansen sums up his entire book in his title.  The book is indeed about young, restless people who are Reformed.  It also has the occasional old guy in there too like John Piper, John MacArthur (who is not Reformed), and Michael Horton.  

I wanted to read this book for one reason; encouragement.   Encouragement because as I look around at others in my generation, I see a lot of theological confusion.  On one side of me, I see people still solidly rooted in the Charismatic and Fundamentalist traditions of their parents.  They seem to be very zealous about their faith, longing to see true works of the Holy Spirit, but rarely is there much theological knowledge behind their methods.  On the other side of me I see many young people becoming wrapped up in the Emergent movement.  Understandably so.  Many of these people have left the first group I’ve mentioned for something deeper and quite frankly, more hip.  Not only is the Emergent movement full of trendy scenesters hopped up on micro breweries and Pearl Jam, but it’s also full of intellectuals.  Bright people who can make a good case for their theology and ideas.  Unfortunately the bridge of orthodoxy is usually burned.  The Bible gets lip service, but many in this camp would rather question the virgin birth and other orthodox ideas than acknowledge full Biblical authority.

Collin Hansen makes a strong case that there is another side to youthful Christianity.  Its a side of Christianity that is full of young people who may not have been satisfied by their parents’ fundamentalism, but they’re also not willing to compromise on orthodoxy.  These people are finding that the Reformed camp gives them the theological depth they’re looking for while avoiding the traps of Fundamentalism and the Emergent “conversation”.  I was surprised throughout the book that as young people talked about what drew them into Reformed theology, many shared that it was the Reformed idea of a huge God.  Perhaps it stems from years of being told God is your genie, that He’s there to grant your every wish, that His plan and His will is dependent on human choice.  This kind of thinking puts man over God and creates a backwards theology where God has to operate inside a box of humanity’s desires.  Hansen shows in the book that many young people are realizing that this is not the God of the Bible.  They’re starting to realize that the God of Scripture is one who will accomplish His will whether humans are willing to play ball or not.

One of the more interesting aspects of this book is that it shows that the “New Calvinists” are a diverse group of people.  This swing to Reformed theology isn’t just a mass exodus to traditionally Reformed denominations like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the Presbyterian Church in America.  Rather, Reformed theology is starting to transform other sects of Christianity.  One account shared tells how Al Mohler cleaned out Southern Baptist Seminary and restored a committment to preaching the doctrines of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.  Other accounts show how Calvinism has invaded the Charismatic circles.  Men like C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris embrace Calvinism open armed while still continuing in their Charismatic ways.  Of course the idea of Baptists and Charismatics becoming the new face of Calvinism had me more than a little uncomfortable, I must admit.  However I am thankful that the theology of the Reformation is being embraced in these circles and is starting to reach audiences that were previously untouched by Protestant Orthodoxy.  At some point we must simply trust God and the Holy Spirit to continue to enlighten and guide these churches.  If John MacArthur, one of the loudest opponents of the Charismatic movement, can embrace C.J. Mahaney and even invite him to his church to preach then that should lead us all to be a little more gracious.

In the end I remain cautiously optimistic of this movement.  Michael Horton became a very strong voice of reason in this book.  He too is cautiously optimistic.  He pointed out that what many are calling “reformed” is really five point Calvinism.  He noted that in order to be truly Reformed, you must embrace the “whole kit and caboodle”.  It’s not enough to be a Calvinist.  You must also embrace Covenant Theology.  You must also be able to confess the faith that is found in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism.  I’m grateful for men like Horton who are voicing the concern that certain issues such as baptism may be being put on the back burner.  In the year since the book was first published I have noticed more attention being given to the Covenant side of Reformed theology.  Groups like the Gospel Coalition bring men such as D.A. Carson, Phil Ryken, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, and John Piper together in a joint confessional statement that goes beyond simply affirming the five points of Calvinism.  Granted the statement is far from a complete confession of Reformed theology but it does show a progression in the right direction, particularly for men like Mark Driscoll who’s doctrinal statement for Mars Hill is vague at best on some of these issues.  I’m glad to see strong voices of the Reformed faith in America come along side this new generation.  Such partnerships can only be beneficial to the spread of Reformation theology.