I want to be there

As many of you may know one of my passions is to do things outdoors - hiking, camping, backpacking, and photography. One of the reasons why I love Southern Calfornia and San Diego is there are many possibilities to do these activities within very short distances. Even though I love this area and the many different ecosystems that there are here, there are still many places I would love to be. There are two places in particular - Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. If you have never been to either of these places then you have to do so sometime in your life. Both of these places have webcams that I frequently look at to drive myself crazy wishing I could be there! This morning was probably the worst time I have had doing this exercise in a while. Let me explain...

Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone is America's oldest National Park and contains some of the most unique ecosystems in the world. I have been to Yellowstone on I think three occastions, the last of which was with Michelle (her first time). Because Michelle had never been there we went on a whirlwind tour. In such a large place having so much to see, we breezed through there in a day and a half. We had to see all the popular sites because Michelle had never seen them before. It was in the beginning of August, and therefore was quite busy with tourists. Overall that wasn't really a problem and we were able to see everything we wanted to see. On the one full day that we were there the weather shifted very rapidly from shorts and t-shirts to snowing (first week in August)!! The next morning we had ice in our water bottles at our campsite! I could keep going on and on about this place, but both Michelle and I had an amazing time and have been talking about going back ever since.

So this morning I was looking at the webcam that looks at the Old Faithful geyser. It was just after 9:00 in the morning there and the viewing area was completely empty and the gesyer was "scheduled" to erupt within a couple of minutes. If it was the summer months, the viewing area would already have a lot of people. Well, Old Faithful began to erupt and two people showed up to watch. That is it!! I want to be there sooooooo bad!! Here is the photo:

Glacier National Park
My family went to Glacier in the mid 90s and I have been dying to get back there ever since. Such a beautiful place. The national park has a great collection of webcams that I love looking at. They are set up with very beautiful scenery in their view. Here is a capture from this morning looking at Lake McDonald:

There are a lot of webcams out there in many beautiful places. Here is the link to many of the NPS webcams. Enjoy!

Lively Preaching

As I have mentioned here before I am a co-teacher for my church's 7th-8th grade catechism class. We are working through the "Gratitude" section of the Heidelberg Catechism which includes the Ten Commandments. A couple of weeks ago we were on Lord's Day 35 which deals with the second commandment. POP QUIZ: What is the second commandment?... That's right - No idols or images of God. One of the things I love most about the Catechism (and the Westminster Catechisms as well) is that they expound on the Biblical teaching of the Ten Commandments and give us a fuller meaning of what God is saying through the Decalogue. It is surprising at first to hear the answer in response to the question "What does God require in the second commandment?" Answer - "That we in no way make any image of God..." So far so good, this is exactly what we would expect from the language of the second commandment, and so far we can probably say we keep this commandment fairly well. But then more is said, "...nor worship Him in any other way than he has commanded us in his Word" (Q&A 96) Well then, maybe we have to rethink our keeping of this commandment!

In Reformed Theology this is called the "Regulative Principle of Worship" (the RPW) which means that we cannot do in worship anything that is not commanded by God (this is what the second half of the answer of Q&A 96 says). Unfortunately, many churches, and even Reformed churches have failed to uphold the RPW. Instead they go towards the false view of the RPW which states, "We can do in worship anything that God hasn't forbid us from doing." Do you see the difference? Things would be a lot different in worship if we used God's Word positively to guide our worship.

There is more to be said concerning the RPW, but I want to focus on Q&A 98 (still concerned with the second commandment) of the Heidelberg Catechism which is:

Q. But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books (teaching aids) for the people?
A. No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have his people taught by dumb idols, but by the lively preaching of his Word.

What is the method by which God has ordained to teach his people about the wonderful truths of the Gospel? Romans 10:14 and 17 give us a clear answer - by preaching. And this is what the catechism says as well - "by the lively preaching of his Word." The catechism puts it plainly that "we are not to be wiser than God." He knows what he is doing by ordaining this simple and foolish method for making the truth of salvation known! It always amazes me how much wiser than God many preachers think they are. They think that they need to do something different to really reach people so they show slide shows, movies, use props or demonstrations, or the most appalling of them all... (sorry Tracy)... dramas. In effect what happens when these things are used is that the preacher has lost confidence in God's ability to work through his means by the power of the Holy Spirit, and instead has turned to the devices of man.

"But Mark..." you say, "a lot has changed since Paul wrote Romans. Paul didn't know about all the cool technology that we have." True, but there was plenty of entertainment in Paul's day that could have been employed. According to Everett Ferguson in Backgrounds of Early Christianity the heyday of Greek theater had past by the time Christianity came on the scene, but there were still traveling performers that would put on plays in the towns and cities (p. 99-100). Ferguson goes on to make a very interesting statement, "The plays performed in the theater became a metaphor for life employed by philosophers and others" (100). What drama used in church isn't a metaphor for life? Ferguson also reveals that a philosopher, Cebes, "wrote a moral dialogue describing the good life and the bad life, depicted as the choice between two ways. One's goal should be deliverance from the bad life, achieved only by repentance" (324). WOW!! I can easily imagine this being in a church this Sunday! And guess what? This was written in the first century A.D. - precisely the same time period of the Apostles and Paul. This stuff was in the air and it would have been natural for the early Christian preachers to adopt the methods of their contemporaries to make their point with the use of drama. But guess what? That is not what God commanded his workers to do - He told them to preach.

I really love the way that the Catechism uses the phrase the "lively preaching" of the Word. I take this in two ways, 1) preaching is to have passion and energy, and 2) it is truly alive by the power of the Holy Spirit. First of all, preaching should have passion and energy - it should be lively (of course, within limits)! Lord willing, the preacher has poured his life and soul into preparing his sermon (if not then that is a problem!), and that should be reflected in his presentation of the message that God has given him to proclaim. The preacher should have preached that message to himself, seen his need for a Savior and then wants to impart those convictions on his people as well. Secondly, the Word of God which is preached is alive. God promises that it will not return to him without having its desired effect (Isaiah 55:11). There is something alive in that preached Word, in fact the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) goes so far as to say that when a minister preaches, "we believe that the very Word of God is preached" (Chap. 1). Preaching isn't too be some guy rambling on for 25-30 minutes (unfortunately that probably does happen), but it is some guy being the mouthpiece of the Triune God. That is what is happening! If a pastor doesn't believe this, and if he doesn't believe that the very act of preaching is alive, then no wonder all sorts of crazy things happen to supplement his "teaching" or "lecture."

I just read for a class On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons by John Broadus, a 19th century American preacher. He has a whole chapter in that book dealing with how the message of a sermon must be CLEAR to all ages. Another 19th century preacher, Thomas Murphy, says, "It [our particular message] may prove a savor of life unto life or of death unto death, and the results of it may extend away into the endless ages." Why does a sermon need to be clear? Because it is dealing with matters that have eternal consequences! I have a feeling that there are a lot of sermons being preached that do not bring forth a message that is "a savor of life or death" or deal with eternal matters.

So all of that comes out of the second commandment and "lively preaching!" Maybe much of what I said you don't think applies to you because you do not hold to the Heidelberg Catechism or the RPW. What you do in worship and especially what is done in a sermon or done in place of a sermon seems perfectly fine to you. Then ponder Romans 10:5-21 (esp. 14-17); 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:19; Is 55:11 and ask yourself, "What has priority the methods of God or the methods of men?" And, "Are we really trusting in God to use preaching to do what he promises, that is, to work salvation in the hearts of his people?"

In my hands...

One of the perks of working at White Horse Inn, is that I get to have the CDs in my hands as well as Modern Reformation magazine before anybody else (besides those in the office). Well today the perks are even greater as I am holding in my hand both the book and DVD versions of Dr. Horton's yet-to-be-officially-released Christless Christianity!!

For more information on the book and DVD check out its offical website.

---

UPDATE: My copy has been signed!! - I love being around this place (WHI and WSC)!!!

I don't need no theology...

This week's White Horse Inn broadcast is entitled "Getting Stupid." Quite the title! I was actually kind of worried that we (I work for WHI) would be getting some negative comments about this program, but all I have seen so far has been positive. The show is definitely one that all should listen to as it makes the case that there is an intellectual element to the Christian Faith. We have to work at learning the vocabulary, the ideas, the concepts, everything!!

One of the main reasons I am in seminary right now is because when I started to dig into theology with some friends of mine, I saw my love for God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, grow and grow as I learned more and more about who God was and my relationship to him. I am confident that this experience is something that will happen to everybody if they only allow it to happen! Not that everybody will end up going to seminary to pursue a formal theological education, but I sincerely believe that the more that people dig into theology, and I mean work at it, they will see it as part of their sanctification which will grow and deepen.

Of course there are differing levels in which this can be done depending on the person, but again I think that we need to be challenged. You don't grow by staying at the same level all the time, you have to push yourself. I can give some recommendations for a variety of "levels" (just ask me in the comments section), but overall I would say start with your church's Confessional standards. Read and study these if it has been a while. These are not "systematic theologies" but formulations and summaries of what the Bible teaches on a variety of theological loci (subjects). If your church doesn't have "official" Confessional standards (not a good thing in my opinion, but that is a topic for another blog!) then I could suggest looking at the Confessions of the Continental Reformed Tradition which are commonly called the "Three Forms of Unity" which contain The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and The Canons of Dort (1618-1619). They can be viewed here.

I teach with a co-intern at my church the 7th and 8th grade catechism class. Last year we went through and studied the entire Belgic Confession - yes, 7th and 8th graders and we talked about a lot of theological stuff. And you know what? They understood it and were able to discuss it!! We even taught them these kind of words: eschatology, soteriology, hypostatic union, pneumatology; along with the basic words of redemption, justification, sanctification, etc.

So my plea is for all the handful of people that read this blog that you not become another "statistic" of those who are getting stupid in the matters of the Christian faith. Make a conscience effort to apply yourself in learning the great truths of Scripture in some manner that challenges you to use that wonderful brain that God has given you! There are so many resources available today that can help. Of course I am biased towards historic/orthodox Reformed material (it is the only truly Biblical material!) and that is what I would encourage you to read so that not only are you studying theology, but studying correct theology!! I am saying that sort of tongue-in-cheek, but ultimately not really!

So with that said, go over to the White Horse Inn and listen to the program "Getting Stupid" and let's discuss!!

God coming down to us

Believe it or not I have actually been thinking about "Baby Dedication" a lot lately. Not because I am thinking about going over to that practice, but I have been trying to understand people's reasoning for that practice. It makes no sense to me, and actually grieves me that it is being done! This practice of "baby dedication" has no Biblical support (if you want to argue that point, then we can, but trust me it isn't there! I know about Samson, Samuel, etc. but go for it if you want!), but yet somehow people think they need to do this instead of applying the covenant sign of baptism on this child.

I think the reason why this practice disturbs me so much is because it is completely a man-centered activity. The parents are bringing this child "to the Lord" and are promising to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Sure, God's grace is needed for that child to come faith, and grace is needed for the parents to teach and train them faithfully, but at its core "baby dedication" is man-centered. Listen to these words, "We are committing to bringing up our child, by God's grace, to be a child of faith." Sure God's grace is recognizes as being needed, but this sentence is completely man-centered. Whereas the Sacraments, especially important here is baptism, are totally God-centered - God is doing something in the Sacrament. When we baptize children we are watching God, through the ordained minister, come down and put the sign of the covenant on that child, and then God promises "the forgiveness of sin through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith" (HC Q&A 74).

I could go on proving the case for infant baptism, but I want to put a different spin on it. While I was thinking about all of this I was wondering why this practice of "baby dedication" was not done across the board in credo-baptist (believers-baptism) circles. For instance, I am pretty sure that Reformed Baptists do not do this practice. Obviously Reformed Baptists have a lot that is different from Broad Evangelicals who do this, not the least of which is a Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation) rather than an Arminian soteriology. Right off the bat, just having an Arminian theology explains a lot of why "baby dedication" could be done, but I don't want to go that route either. I want to connect "baby dedication" with one's view of worship.

Granted these two things are not totally connected because their are Reformed churches that have a faulty view of worship that do practice paedo-baptism (infant baptism). However, I wonder if where ever "baby dedication" does take place this connection is true. One of the most amazing things that I have come to appreciate about worship on the Lord's Day is that God is coming down to us. All to often we think of our Sunday worship as being something where we go up to God. But how amazing is it to think that God is coming down to us! Our praise and worship of God in the Sunday service is our response to what God is doing through his Word and Sacraments. We have six days in which to serve the Lord in our vocations and callings in the world, we need a Sabbath! We don't need a seventh day where all the responsibilities are on us to do everything, but here is a time when God has promised to come down and meet us and serve us! This is why many of the Reformers didn't call their church services "Worship Services" (which implies we are gathering to do something), but "The Divine Service" (which means that God is gathering us to do something to us). We don't need to stand for 20 minutes singing song after song in order to raise ourselves up to heaven. We are there to receive from God and then respond to his working through our praise for what he has done.

I could keep going talking about the proper view of worship, but I need to take this back to connecting this to "baby dedication" if you don't already see the connection. If we understood that in worship God is serving us and doing something to us, then where would our bringing forth a child to "dedicate" him or her fit into that scheme? It doesn't! This only makes sense in an environment where we are doing all the work and God is passively receiving - depending on us to bring our praise (and apparently our children as well) to him. But if we understand God to be active in "The Divine Service", then our sitting back and watching God come down and apply the sign of the covenant to his covenant child is an awesome thing!

If you want to discuss this further (either on what I presented about worship or baptism) then please comment - and you can do so anonymously if you want.

They kind of miss the whole point!

Because some of you might not be aware, one of my professors, Dr. Michael Horton, has a new book coming out at the end of the month. The title is Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. It is a very provocative title, but yet sadly it is a true title in many respects. I will post more about this book in the future, but in the meantime check out the book's official homepage. It has links to other resources (including a PDF of the first chapter) as well as the opportunity to participate in the pre-order special that is exclusively being sold through The Bookstore at Westminster Seminary California for 1/2 off through the end of October. There is also a four part DVD that is available only through them as well.

Here is the link www.christlesschristianity.org

I would like to take a moment to comment on a review of the book by Publishers Weekly on September 15, 2008 (link here scroll about 2/3 of the way down). Overall the review has a negative tone, but there are a couple of things that really need to be highlighted because they are just plain wrong!

"... Horton reaches the oft-repeated conclusion that American Christianity is self-centered rather than Christ-centered..."

Really? This is "oft-repeated?" This might actually be the case in some respects, but it is not "oft-repeated" that this self-centeredness is a bad thing! Unless this reviewer listens to the White Horse Inn I really doubt that he or she is hearing this particular critique of American Evangelicalism from very many other people.

"Horton reveals his lack of theological depth when he argues that ancient Gnostics saw God no different from humans. Yet Gnosticism's entire point is this difference."

Okay this has to be attacked on two levels. The first being Horton's "lack of theological depth?!?!?!?" Is he/she serious? Apparently this person has no clue who Dr. Horton is, nor do they know about the existence of his just completed four-volume covenant systematic theology. I think after reading just a few pages of Covenant and Eschatology their mind would change! There is enough depth in those volumes for a life time of diving! Whoever this author is, I exhort you to pick up any of these volumes and find out for your self the ridiculousness of your statement. Those books can be ordered here.

The other statement that needs to be called out is this reviewer's harsh reaction to Dr. Horton's appraisal of Gnosticism, when he is completely wrong! Apparently for the reviewer Gnosticism is a difference between God and humans. Well, Mr. or Ms. Reviewer, here is a brief definition of Gnosticism that we gave a while ago in our newsletter (link here.

"[Gnosticism] Refers to secret doctrines and practices of mysticism whereby a person may come to enlightenment or realization that he or she is of the same essence as God or the Absolute. The Greek word gnosis means knowledge, though of a particular kind, namely the knowledge of one’s own divinity, acquired not by a rational exercise of the mind but by its very opposite, by mystical altered states of consciousness that seek to silence the mind."

Yeah, kind of the opposite of what the reviewer thinks to be true in his own "depth of theological knowledge."

Finally, one last quote from the review which prompted this whole post to be written in the first place:

"Horton regrettably offers no recommendation for the reformation of American Christianity beyond a simplistic call to let the church be defined by the Gospel rather than the laws of the market."

THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT OF THE WHOLE BOOK!! Granted, I haven't read the book because it hasn't been released yet, but I am seriously beginning to wonder if the reviewer actually read an advanced manuscript. If he did then he completely missed the point of the whole argument of Dr. Horton (and by association the White Horse Inn, Modern Reformation, Ligonier, etc.). The church in America precisely needs to return to the "simplistic call" to be defined by the Gospel. That is all that we have to define who we are!! The Gospel message is simple, but yet it is the most profound news the world has ever heard and it is not being preached faithfully by many so-called preachers today! Christianity today is in many respects Christless, and it is Dr. Horton's call (and the call of all true ministers) to bring Christ back to the central position of the Christian faith and message. Without Christ and the Gospel the church ceases to be Christian and that is all there is to it. This reviewer is expecting a recommendation from Dr. Horton that comes from the marketplace and when he/she is presented with the cure being the Gospel it is utter "foolishness, folly, and a stumbling block" (1 Cor 1:18-25).