Burning the Qu'ran

I get it.  I totally understand the frustration of Christians that even America seems to give Islam a free pass on whatever it wants to do, and yet seems to be fighting Christianity every step of the way.  I understand that it is infuriating when the news media turns a blind eye to attacks on Christianity and then raises the alarm at the slightest insult to any other faith community.  That indignation is righteous indignation, the US Army even burned the unsolicited Bibles that churches sent to Iraq, and it sure didn't make this much news.  The Church, is under persecution.  Persecution doesn't always take the same form.  It is not only martyring believers and throwing the saints in jail, it is also marginalizing and attacking the church socially and psychologically.  That said this indignation does NOT give us the right to lash out against others in anger or pridefully assert our right to do the same thing they did. The Bible says:

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10:29-31)

Let God repay those who act against the Church, let us, in the meantime, act in a spirit of peace, love, and humility. Justice belongs to the Lord of Heaven.  When Paul in Acts 17 spoke to the Greeks, he didn't deface their holy materials, he respectfully used them to demonstrate that they were wrong and shared the Gospel.  The Beast of the Book of Revelation wasn't conquered by protest and book burnings, it was the "word of their testimony" and the blood of the Lamb.  Jesus rebuked James and John for asking that Jesus call down fire from Heaven on the Samaritan village that rejected them.

Standing up for the Gospel in a way that makes you a martyr is one thing, making martyrs out of others (believers and non-believers) is another thing entirely.  Soldiers will die for this book burning.  Believers in Islamic communities will (and have already) die for this book burning.  Are our brothers and sisters being put at risk for the Gospel?  No, this isn't the Gospel.  The Gospel is what those brothers and sisters were already proclaiming in these countries.  This is a show, an act of frustration, desperation, and anger.  The Church, especially the Church that lives under the persecution of Islam needs our prayer.  Here are a few prayer requests passed on by Christian Solidarity Worldwide by leaders of congregations in Muslim lands:

“Things are very, very difficult here…Several Village Heads who reported on Boko Haram have …been killed and then yesterday Boko Haram attacked Bauchi prison. The situation in Maiduguri is very tense. Please be praying for us. We need prayers for God’s grace and survival…We are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of [the burning of the Qur’an]. Since we saw news of what he plans we have been weeping and mourning. Ramadan will end here either end today or tomorrow. People are already moving their families away for safety.”
—From a pastor in Maiduguri, Nigeria, scene of the 2006 cartoon riots and the worst of the 2009 Boko Haram violence

“In northern Nigeria the tension is high. We are in great panic because if this occurs it will be worse than 2006, and most of our churches will be burnt down. If you can plead with those people to stop the burnings it will help us.”
—Anglican Bishop Musa Tula of Bauchi, Nigeria

“As I write the Iraqi Army Colonel has just left. He had a clear message: “There are plans to blow you up because of what the Pastor in Florida has said about burning the Holy Koran”. There is nothing we can do to protect ourselves. The army is being sent to us in force to try and protect us, what they can do is also limited…”
—The Reverend Canon Andrew White, Anglican Chaplain to Iraq
Provided by The Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East

(Thanks to Michael Scott Horton for the prayer requests and some of the inspiration for this post)

Please pray for the church.   

This is the church

This is the church, which does the work of Christ on earth. Its members are a little flock and few in number, one or two here and two or three there, a few in this district and a few in that. But these are they that shake the universe; who change the fortune of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the lifeblood of the country, the shield, the defense, the stay and the support of any nation to which they belong.


J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)

The Church (building) today

I just came across this article by R.C. Sproul on the lessons for modern church design that we can learn for the tabernacle (Here is the link).  I found it quite interesting.  Dr. Sproul points out that the design of the tabernacle in the Old Testament was meticulously laid out by God Himself down to the threads and linens of the gowns and furnished with the most costly and beautiful materials known to man.  In fact, the very first people mentioned in Scripture as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit were the artisans who worked on it.   There are more chapters of the Bible devoted to the construction of the tabernacle than in the whole book of Romans.

Now, obviously the Law has been fulfilled in Christ and the rules of regulations of the Old Testament temple system no longer apply--we don't need to build our churches to tabernacle specifications.  However, Sproul argues that there are principles under those specifications, just like the principles that undergird the Decalogue and the rest of the Law, that should instruct us on what is true and good.

Sproul's argument is that the actual church building is meant to appeal to the senses as a place dedicated to God, something that points to and reflects a Sovereign Lord up above.  He specifically mentions, in modern church buildings, how the church used to be built around a raised pulpit, reflecting the primacy of the Word of God.  Modern churches now have movable pulpits, if they have them at all, so that the church can look more like a concert hall than a place to sit under the Word.  The old testament tabernacle was meant to point towards the heavenly through all senses, through the beautiful sights, the beautiful sounds of psalmody, and even the beautiful smell of incense.  

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on all of this.  A big part of me reacts against the grandiosity (or, occasionally gaudiness) of high church cathedrals and what not, desiring instead a simpleness and humbleness of design.  How much of that, however, is just a function of what I'm used to and my Protestant reaction against all things Roman Catholic?  It also seems like the grand churches, in the Protestant world, are those pastored by shallow televangelist types who care more about appearance and prosperity than really understanding and teaching the Scriptures.  The money spent on beautifying the buildings could best be spent on the community, and in the mission field.  Then again, however, that option existed in the Old Testament too, and that is not how God commanded Israel's resources be spent.  Obviously there is a wrong way to build grand churches (e.g. selling indulgences to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica), but maybe the Romists have this one, at least partially, right.

Does a utilitarian multipurpose facility church really point to the majesty of the Lord the way it should?  I'm honestly not sure.  There's probably a happy medium here (and I think that's probably Sproul's position, coming from a Reformed background), where churches don't have to be spectacular marvels of architecture, but merely are designed in such as way as to display proudly and conspicuously their goal of being a light to the world and the majesty of God.  We can't expect a small congregation the third world to build a cathedral.  In fact many early New Testament churches met in homes, not dedicated church buildings.  Nevertheless, for congregations with some means, there may be a lesson here.  At the very least we shouldn't necessarily leap to judgment when we see a congregation spending seemingly excessively on a new church.  What do you guys think?

RSS Feed

I've added the ability to subscribe to the blog via RSS, just for Nathan!

Why does the world look so old?

I was thinking of writing a blog post about the theological consequences of accepting the old earth theory (i.e.: the earth is several billion years old) and then reading that into the Bible, but it appears Dr. Albert Mohler did that already and did a much better job than I could at his address at the 2010 Ligonier Ministries Conference.

In summation, beyond just the natural reading of Genesis 1 and exegetical arguments for 24 hour days (which, despite the day-age theorizing, are so strong that it's difficult to hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and an old earth), holding to an old earth theory of "creation" has a profound effect on one's theology.  For one, the historicity of the Fall cannot be held to.  If one cannot hold to a historical Fall and the resulting effects of sin (one of which being physical death entering the world), then a great deal of the Bible's teaching on sin and redemption crumbles.  For instance, the way Paul shows the necessity of Christ's redeeming work in Romans (particularly chapter 5) is based on a historical understanding of Adam and the Fall.  What does Christ as the second Adam mean if there never was a first Adam?  Or if Adam was just one of a great number of evolving humans, how then can he be the father of humanity, whose sin affected all humanity as his progeny.  

Here's Mohler's address here in video form, or here as a transcript (incidentally, hosted by the very organization, biologos, he was speaking out against).

The Social Gospel

I'll return to the covenants in a day or two, but first I wanted to write a little something on the social gospel, or social outreach by the church in general.  I've seen a lot of social outreaches (feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, disaster relief, etc.) being supported by churches and Christians lately, and that's great.  We're called to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction (James 1:27).  We're even called to feed our enemies when they are hungry (Romans 12:20), but sometimes it can miss the point.

Humanitarian efforts mean nothing if they don't forward the gospel.  I'm not saying every bowl of rice has to come with a tract, but if we merely clothe a man and then leave him alone, is he really much better off?  A glass a water may stave off a man's thirst for awhile, but only the living water of Christ can make a man never thirst again (John 4:10).  Man is born, by virtue of his sinful nature, with a one way ticket to an eternity in Hell.  That is his real affliction, far more serious than water or food (though God knows that we need those things too, Matthew 6:32).  Now obviously we of means should not ignore the physical sufferings of our fellow man, but as J. Gresham Machen said:

Wherever the notion is cherished that the relief of physical suffering is somehow more important--more practical--than the welfare of the human spirit, these material things are being made the chief object of pursuit.  And that is not Christian love.  Christian love does not, indeed, neglect man's physical welfare; it does not give a man a sermon when he needs bread.  It relieves distress; it delights in affording even the simplest pleasure to a child.  But it always does these things with the consciousness of the one inestimable gift that it has in reserve.  (From What is Faith?)

There has always been a tendency in some branches Christianity (at least in modern times) towards nourishing the body of man while neglecting his soul.  Perhaps it's because man, many times, is so much more appreciative when you feed him or clothe him.  Many unsaved men will respond with a blank stare, or even outright derision, to the gospel message when shared with him.  A hungry man will rarely refuse a warm Big Mac.  And yet man is so much more hungry for the Gospel--they just refuse to realize it.  I was reminded of this again, reading Michael Horton's excellent article on the tension in evangelicalism between its reformed and anti-reformed, pietist roots.  The latter roots lay in the second "Great Awakening", led in great portion by Charles Finney.  This movement

confused the Kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this world and imagined that Christ's reign could be made visible by the moral, social, and political activity of the saints. There was little room for anything weighty to tie the movement down, to discipline its entrepreneurial celebrities, or to question its "revivals" apart from their often short-lived publicity.  (From the article mentioned above)

This in part led to the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century which held the belief that the second coming could not occur until the church had rid the world of social evils but largely ignored the call to evangelism.  This confusion of the Kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of the world, as Horton puts it, has never really lost its hold on the mainstream church.  

Humanitarian and social efforts are like life support.  They can never cure the disease or remove death from the door, it just makes life a little more palatable and delays death a little longer.  Life support, in its proper use, is just a tool to give the physicians more time and opportunity to supply a cure.  To provide life support and withhold the cure (the gospel) is no favor to the patient!  Death will still come, and he will be no better off when it does.  We have the cure, let's use it.

What is a covenant?

A century before the conquest of Canaan, a near-eastern (most commonly Hittite) covenant was distinguished by a number of elements:

1. Preamble: Identifies who made the treaty, frequently of the form "Thus saith [name], the great king, king of [land], son of [name] ... the valiant".
2. Historical Prologue:  The history of the relationship between the parties involved that brought about and justified the treaty.  These were treaties between a suzerain and vassal (to use feudal terms), that is to say a great king or emperor and the lesser king under his protection.  The historical prologue enumerated the great things the suzerain had done for the vassal (rescued him from his enemies, etc.) in great detail, as if to show that by virtue of the benevolence of the suzerain nothing less than grateful acceptance of the covenant (which were typically very one-sided) was merited.
3. Stipulations: The terms of the treaty were set forth, frequently as "Thou shalt... thou shalt not...".   These were seen as more than legal obligations, but the utterly reasonable duty of the vassal and not merely to be carried out mechanically out of obligation, but with trust, love, and genuine faithfulness, fitting the character of the liberation received by the people of the lesser king.  Frequent stipulations included no alliances with other kings, no murmuring against the suzerain, payment of tribute tax, and a pledge to raise a regiment of soldiers for any action against a covenant breaker.  This was in return  
4. Sanctions: These were the ramifications of the vassal failing to uphold the covenant, typically following a "blessings and cursings" formula.  In return for faithful adherence to the covenant, the suzerain pledged to guard his vassals.  The vassal was granted the right to "invoke" the suzerain's name, assuring swift rescue from the great king. 
5. Deposit of the Treaty:  Tablets of the treaty were deposited in the sacred temples of both parties.  A periodic public reading of the covenant was also required, to remind the peoples and the new generations of their obligations.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?  It should, a great portion of the Bible is written in covenantal form.  Even the common ceremonies of ratifying covenants appear in the Bible.  Some ceremonies involved the parties passing between the split carcasses of animals (as if to say, may this befall me if I break the covenant, recall Abraham's dream in Genesis 14), others involved the vassal king walking behind the suzerain down an aisle (hence the language of "walking after God" in the Scriptures).  Celebratory meals were often had after ratification as well.  

There are many covenantal layers to the Bible.  You can look at the specific Old Testament covenants, such as the Adamic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic or Sinai covenant.  You can even look at the whole Bible as the historical prologue to the new covenant (the term "testament" even implies this).  Many have argued that covenants form the very basic architecture of the Bible and are, if not fundamental, than extremely useful in understanding it.  This is the field of covenantal theology.  

An example of this might be the distinguishing between the Sinai and the Adamic covenant.  It's obvious that the two covenants were not enforced in the same manner.  One slip up and Adam and Eve were considered covenant breakers and were shipped out of the Garden of Eden.  Israel, after taking their oath to the covenant at Sinai, screwed up time and time again and yet God was patient and longsuffering.  If He had enforced it as he did the Adamic covenant, Israel would have never made it to Canaan!  Though it's not crystal clear in Scripture, the difference probably lies in the purposes of the covenants.  The Adamic covenant was an individual covenant whose purpose was to stipulate the duty required under God's protection from death.  The Sinaic covenant, on the other hand, though containing elements geared towards the individual, was mainly a national covenant meant to establish a people for typological purposes.  The people of Israel were/are meant to prefigure the true and everlasting Kingdom of God.  They could not fulfill that role if perfect obedience was required (again, perfect obedience was still required for individual salvation as per the Adamic covenant, but not for national protection and oversight).  

So, that's a brief introduction to the covenant.  I'm no expert on covenant theology--far from it in fact.  Dispensationalism is generally regarded as the school of theology opposite covenant theology (though they are certainly not incompatible in all respects), and I was raised by dispensationalist parents and spent 2 years at the bastion of dispensationalism, Moody Bible Institute.  My idea of covenant theology was that it believed that national Israel was completely superceded by the Church and God has no role for them to play any longer (A belief mostly characteristic of traditional covenant theologians) and that they interpreted eschatological (end time) prophecy very metaphorically (actually varies a great deal amongst covenant theologians).  Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is extremely literal in prophetic interpretation.  Followers generally believe in a rapture prior to a tribulation, prior to a millennial reign of Christ on this Earth.  Covenant theologians generally (and this isn't entirely being fair, as there is a great deal of variation) do not, holding to no rapture, tribulation being a generalized period of trouble for the church, possibly referring to the persecutions of the Roman Empire, and the millennial reign being a figurative picture of Christ superintending his Church throughout the Church Age (today).  Dispensationalism views God as relating to humans in fundamentally different ways (often implying different methods of obtaining salvation) under different historical periods, whereas covenant theology sees God as more uniform in His dealings with man.  They believe typically that, while God's revelation of Himself and his manner of dealing with mankind has progressed and increased through history, all it has done is further elucidate His same manner of relating to mankind.  I don't know if I'm being 100% accurate in my description of covenant theology, as most of it I've learned through the lens of dispensationalist works, but I think I'm being pretty fair.

However, though well schooled in dispensationalism, it always bothered me that so many of the greatest, most devoted exegetes of the Bible throughout history were not dispensational (really, dispensationalism didn't even come up until the 1800's).  I always wanted to spend some time looking into it, so now I am!   The first thing that I am learning is that covenant theology is much more rich and complex than a simple way of interpreting end times prophecy.  There's a lot more to it, and it's very fascinating, as I hope the opening portion of this post showed.  I'm presently reading Introducing Covenant Theology by Dr. Michael Horton (which the opening description of covenants is highly dependent upon) as well as some other articles and materials, and plan to keep posting what I learn!