“The alcoholic with plenty of money and access to an open liquor store may, in a purely negative sense, be free from anything interfering with getting what he wants; but in reality he is profoundly unfree and cannot free himself.”

William T. Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, p. 8.

“[Antinomians] alwaies speak of those places which declare God’s grace to us, but not our duty to him …the severing of the promise from the duty, so that Christ is heard only in a promise, not at all in a precept, when they heare that Christ will save; but are never told that they must repent. These are but delusions; promise-Preachers, and not duty-Preachers; grace-Preachers, and not repentance-Preachers”

Quoted in David Parnham, “Motions of Law and Grace: The Puritan in the Antinomian,” Westminster Theological Journal 70.1 (Spring 2008): 73-104.

Idolatrous myths that lead to the liquidation of human beings. She is Science and Technology Advisor to Hillary Clinton, but I doubt there is any “science” backing her religious claims of over-population.

And statistics is not the same as science. Science as a discipline cannot go from “there are this many people” (a statistical observation) to “there ought to be this many people” (a moral imperative) without faith.

Along the lines of what Ellul would say, the creation of of contraceptives is nothing less than the creation of a new technology, which forces us to think about appropriate use and detrimental effects on society. How does this technology change our view of marriage, procreation, and sex? How might a Christian’s use speak of the wisdom of God in creation without resulting in foolish disorder?

If we don’t think about these questions, we’ll fall into (ethical) pits and be just like the world.

Recommended reading:

• Peter Jones, The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality. This gives a detailed history of the “sex revolution” and its connection with pagan spirituality & contrasts this with a Christian view of sex.

From Obama‘s misuse of Scripture (1 Cor. 13:11) in his inaugural speech to the irreverence of the closing prayer, the evidence that Christianity has been remade into an American religion is obvious. Rick Warren himself prayed more as an American than as a Christian, including everyone present regardless of faith: “Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans–united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.”

We as worshippers in this great religion (call it “Americanity”?) are to leave this mountaintop inaugural revival in “the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family,” as the Rev. Lowery put it (apparently the good reverend forgot what Paul wrote in Romans 8:9). We are to take this power with us as we return “to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your [presumably God's?] will.”

We have our marching orders and we have our hope, a hope illustrated in Scripture with the imagery of swords being beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (cf., Isa. 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3) which, for Christians, refer to the new heavens and new earth, but to adherents of the American religion, this hope is now made possible due to a newly inaugurated president.

Indeed, it was a large church service, but let’s be more clear on nature of the faith being practiced. And it’s not Christianity.

Recommended reading:

• Stephen J. Nichols, Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ. Nichols was recently interviewed on the topic of this book by Ken Myers on Mars Hill Audio Journal 92 and on the Christ the Center podcast.
• Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity. A more academic work than Nichols’, Hatch demonstrates persuasively how revolutionary democratic principles wound up influencing American Christianity.

1. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, by Richard A. Muller (Baker Academic)
2. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, by G. K. Beale (IVP Academic)

I’ve been thinking about this over the past couple of weeks, so please bare with some of my ramblings about divisions in the Reformed world. Sometimes we joke about the split P’s, but this is something that should make us cry out to the Lord, begging for things to be changed for the better in his good providence.

I was talking with a Reformed co-worker the other day about some of the doctrinal issues within Reformed circles. Another co-worker was listening, and afterwards confessed he had no idea what we were talking about — he is a Christian, but a member of a non-Reformed but evangelical church. He was, understandably, oblivious to the doctrinal controversies within Reformed churches.

I don’t like the “lowest common denominator evangelicalism” that permeates American Christianity. But there seems to be a flip-side to this. We understand the progress of theology; gradually our understanding of Scripture, by God’s grace, compels us to more precise theological formulations. In itself, this is a good thing. But is my perception correct, that at least in Reformed circles, we sometimes equate our hobby-horse doctrines with another step forward in that precision? Extra-confessional doctrinal precision becomes a sort of test for who is or is not orthodox Reformed. But it can be worse: How many times has this led to the formation of new denominations, which seem to exist merely for the sake of their pet doctrinal issues? This seems like a sectarian spirit.

Those outside Reformed circles have no idea what doctrinal controversy takes place amongst us. I find I will often have a more gracious and charitable attitude toward non-Reformed Christians than Reformed Christians who might disagree with one of those more precise doctrinal points that I myself hold to. Probably it’s a sinful “they should know better” attitude. I need to stop this. And I don’t mean to diminish the importance of doctrinal purity in the church. I’m not trying to put unity/charity above purity, as if true unity were only possible if purity were thrown to the wind. I understand why different Reformed denominations won’t unite. I understand that there may be, at times, sincere and serious doctrinal reasons. But I generally have little respect for those obstacles are tied to denominational history or tradition or culture or pet doctrines.

Whatever happened to the catholicity of the church? Why doesn’t the Reformed world express catholicity well? NAPARC is a step in the right direction, but NAPARC itself is a constant reminder to us of our disunity among Reformed denominations. Explaining to unbelievers or non-Reformed Christians why there are so many puny Reformed denominations is such a delicate and painful venture.

May God grant to us a greater desire for true unity in the faith. May God be pleased to bless our denomination’s and presbytery’s committees on ecumenicity and give them discernment and wisdom. May He be gracious to forgive us our sinful division which dishonors him and, at the same time, strengthen us in our resolve to divide when necessary for the God-honoring purity of Christ’s church. Amen.