Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

Seeing as I am not one to shy away from controversy I thought it would fun to look at an anti-Christmas statement by the Free Church of Scotland and to hear some responses from the blogosphere.

Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

---

For many people Christmas is the most important social event of the year. They spend lots of time, energy and money on their preparations for the festive season. At no other time of the year are there so many parties, dinners and social events. Family visits are arranged and the children look forward to it with great anticipation. Christmas images abound: snowy, Victorian scenes, camels crossing deserts and the inevitable Father Christmas. With its colour, warmth and cheer Christmas is, for many, the high point of the festive calendar.
Christmas, of course, has a religious dimension. Amidst all the tinsel, shopping trips and coloured lights, is the idea that the birth of Jesus is being celebrated. Christmas carols sound out on street corners and in department stores. Images of mother and child, angels, shepherds and stable scenes add to the displays in shops and churches. Many go to church or sing carols. All this contributes to the unmistakable and unique atmosphere at Christmas time. Because of its cultural importance and the assumption that our country is largely a Christian country, the thought of a Christian not celebrating Christmas may seem strange. But there are firm reasons why Christians who take a serious interest in the Bible withdraw from the festive season entirely. The risk of being thought of as unsociable or overly strict is outweighed in their consciences by a number of facts about Christmas and their understanding of the teaching of the Bible.

The Origins of Christmas
Many people are aware that the origins of Christmas lie in the pre-Christian pagan observance of the winter solstice. Neither: Christ, nor the apostles, nor any of the early Christians celebrated anything that could be described as Christmas. It was: only in the 4th century AD that the Church of Rome introduced the idea of a mid-winter ceremony, the Christ-Mass, as a way of making Christianity more attractive, to pagans. The retention of Christmas in the Protestant Church depended upon the extent to which the principles and practises of Rome were deemed acceptable. Where, these were repudiated as unbiblical, Christmas was also repudiated. So that until recently, the recognition of Christmas was unheard of in many churches

The Lies of Christmas
The actual date of Christ's birth is disputed. It is wrong, therefore, to invent a date. Christ never intended the wondrous event of his birth to be associated with pagan rituals or transformed into an annual festivity. As with the date of the Saviour's birth, much of what people associate with Christmas is simply untrue. Christianity, however, is concerned with the truth above everything else. The Bible is the true Word of God. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life." ⁽¹⁾ There is simply no place in the faith and life of a Christian for deliberate falsehood. He is forbidden by the Ten Commandments from lying ⁽²⁾ and therefore cannot go along with lies in an shape or form. He must not pretend that 25th December is Jesus' birthday. He may not sing the carol which says that Christ was born on Christmas Day. He does not accept the myth of Santa Claus. The Bible identifies the devil as a liar ⁽³⁾ and therefore the Christian can have nothing to do with whatever he knows to be a lie, however "harmless" others might consider it to be.

True Christian Worship
The Christian is concerned with how he worships God. His guide in this matter is the Bible. The Scriptures state that God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. ⁽⁴⁾ No place is to be given to images or idols or anything that could be mistaken for them (pictures of Mary, Jesus, angels, etc.). The second commandment begins: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" ⁽⁵⁾ . The nativity scenes that abound in homes, schools and even churches, are a flagrant breach of this commandment. The all too common depiction of the Son of God in the form of a plastic doll is therefore nothing short of blasphemous.

God's Holy Day
While many see Christmas as a holy day it is not seen as such by God. The day appointed by God to be kept holy is the first day of the week, the Christian Sabbath. This is the day He has commanded all people to keep holy and to rest from worldly work and recreations. ⁽⁶⁾ The Lord Jesus Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man,⁽⁷⁾ which means that in appointing one day in seven to be a day of rest and worship, God had the well-being of people at heart. The Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day is also given to us to focus on the great theme of redemption, central to which is Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week. ⁽⁸⁾

The True Christ
Jesus Christ is described in the Scriptures as "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief". ⁽⁹⁾ He was the Son of Man who had nowhere to lay his head. ⁽¹⁰⁾ He was nailed to a cross to die for the sins and iniquities of others. The quasi-religious aspects of Christmas are things which only take people further away from the truth of the gospel which Jesus came to declare. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.⁽¹¹⁾ Rather than join with the world in Christmas pleasures, true followers of Christ should listen to His voice, as found in the Bible, and seek to serve Him in the Ways that He prescribes there.

---

Bible References:
1. John 14:6
2. Exodus 20:16
3. John 8:44
4. John 4:24
5. Exodus 20:4
6. Exodus 20:8
7. Mark 2:27
8. Luke 24:1/Acts 20:7
9. Isaiah 53:3
10. Luke 9:58
11. 1 Timothy 1:15

Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?

Here is an article by Al Mohler on a subject that recently came up on Toby's Classical Presbyterian blog:

Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? This question would perplex the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries, but modern denials of biblical truth make the question tragically significant. Of all biblical doctrines, the doctrine of Christ's virginal conception has often been the specific target of modern denial and attack.

Attacks upon the virgin birth emerged in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, with some theologians attempting to harmonize the anti-supernaturalism of the modern mind with the church's teaching about Christ. The great quest of liberal theology has been to invent a Jesus who is stripped of all supernatural power, deity, and authority.

The fountainhead of this quest includes figures such as Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann. Often considered the most influential New Testament scholar of the twentieth century, Bultmann argued that the New Testament presents a mythological worldview that modern men and women simply cannot accept as real. The virgin birth is simply a part of this mythological structure and Bultmann urged his program of "demythologization" in order to construct a faith liberated from miracles and all vestiges of the supernatural. Jesus was reduced to an enlightened teacher and existentialist model.

In America, the public denial of the virgin birth can be traced to the emergence of Protestant liberalism in the early 20th century. In his famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?," Harry Emerson Fosdick--an unabashed liberal--aimed his attention at "the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth." Fosdick, preaching from the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church in New York City, allowed that Christians may hold "quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth." He accepted the fact that many Christians believed the virgin birth to be historically true and theologically significant. Fosdick likened this belief to trust in "a special biological miracle." Nevertheless, Fosdick insisted that others, equally Christian, could disagree with those who believe the virgin birth to be historically true: "But, side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. To believe in the virgin birth as an explanation of great personality is one of the familiar ways in which the ancient world was accustomed to account for unusual superiority."

Fosdick explained that those who deny the virgin birth hold to a specific pattern of reasoning. As he explained, "those first disciples adored Jesus--as we do; when they thought about his coming they were sure that he came specially from God--as we are; this adoration and conviction they associated with God's special influence and intention in his birth--as we do; but they phrased it in terms of a biological miracle that our modern minds cannot use."

Thus, Fosdick divided the church into two camps. Those he labeled as "fundamentalists" believe the virgin birth to be historical fact. The other camp, comprised of "enlightened" Christians who no longer obligate themselves to believe the Bible to be true, discard this "biological" miracle but still consider themselves to be Christians.

More contemporary attacks on the virgin birth of Christ have emerged from figures such as retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong and German New Testament scholar Gerd Luedemann. Luedemann acknowledges that "most Christians in all the churches in the world confess as they recite the Apostles' Creed that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Now...modern Christians completely discount the historicity of the virgin birth and understand it in a figurative sense." Obviously, the "modern Christians" Luedemann identifies are those who allow the modern secular worldview to establish the frame for reality into which the claims of the Bible must be fitted. Those doctrines that do not fit easily within the secular frame must be automatically discarded. As might be expected, Luedemann's denial of biblical truth is not limited to the virgin birth. He denies virtually everything the Bible reveals about Jesus Christ. In summarizing his argument, Luedemann states: "The tomb was full and the manger empty." That is to say, Luedemann believes that Jesus was not born of a virgin and that He was not raised from the dead.

Another angle of attack on the virgin birth has come from the group of radical scholars who organize themselves into what is called the "Jesus Seminar." These liberal scholars apply a radical form of interpretation and deny that the New Testament is in any way reliable as a source of knowledge about Jesus. Roman Catholic scholar John Dominic Crossan, a member of the Jesus Seminar, discounts the biblical narratives about the virgin birth as invented theology. He acknowledges that Matthew explicitly traces the virgin birth to Isaiah 7:14. Crossan explains that the author of Matthew simply made this up: "Clearly, somebody went seeking in the Old Testament for a text that could be interpreted as prophesying a virginal conception, even if such was never its original meaning. Somebody had already decided on the transcendental importance of the adult Jesus and sought to retroject that significance on to the conception and birth itself."

Crossan denies that Matthew and Luke can be taken with any historical seriousness, and he understands the biblical doctrine of the virgin birth to be an insurmountable obstacle to modern people as they encounter the New Testament. As with Luedemann, Crossan's denial of the virgin birth is only a hint of what is to come. In Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan presents an account of Jesus that would offend no secularist or atheist. Obviously, Crossan's vision also bears no resemblance to the New Testament.

For others, the rejection of the birth is tied to a specific ideology. In The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives, Jane Schaberg accuses the church of inventing the doctrine of the virgin birth in order to subordinate women. As she summarizes: "The charge of contemporary feminists, then, is not that the image of the Virgin Mary is unimportant or irrelevant, but that it contributes to and is integral to the oppression of women." Schaberg states that the conception of Jesus was most likely the result of extra-marital sex or rape. She chooses to emphasize the latter possibility and turns this into a feminist fantasy in which Mary is the heroine who overcomes. Schaberg offers a tragic, but instructive model of what happens when ideology trumps trust in the biblical text. Her most basic agenda is not even concerned with the question of the virgin birth of Christ, but with turning this biblical account into service for the feminist agenda.

Bishop Joseph Sprague of the United Methodist Church offers further evidence of modern heresy. In an address he presented on June 25, 2002 at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, this bishop denied the faith wholesale. Sprague, who serves as Presiding Bishop of the United Methodist Church in northern Illinois, has been called "the most vocally prominent active liberal bishop in Protestantism today." Sprague is proud of this designation and takes it as a compliment: "I really make no apology for that. I don't consider myself a liberal. I consider myself a radical." Sprague lives up to his self-designation.

In his Illiff address, Bishop Sprague claimed that the "myth" of the virgin birth "was not intended as historical fact, but was employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to appoint poetically the truth about Jesus as experienced in the emerging church." Sprague defined a theological myth as "not false presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device employed to point to ultimate truth that can only be insinuated symbolically and never depicted exhaustively." Jesus, Sprague insists, was born to human parents and did not possess "trans-human, supernatural powers."

Thus, Sprague dismisses the miracles, the exclusivity of Christ, and the bodily resurrection as well as the virgin birth. His Christology is explicitly heretical: "Jesus was not born the Christ, rather by the confluence of grace with faith, he became the Christ, God's beloved in whom God was well pleased."

Bishop Sprague was charged with heresy but has twice been cleared of the charge--a clear sign that the mainline Protestant denominations are unwilling to identify as heretics even those who openly teach heresy. The presence of theologians and pastors who deny the virgin birth in the theological seminaries and pulpits of the land is evidence of the sweeping tide of unbelief that marks so many institutions and churches in our time.

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.

Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.

Several years ago, Cecil Sherman--then a Southern Baptist, but later the first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship--stated: "A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired." Consider the logic of that statement. A Christian can be led by the Bible to deny what the Bible teaches? This kind of logic is what has allowed those who deny the virgin birth to sit comfortably in liberal theological seminaries and to preach their reductionistic Christ from major pulpits.

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

"Everyone admits that the Bible represents Jesus as having been conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. The only question is whether in making that representation the Bible is true or false." So declared J. Gresham Machen in his great work, The Virgin Birth of Christ. As Machen went on to argue, "if the Bible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of the Bible in any high sense, is gone."

The authority of the Bible is almost completely gone where liberal theology holds its sway. The authority of the Bible is replaced with the secular worldview of the modern age and the postmodern denial of truth itself. The true church stands without apology upon the authority of the Bible and declares that Jesus was indeed "born of a virgin." Though the denial of this doctrine is now tragically common, the historical truth of Christ's birth remains inviolate. No true Christian can deny the virgin birth.

This article was originally published on December 13, 2003. It is republished here by request.

As Al Mohler rightly says, of course one cannot deny the virgin birth and be a Christian. It is false doctrine to believe otherwise.

The Magnificat

Primarily due to the overwhelming excesses of the Roman Catholic Church Mary has been kind of left by the wayside. Protestants like to point out Christ's discussion of who his family is in Matthew 12 to downplay the veneration of the mother of Christ. However I'd like to take the time in this third installment of our discussion of the Gospel of Luke to have a Protestant look that while falling short of veneration still gives Mary a fair hearing.

Protestants have a tendency to forget about what Elizabeth says about Mary when she visits in Luke Chapter 1 and Elizabeth has this to say about her:

46 And Mary said:
"(My soul exalts the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me;
And holy is His name.
50 "AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.
51 "He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
52 "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
53 "HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed.
54 "He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,
55 As He spoke to our fathers,
To Abraham and his descendants forever.

How are we to take this? I'd like to hear some thoughts from the blogosphere...

The Birth of John the Baptist

As I stated in the beginning of this blog series Luke intends his gospel to be a historical recording of the events leading to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We do a great disservice to the writer of Luke's gospel if we do not come to this work with the mindset of the intent of the author. (This would be a good idea for someone to blog about but we must understand that their is a great intellectual arrogance and cynicism in our current age that tends to make us look at the writers of the Old and New Testament as slightly naive and ignorant people. We feel almost the need to see them almost as children, simply products of their age, in a very paternalistic way and that they were not able to "see" the reality that surrounded them.) In keeping with the chronological focus that Luke takes after introducing his Gospel in chapter 1:1-4, he foretells the birth of John the Baptist, fulfilling Malachi 4:5. This shall be what I focus on in this post.

The entire backstory of the birth of John the Baptist is full of so many intricacies and intertextual echoes that it would take a book to flush them all out. Most interesting is in verse 17 where Luke makes it perfectly clear that the reason for the birth of John the Baptist is that he is fulfilling the promise of the prophet Malachi that Elijah would come again. Malachi says in chapter 4, verses 5 and 6:

Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.

Now why is it important that Elijah be the one Malachi prophecies will come again and why is it that Luke makes sure we recognize the link between John the Baptist and Elijah? Calvin says in his commentary that:

17. And he shall go before him By these words he points out what would be John’s office, and distinguishes him by this mark from the other prophets, who received a certain and peculiar commission, while John was sent for the sole object of going before Christ, as a herald before a king. Thus also the Lord speaks by Malachi,

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,”
(Malachi 3:1.)

In short, the calling of John had no other design than to secure for Christ a willing ear, and to prepare for him disciples. As to the angel making no express mention of Christ in this passage, but declaring John to be the usher or standard-bearer of the eternal God, we learn from it the eternal divinity of Christ. With the spirit and power of Elijah By the words spirit and power, I understand the power or excellency of the Spirit, with which Elijah was endued; for we must not here indulge in a dream like that of Pythagoras, that the soul of the prophet passed into the body of John, but the same Spirit of God, who had acted efficaciously in Elijah, afterwards exerted a similar power and efficacy in the Baptist. The latter term, power, is added, by way of exposition, to denote the kind of grace which was the loftiest distinction of Elijah, that, furnished with heavenly power, he restored in a wonderful manner the decayed worship of God; for such a restoration was beyond human ability. What John undertook was not less astonishing; and, therefore, we ought not to wonder if it was necessary for him to enjoy the same gift.

So in the words of John Calvin the reason for the Elijah reference is for what reason? It is not because John the Baptist is Elijah but because John is to be set apart from the other Old Testament prophets (for those of you wondering John the Baptist is the last of the OT prophets) because of his call and vocation.

Off-Topic----- The Steroid List

Chad Allen
Mike Bell
Gary Bennett
Larry Bigbie
Kevin Brown
Alex Cabrera
Mark Carreon
Jason Christiansen
Howie Clark
Roger Clemens
Jack Cust
Brendan Donnelly
Chris Donnels
Matt Franco
Eric Gagne
Matt Herges
Phil Hiatt
Glenallen Hill
Todd Hundley
Mike Judd
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Tim Laker
Mike Lansing
Paul Lo Duca
Nook Logan
Josias Manzanillo
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Bart Miadich
Hal Morris
Daniel Naulty
Denny Neagle
Jim Parque
Andy Pettitte
Adam Piatt
Todd Pratt
Stephen Randolph
Adam Riggs
Armando Rios
Brian Roberts
F.P. Santangelo
Mike Stanton
Ricky Stone
Miguel Tejada
Ismael Valdez
Mo Vaughn
Ron Villone
Fernando Vina
Rondell White
Jeff Williams
Todd Williams
Steve Woodard
Kevin Young
Gregg Zaun
Manny Alexander
Rick Ankiel
David Bell
Marvin Benard
Barry Bonds
Ricky Bones
Paul Byrd
Jose Canseco
Paxton Crawford
Lenny Dykstra
Bobby Estalella
Ryan Franklin
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Jay Gibbons
Troy Glaus
Juan Gonzalez
Jason Grimsley
Jose Guillen
Jerry Hairston Jr.
Darren Holmes
Ryan Jorgensen
Gary Matthews Jr.
Rafael Palmeiro
John Rocker
Benito Santiago
Scott Schoeneweis
David Segui
Gary Sheffield
Randy Velarde
Matt Williams

The Historian's Gospel

I would like during this Advent season to look closely at the Physician's account of the birth of Christ. The first thing I will examine is the introduction of Luke's Gospel.

Though before that I would like to say that for many reasons the Gospel of Luke has always been the gospel that has resonated most closely with me. I believe that more than likely includes the fact Luke pens his Gospel with these opening words to Theophilus:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

While a linguist may look at the textual variance and the direction of the verbs and nouns, the Historian looks first (at least as how they are trained in today's academy) at the events and developments that surround the context of the text. So the mere fact Luke begins his gospel much like Strabo or Tacitus do their particular historical narratives presents for us an interesting way to look at the Physician's gospel that makes it somewhat different than the other synoptic and the Johanine gospel. I am trained as a Historian and I think often with a Historian's mind first. When I was a child I gravitated towards historical encyclopedias, which I give full credit for directing the manner of my education ever since and it is with this reasoning why Luke's gospel has always been my favorite.

I have found that the beginning of Luke's gospel has found pretty short shrift among readers of the New Testament but there are many vital and necessary clues given by Luke in the preface that set the stage for the rest of Luke's account. He says that he has interviewed eyewitnesses and researched all that he could so that he could present an unvarnished account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. For those of you that have been schooled in the Markan priority and the idea that Luke uses Mark and "Q" for his main sources, it is plausible that Luke did use what he knew of Mark to compose his Gospel. There is nothing in the text that prohibits this. However it would be false to say that Luke was written post AD70.

Speaking of the date of Luke's gospel if one agrees with the vast majority of biblical scholars that Luke wrote Acts then one would logically have to believe that Luke was written prior to Acts. This may be a little aside but if this is true then one cannot accept a post-70AD date for Luke since, A) Acts does not record Paul's execution and B) Luke does not mention (either in his gospel or in Acts) the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple. Surely if Luke was constructing a historical account he would have mentioned the fact of Jesus being correct in his prophecy.

Friday we will look at the Birth of John the Baptist.

Questions...

Since some questions have come up recently concerning my Statement of Faith I want to give you the opportunity to read it for yourself. You can Read it Here:

Preliminary Statement of Faith

Prayer Request

I want to ask my friends in the blogosphere for their prayers for myself this weekend. I am going down to Charleston, WV for the required annual consultation with my Committee on Preparation for the Ministry. Some of you may find it shocking that my CPM and I have a contentious relationship. So my prayer is both for my CPM, that they may be gracious and courteous and for myself that I may not be the cause of any consternation.

The Tabernacle and the New Testament Church

It is a hallmark of Reformed Worship that we believe that when two or more are gathered in the Name of the Father, Christ is with us. What we often fail to realize though when expressing this truth is how this ties directly into the relationship between the Israelite tabernacle and the New Testament, post-Easter and Ascension Church. Paul teaches us in 1st Corinthians 10:1-6 that God in Christ dwelled among us now as He did with the Jews in Sinai, in the Wilderness. Just as God fed the Israelities with spiritual food and spiritual drink God today feeds us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Tabernacle was God's house in the wilderness of Sinai. He commanded the Israelites to build this house as he instructed them so that God may have a proper place to dwell with his people. Just as God dwelled in the tabernacle of Sinai in the time of Moses, we are today still in the wilderness and God through and in and by his Church dwells among us. The Church can expect the presence of God, manifesting himself in Worship if we properly conduct ourselves in his Worship. But how do we do that?

Well first before I answer that question we have to ask ourselves what is the Church? Well the Church at its most basic is the bride of Christ. And what does Scripture say is one of the duties of the Bride to their Groom? To submit themselves to his authority and to serve him in love and gratitude. This use of the motif of the Bride and Groom is deeply rooted in Paul's theology and in the imagery Christ uses when describing his own relationship to the Church and his disciples. For example Jesus in the questions from Matt 9:14-16 to those who wondered why John's disciples fasted and the Pharisees fasted says,

"The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with
them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from
them, and then they will fast."

So here we have an example of Christ using this archetype for the Church by comparing his disciples, those who follow him (i.e.- Christians), to his Bride-to-be. Now that Christ has died and arisen from the grave and ascended into Heaven his "marriage" to the Church has been consumated in this act. So we are to look at worship primarily as the relationship between Christ and his Bride, the Church.

In this context we look at the ancient Tabernacle as being the example of what the particular church should be, not just a place of wood and stone (it is worth noting that a storefront or Middle School Gym is just as much a Tabernacle as a 15th Century cathedral or a sanctuary built in 1953) but a place where God comes to dwell with His people. The Church is God's special dwelling place, just as the Tabernacle was for the ancient Israelites.

PITT IS IT!!!!!!!!

Pitt 13






#2 WVU 9








Pitt Victory Song

Let's go Pitt, we're set for victory
So lend a hand, strike up the band!
Let's go Pitt, we're making history
We'll never yield out on the field.
The whistle blows, we're on our toes
The ball is IN the air.
It may be rough the going tough
But always fighting fair so...

(Chorus) Fight on for dear old Pittsburgh
And for the glory of the game
Show our worthy foe that the Panther's on the go
Pitt must win today! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Cheer loyal sons of Pittsburgh
Cheer on to victory and fame
For the Blue and Gold shall conquer as of old
So fight, Pitt, fight!

Da da da da da-da Fight, Pitt, fight!
Da da da da da-da Fight, Pitt, fight!
V-I-C-T-O-R-Y! (repeat Chorus)

Ministry of Worship

This is the course I am taking at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Our main texts for this class include: With Reverance and Awe by D.G. Hart and John R. Muether, Worship Reformed According to Scripture by Hughes Oliphant Old, and The Lord's Day by Joseph A. Pipa, and Old Light on New Worship by John Price. These works are to be read for the class in the order that I have them listed here. One thing is for sure about this term, while I have less "work" to do per week the reading has doubled. This thankfully, does not present too much of a problem for me as I am a quick reader with the uncanny ability to comprehend what it is that I have read. The book I am most looking forawrd to read is the book by Joey Pipa on the Sabbath. I have always had misgivings about the laxity that most treat the Sabbath and would like to receive a more thorough understanding of Christian Sabbath. Also of interest is the work by John Price, especially since RPTS is the seminary for the RPCNA. It will be very interesting when we get to the part of the course where the professor explained in the first class he will present a defense (using the Price book and some of his own writings on the subject) of Exclusive Psalmody and non-instrumentals in worship. This should be a fascinating class.

Here, as promised, is a couple selections from a main text:

"We worship God because God created us to worship him. Worship is at the center of our existence, at the heart of our reason for being. God created us to be in his image-an image that would reflect his glory. In fact the whole creation was brought into existence to reflect the divine glory."

Hughes Oliphant Old, "Worship Reformed According to Scripture" pg. 1

"If you listen carefully to current debates, you will encounter rhetoric that is strange for Reformed Christians. Here are some comments we have heard, none of which is terribly unusual:

• "I like a church thats is casual, where I know I can go and relax during worship"
• "I don't always enjoy my church's worship, but that's okay. I know it will be different next week."
• "I'm tired of the barrenness of worship-I'm looking for something with more beauty."
• "Worship is ultimately a matter of taste, and there is no accounting for that."
• "If there is one thing you can say about our worship, it's not boring!"

These popular sentiments all remind us that there is significant confusion about the nature, purpose, and practice of worship. This confusion extends to the Reformed community, and it underscores the urgency of recovering a biblical view of worship.

D.G. Hart and John R. Muether, "With Reverence and Awe" pg.11-12

Pastoral Theology

At the beginning of this new term I wanted to take the time and introduce each one of my new classes (Christology will not be dog-eared because all the required reading is from traditional confessions) with a quick snippet out of a required reading. For Pastoral Theology this work is Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry by Thomas C. Oden of Drew University. This work (the first 20 pages I have read) has been a treat to read. Though without further ado here is some text to chew on...

In recent decades, pastoral theology has suffered from neglect of sustained theoretical reflection and from isolation from companion theological disciplines. (pg. xi)

...[Pastoral Counselors] continue to appeal to the office of pastor for their professional identity and fees, yet without a well-defined conception of pastoral office; some may trade off the exceptional trust that people have in the office of pastor, yet with minimal interest in the ministry of Word and sacrament. Others, who in concentrating on developing special skills to serve human need have moved narrowly into special ministries, now may find themselves carrying out these duties with an uneasy conscience or unentered spirit. I hope this study will serve them in their developing attempts at centering and in recovery of pastoral identity.(pg. xi)

One Term Down, Two to Go

As I finish up this term at PTS I wanted to say a few things about the classes I have taken and the classes that are coming up.

This Term was pretty much a wasted three months. While my Greek Exegesis class with Dr. Dale Allison, Jr. was fascinating to the tilt, I am not sure I learned a whole lot about exegeting a text. Theodicy was on the other hand a fascinating class filled with all kinds of useful adages and readings. I highly recommend it if you get a chance to take it (not that any of the people reading this will likely be in a position to...). Though the professors defense of NPP left a lot to be desired.

Well that ends completely the classes that were worth anything this term. The next two classes which I was enrolled this Fall were a total waste. Intro to Ethics, which was neither really Christan nor really useful (that is unless your college did not require an Ethics course, then this may have been good for you to take). Dr. Hainsworth is a nice professor but I would lobby to teach other things if I were her. PS01: Education was horrendous. We never really learned anything and our sections honestly justed turned into a theological debate that rarely (if ever) engaged the texts we were supposed to be reading.

Well thankfully I have been assured by Seniors at PTS that my last term was the worst I would experience at PTS. Let's Hope.

Anyway next term will allow us to tackle some more meatier subjects like Pastoral Care, Christology, and the Gospels. Also for those of you who recall I will also be taking a course at what one of my dear professors at PTS referred to as "where the wackos are", Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary on Reformed Worship. As I said before I am hoping RPTS gives a much needed respite from Liberalism and ignorance. We'll see....

Here is to a good Winter Term!!!

Worth a Mention...

Steve Brown over at Key Life wrote an excellent letter and I thought it would be worth sharing over here.


Steve's Letter: "It's Called Guilt!"

Do you know why Christians sometimes have a hard time enjoying Thanksgiving?

It's because we have so much and know that, if we got what we deserved, we would have nothing.

The rich in general and film/rock stars in particular have that problem too. That's why they say such dumb things and support so many crazy causes. They're surprised that they have so much and they're afraid people will find out that they just "lucked out" and are not as wise and as gifted as people think they are. And then they live in constant fear that their stuff will be taken away. So they try to make up.

It's called guilt.

I understand that for unbelievers who have so much and don't deserve it. They have a problem in a lot of areas—they don't have anybody to thank, they are afraid that it will all be taken away, they feel guilty about it, and they think that self-righteousness and throwing money at problems will justify their elite position and balance the books or, even if it doesn't, it will make them feel better about their stuff.

But it is less understandable for Christians.

Our guilt robs us of the joy of a Thanksgiving party. With every bite of the turkey, there is this knowing that we didn't deserve it. Our laugher is sometimes forced and our guilt is often (though not always) mirrored in the prayer before the meal: "Lord, thank you for this day and all your blessings. As we enjoy the blessings, keep us ever mindful of those who are less fortunate than we are."

"Eat your food...There are people in the world who are starving."

"Name one!"

Okay. It's a good prayer and a true one. There really are those (and a lot of them) who are less fortunate than we are. And, of course, we should be mindful of them and actively compassionate toward them...as long as we can "name them." Not only that. Jesus said that when we are compassionate to them, we are compassionate to him (Matthew 25).

That goes without saying.

The problem is our guilt isn't that much different than the guilt of unbelievers...and that is kind of sad.

Paul wrote to the Philippians from jail: "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need" (Philippians 4:11-12). Then, later, he writes, "And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever" (Philippians 4:19-20).

Because we're so neurotic, we always read what Paul wrote as a way to deal with deprivation. After all, he was writing from prison.

But that isn't all Paul was saying. Don't miss the "abundance" and the "abounding" part. Paul said that he was contented when everything was right, when he had stuff and when he wasn't in jail. He was affirming true Thanksgiving for whatever a good God gave.

The Thanksgiving of the Christian is different than the Thanksgiving of unbelievers and it's more than just the fact that we have Someone to thank.

First, Christians are not only thankful to God, we are thankful to a good, wise and gracious God who likes us and gives us good stuff.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Without making an editorial comment on the beer part of that, the attitude is quite Biblical and suggests the real reason Christians can enjoy a Thanksgiving without guilt.

Martin Luther said, "Blessings at times come to us through our labors and at times without our labors, but never because of our labors. God always gives them because of His undeserved mercy."

But there is more than that to a Christian Thanksgiving. We are thankful because God owns it all and he delights in our using his stuff.

Right after Hurricane Andrew when we lost our house, were conned out of thousands of dollars from a dishonest contractor and had thousands of dollars in liens on what we had left, I came out of our small rented one-room apartment and noticed that someone had stolen our car.

(That surprised me. A tree had fallen on the car and it had a big gash in the side. So, there is no accounting for the taste of thieves.)

Do you know what I did? I started laughing. Yeah, laughing. I then went back into the apartment and said to Anna, "Someone just stole God's car."

What happened? I had learned (and often forget) that stuff was stuff and that God owned it all and could do with any of it as he pleased. Not only did I not feel sad about the thieves who had stolen his car (a month before, I would have gotten my gun and gone looking for them!), when I finally got another one (and a better one), I didn't feel guilty about driving that one either.

There is great freedom in realizing the sovereignty of God in every circumstance. It allows one to rest and to have peace in the bad and to really rejoice in the good. Both are from his loving hand.

When I was a young pastor at a church in the Boston area, we sponsored an annual "Bobby Burns Day" dinner honoring the 18th century Scottish poet. For that event, I memorized the Robert Burns blessing. I don't think he was a Christian (or, if he was, not a "red hot" one), but his blessing and the attitude of it was quite Biblical.

Some hae meat an' canna eat
An' some wad eat that want it.
But we hae meat an' we can eat
And sae the Lord be thankit.

(For those of you who need a translation: "Some have meat and can't eat it. Others cannot eat who want it. But we have meat and we can eat. Let the Lord be thanked.")

There is an old common saying that I'm told was often said to soldiers during a break, to wit, "Smoke 'em if you've got 'em."

Let me wish you a wonderful Thanksgiving Day. If you've got it, enjoy it...and be thankful.

He asked me to remind you.

In His Grip,

Sad Day in the Glaser Household

As some of you may know Joe Nuxhall died last night from a long bought with Cancer at the age of 79. All my best memories as a child are from listening to Reds baseball with Joe Nuxhall and Marty Brennemann on WLW 700AM. I am going to miss the ole' Left Hander...

Nuxhall dies at 79

BY KEVIN KELLY | KKELLY@ENQUIRER.COM

Hamilton native Joe Nuxhall, who as a 15-year-old in 1944 made history by pitching for the Reds and later became a fixture in the Reds radio booth, died at 10:55 p.m. Thursday night at Mercy Hospital-Fairfield. He was 79.

One of the most beloved figures in Cincinnati’s rich baseball history, Nuxhall was admitted to Mercy Hospital-Fairfield on Monday for pneumonia, a low pulse rate and low white blood count. Thursday morning, doctors postponed surgery to insert a pacemaker because of Nuxhall’s low pulse, his son Kim Nuxhall said.
.

The Ol’ Left-hander, as he came to be known to scores of Reds fans, spent six decades with the team as a player and radio broadcaster until retiring after the 2004 season. Working under a personal services contract with the Reds, he broadcast selected games during the 2007 season.

Naturally, when some Reds fans heard the news of Nuxhall’s death, there was only one place they could go to show their grief and offer their thanks to a man who had done so much for them – Great American Ball Park, home of Nuxhall’s beloved Reds, “the ol’ ball orchard,’’ as Nuxhall used to call it.

Through the early morning hours, a steady stream of fans – young and old – pulled up to the curb in front of the ballpark and walked slowly to the statue in the center of Crosley Terrace – a statue of a 15-year-old Nuxhall, firing a pitch in his Major League debut.

Some left flowers; some left handwritten notes thanking the man for all he had meant to them. Others just stood and stared.

“It’s like losing an old friend,’’ said Roy Marksberry of Dayton, Ky., who pulled up in his pickup truck shortly before 9 a.m. to pay his respects. “I never met the man, but I feel like I know him. Like he’s family.”

Others left a Reds cap and a dozen roses. One left a baseball with the inscription: "Joe, rounded third and headed to heaven.''

Another fan deposited a single rose and placed it at the base of the statue. He attached a note that read: "Joe Nuxhall, Reds fans will forever be thankful for all the memories you left in our hearts for many years. Rest in Peace, Ol' Left-hander.''

"He’s one of the greatest human beings I’ve ever met,” former Reds first baseman Sean Casey said in 2004. “He’s humble. He always thinks of others first. I know he was a great pitcher and he’s done a lot of other things. But I think everything else is second to him being a great human being."

During a major league playing career that began in 1944 and ended after the 1966 season, Nuxhall appeared in 526 games with the Reds, Kansas City Athletics and Los Angeles Angels.

At 15 years, 10 months and 11 days old, he made his major league debut with the Reds on June 10, 1944 and pitched two-thirds of an inning in an 18-0 loss against the Cardinals. Signed to help fill out the Reds’ roster during World War II, he remains the youngest player ever to appear in a Major League Baseball game in modern history.

Nuxhall returned to the Reds’ roster in 1952, was an All-Star during the 1955 and 1956 seasons, and remained with the team until being traded to Kansas City before the 1961 season.

Nuxhall pitched in 37 games with the Athletics that year. The Orioles signed him as a free agent and released him before the 1962 season. Nuxhall quickly signed with the Angels only to be released by Los Angeles after five relief appearances in 1962.

Nuxhall rejoined the Reds shortly thereafter and pitched in 146 games for Cincinnati before retiring at age 37 in 1966. In all, he compiled a 130-109 record and a 3.80 ERA in 484 games with the Reds. In 1968 he was elected to the team’s Hall of Fame.

At the urging of former Reds general manager Bob Howsam and Wiedemann Brewing -- then a sponsor of the Reds radio broadcasts -- Nuxhall moved to the broadcast booth alongside Claude Sullivan and Jim McIntyre in 1967.

From behind the microphone in the Reds radio booth, Nuxhall witnessed and then shared some of the most pivotal moments in team history with his listeners.

He first teamed with Hall of Fame broadcaster Marty Brennaman for the 1974 season and the pair remained inseparable for 31 seasons on the Reds radio network.

“(Partners) Jim McIntyre, Al Michaels and Marty helped me a lot,” Nuxhall said in 2002. “I know they give me credit for helping them. But, brother, they helped me a lot. My English was pretty bad. I know it hasn’t improved a lot. But it has improved -- simply from working with those guys.”

The public grew to know, and treasure, Nuxhall over the airwaves.

In December 2003, before his final full season in the broadcast booth, and again in December 2006, Nuxhall was placed on the ballot for the Ford C. Frick Award. The National Baseball Hall of Fame gives the annual award to a broadcaster “for major contributions to the game of baseball.”

“Joe is baseball in Cincinnati,” former Reds manager Sparky Anderson once said. “For myself, personally, if he doesn’t go in the Hall of Fame, they shouldn’t have one.”

A 38-year run as one of the team’s primary radio announcers ended in October 2004, but Nuxhall had remained visible around the team and broadcast booth since then.

“I think the anticipation of semi-retirement is worse than the reality,” Phil Nuxhall, Joe’s eldest son, said in 2004. “I think he’s going to be fine.

“He’s starting to realize we can take a family trip for the first time since we were kids. We can do things. We can go to a show or something. I think when that sets in, he’s going to be fine.”

An Ohio General Assembly resolution proclaimed Aug. 18, 2006 as “Joe Nuxhall Day” across the state.

The longtime Fairfield resident was honored before the Reds’ game against the Pirates that evening at Great American Ball Park.

A change in the team’s ownership structure before the 2006 season meant a higher profile for Nuxhall. Reds chief executive officer Bob Castellini made tapping into the team’s tradition a priority, and as a result Nuxhall was extended a personal services contract and broadcast selected games last season.

He worked alongside Marty Brennaman and his son Thom on Opening Day and, later in the season, broadcast from the new Busch Stadium in St. Louis. It was the 59th ballpark he had played in or broadcast a game, including each of the existing major league stadiums except the Rogers Centre in Toronto, Safeco Field in Seattle and Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore.

Outside the gates of Great American Ball Park, on the Crosley Terrace, Nuxhall is one of four “Crosley Field” era players immortalized with a bronze sculpture. The statue of Nuxhall was unveiled in July 2003.

“From the first day I walked on the field at spring training in Tampa, Joe was always there to help with whatever,” Hall of Fame catcher Johnny Bench said in 2004. “He just oozed Reds baseball.”

Nuxhall had battled cancer and heart problems for several years. In 1992, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and suffered a heart attack in December 2001. In 2003, he underwent a 3½-hour surgery to remove a cancerous lump on the side of his face near his ear.

In May 2006, Nuxhall was admitted to Mercy Hospital-Fairfield to receive treatment for a lump on his tonsil and pneumonia in both lungs. The lump was a recurrence of the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma first detected in September 2003.

He was released from the hospital after a seven-day stay and back at the ballpark soon after.

Nuxhall is survived by his wife of 60 years Donzetta, and two sons, Phil Nuxhall and Kim Nuxhall.

Enquirer staff writers Howard Wilkinson, John Kiesewetter, John Fay and Jennifer Baker contributed.

How are Christians to be Salt and Light in Our Culture Today?

Salt by its own definition does not lose its taste, and if it does it no longer can be called salt. It also cannot serve its function as salt if it is not applied to that which it is meant to flavor. If the salt sits next to the meat it fails to serve its given role but if it is used as it is given it will serve to save the meat from rotting. What is interesting about this fact in light of the question being asked is that if the Church still wants to be defined by its very name and if it wishes to follow its call to the world it cannot change to fit a definition that it does not answer and it cannot be a force in the world if it does not submit to its given role. In other words what separates the Church from being just another social organization like the Rotary or the Lions Club is that its mandate derives not from its individual members but from its foundation in the Word of God and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We can be assured that if the Church denies or abrogates either of these it ceases to be that with which it claims to be and if the Church loses that authority it can no longer be the beacon that shines from the city on a hill giving light to the world.

The Church and its members by their very nature serve both a role in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Man. It is neither proper for the Church in today’s society to be like the Anabaptists and completely withdrawal from its surrounding culture nor is it appropriate for the Church to be so involved in its surrounding milieu that it ends up being defined by and placating that culture. What has always troubled the Church is how to properly act in both arenas without acting outside its role to the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words what the Church has struggled with is how to be a light unto the path of a fallen world without compromising the Gospel. In today’s world we are as a Church confronted by a wide variety of cultural and systematic issues that threaten the ability of the Church to act as a united voice for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a broken world. The Church as a whole has failed to make the proper distinctions between its prophetic voice to speak with authority to the things that it has been given authority to speak and its call to be careful to not entangle itself in the web of secular political machinations. Whether it be, for example, the Christian Left and Christian Right selling themselves out to secular political parties in the interest of receiving special interest in legislation or Christian para-church organizations accepting money from questionable sources just to complete their mission we have here two examples of how the Church should not be acting if it wants to present a message with integrity, with salt, to the world. However, this of course is not to say the Church should completely divest itself from involvement in the political arena so as to not compromise the Gospel. That would call, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:9, for us to remove ourselves from the world completely. But we are to act with prudence and judgment as members of both the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Man.

In closing what we, as a Church must do in light of being both salt and light is to ascertain from Scripture that which we must do to fulfill our mandate as members of both Kingdoms. Always with the knowledge that all things should be done to Glorify God first and foremost. Amen.

Beginning a New Course of Study

While the title may be a bit misleading it is quite a good summary of what I am going to do over the next couple of terms. I have applied to the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary here in Pittsburgh to take a couple of courses for credit over the next couple of terms, as well as next school year. My purpose for doing so is to both broaden my theological horizons past the mainline seminary I now attend (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) and to allow for a more relaxed theological environment in which to learn. I must be honest in saying that it will be refreshing to sit in a class and not have to defend basic Christological orthodoxy and watch as "Reformed" theology is misconstrued, masticated and spit out. This may also lead to me working towards a M.A at RPTS, we'll see...

Five Words

GO BROWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





BEAT THE STEELERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Found this on another Blog and Felt Like It Needed to Be Highlighted... Please Pass this On...

Prayer countdown to the Beijing Olympics...

(Note from Tim: David and I asked our dear sister, Kamilla, if she would be willing to write a post on the prayer campaign many believers have joined that is focused on the upcoming Olympics in China. We're grateful Kamilla agreed to our request.)

I'll be boycotting all coverage of the Olympic games this coming summer. Truthfully, I'm a bit bored with the Olympics in general and the summer games in particular. But I have a special reason for not soaking in all that advertising and pretense of the citizen-athlete the games used to be about. This year, Beijing, China will be hosting the games. The opening and closing ceremonies will be orchestrated by none other than Stephen Spielberg. It's difficult to fathom the man who brought us Schindler's list participating in Beijing's propaganda efforts.

These games are being compared to the Berlin games of 1936. And if we're not old enough to remember that or know about it, a moment's thought will bring to mind why the comparison might be apt. The Chinese regime intends to use the games as a sort of global "coming out" party, just as Hitler tried to use the 1936 Berlin games...

Beijing's airport and subway system are both being DOUBLED in capacity in anticipation of some half-million visitors. In order to make this infrastructure improvement and to build the Olympic venues, approximately 10% of Beijing's 17 million residents are being displaced--an estimated 1.5 million people.

Beijng's air is a sometimes toxic mix of car exhaust, factory smoke and sand from the Gobi desert. They have planted some 2 million trees and are expected to spend some 3 billion on the efforts to clean Beijing's air for the athletes. Even so, reports are that the IOC may postpone some outdoor events if the air quality does not sufficiently improve.

But all this, aside from the troubling displacement of residents, is mere money. The real shame of these upcoming games is the whitewash Beijing will be able to put on its human rights record. Amnesty International, no longer the paragon of human rights it used to be, is still a reputable source on many matters. They have found children as young as 12 years old working 15 hour shifts in factories making stationary for the Games. Reporters are still censored. Beijing sends money and weapons to support the murderous Bashir regime in Khartoum, feeding the Darfur genocide. But even that is not all.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and the United States Government list China as a "country of particular concern", a designation it has held since 1999. The 2007 report says, "The Chinese government continues to engage in systematic and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief." China claims religious freedom, but in fact, this only exists for those participating in officially registered churches. Protestant house churches and the underground Roman Catholic Church are particular targets of government persecution. China's practice of religious oppression includes arrest and imprisonment without trial, secret trials, "re-education" labor camps and disappearances where officials deny they know the whereabouts of certain missing religious leaders. Local officials have been known to bulldoze churches, arrest the members and force them to pay a fine for their release. One particular Protestant pastor was sentenced to three years labor, along with two assistants receiving lesser sentences because, apparently, their Bible publishing enterprise proved to be too effective.

And, worse still, China's one-child policy continues to include forced abortions. The May 5 issue of World magazine reported on one particularly horrendous case in which a 7 months pregnant woman was dragged into hospital and injected with chemicals to kill her child. She then endured 19 hours of labor in order to deliver her murdered son.

Join us in prayer one minute every day until the Games. I think we should pray the Games collapse and the murderous, black regime in Beijing is exposed to the world for what it is in such a way their evil can no longer be hidden.

One Minute, One Year, One Country
Join the Prayer Countdown to the
Beijing Olympics

www.opendoorsusa.org

Property Issue Getting Ugly in Western PA

Presbytery has plan to resolve Peters property issues

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

By Ann Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Washington Presbytery has put forth a plan to try to resolve property issues with a Peters church that voted Sunday to break ties with the Presbyterian Church (USA), but its leaders say they will litigate ownership in civil court if forced to.

At Tuesday night's special meeting in Eighty-Four, tremendous sympathy was expressed for the minority at Peters Creek Presbyterian Church who had opposed the break and who are now seeking to be declared "the true church" in the dispute. The meeting ended with the 80 ministers and elders gathered around a half dozen representatives of the minority, laying hands on them in prayer and singing Amazing Grace.

The Rev. David Bleivik, the general presbyter, said that if a court battle became necessary there was a possibility of financial assistance from both national headquarters and the regional synod.

"On every level we have sought to avoid legal action in accordance with [the biblical book of] Corinthians . . . . But if we are forced to defend the just side of this, we will prevail. I have no doubt," he said.

"I have a deep place in my heart for the loyal minority because of what they have been through and how they have been treated." Others at the meeting harshly criticized the conduct of Peters Creek leadership toward the minority.

Ray Peterson, an elder who is spokesman for the majority at Peters Creek, said later that whatever the presbytery said or proposed was irrelevant, since his congregation was no longer part of that denomination. He has previously expressed confidence that the majority from the church will receive a fairer, faster hearing in civil court than from the presbytery. The congregation took two votes, one 273-86 and on Sunday 207-26 to leave the PCUSA and affiliate with the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

"The reason we disaffiliated from the PCUSA is so we did not have to contend with specious motions and initiatives from the Washington Presbytery," Mr. Peterson said.

---

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

First published on November 7, 2007 at 11:38 am

Continuing My Walk

For the third installment of my walk of discernment I would like to take a look at the official statements made by the PC(USA) on the matter of Abortion

The Denominations current stance on the practice of Abortion is muddy and I believe purposefully vague. At various General Assemblies[1] the GA voted and passed resolutions that include the following statements about the denominations position on Abortion:

The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.[2]

Humans are empowered by the spirit prayerfully to make significant moral choices, including the choice to continue or end a pregnancy. Human choices should not be made in a moral vacuum, but must be based on Scripture, faith, and Christian ethics.[3]

Some of us would focus on the biblical material that emphasizes human decision-making. Real decision-making[4] is one of the gifts of God to us as human beings. It is part of being created in the image of God. God's own dominion over all of creation does not deny this intention of the Creator: that human beings must make real decisions that have real consequences for their lives and for the world…[5]

Now these statements in and of themselves are in opposition to lots of presuppositions in Reformed theology. The fourth citation being the greatest departure from any semblance of the Doctrines that used to constitute the Reformed faith within the PC(USA). However ultimately what truly brings me to question these statements (and as one questioning his remaining a member with the PC(USA)) is that they are ultimately human-centered, that is they are always speaking as if God is 1) outside the decision-making process of the individual, and 2) that God cannot possibly understand the difficult decisions that abortion entails. The second quotation I have chosen to highlight disturbs me the most. I have spoken previously of my concern that Scripture is now last in the Presbyterian's "Wesleyan Quadlateral" (with the first place going to experience, then reason, tradition, and lastly "s"cripture). While it may seem silly to some to quibble with the separation of faith and Christian ethics from Scripture in the wording it signals a much deeper problem and that is the continued denial of an active God within the human life that has dictated through his Word the "ethic" we as followers of Jesus Christ should follow. That somehow we have gone from the Amazing Grace of the reformation where Christ is the dominant mover to a simple common Grace where humanity has been given the ultimate word, not Christ, on the moral decisions of ending human life prematurely and without cause.

---

[1] As an aside it is of the utmost arrogance that the PC (USA) tries to claim that its 2006 General Assembly was its “217^th”. It is ludicrous for the denomination to claim heritage back to the 18^th century when it was actually founded by the joining of two separate denominations in 1983.

[2] Minutes of the 204th General Assembly (1992), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 367-368, 372-374

[3] Minutes of the 217th General Assembly (2006), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 905

[4] The major fault behind the hermeneutic used in the last quote will be critiqued in a separate post

[5] Sections "I. D. 6. Positions A & B" of the Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion to the 1992 General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 9-10

Required Reading

I just began to read this book recently after needing some time away from my studies. I have become in the past year or so more hardened against the German scholastic nature of my seminary and have tired of Pannenberg, Schleiermacher, and Barth so it was nice to sit down and read a cogent introduction into the hows and whys of the current Modalist (Sabellianist if you would like) movement within modern trinitarian formulations and apologetics. Even while critiquing the Kantian school Letham is not fearful of taking on the major weakness of the anti-intellectual passions of the recent Evangelical witness; that being its negligence of the most central Doctrine of Christian faith. Robert Letham's work checks in at over 500 pages but if the first 25 are any indication this should be a very exciting and informative read.

Area News

Pittsburgh bishop responds to church warning

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

JOHNSTOWN -- Pittsburgh Episcopal Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. invoked the legacy of theologian Martin Luther today in his first public response to being warned Wednesday by the denomination's leader that the diocese's continued march to separate from the national church could force him out of his position.

"Here I stand," Bishop Duncan told clergy and laity at the 142nd diocesan convention. "I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Those were the words spoken by Martin Luther in 1521 when he was called before the Diet of Worms for his supposedly heretical works. Emperor Charles the Fifth later declared the theologian an outlaw and he went into exile.

Bishop Duncan's short response to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori came after he told convention deputies that "as a diocese we have come to a fork in the road."

The convention will vote later today on whether or not to move forward with plans to leave the Episcopal Church.

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
First published on November 2, 2007 at 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Local Episcopalians vote to leave the U.S. church
Friday, November 02, 2007
By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

JOHNSTOWN -- Members of the Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese have voted overwhelmingly to break away from the denomination in the United States and align with an Anglican province in another country.

In today's vote at the 142nd diocesan convention, the laity approved the measure 118-58 with one abstention. The clergy vote was 109-24 in favor of breaking away.

For the break to occur, the diocese must pass the same measure next year and select which Anglican province to join.

In a letter Wednesday to Pittsburgh Episcopal Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr., U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori warned that such a move could result in declaring the Pittsburgh Diocese vacant and ordering Bishop Duncan's removal.

Bishop Duncan invoked the legacy of theologian Martin Luther today in his first public response to the wraning.

"Here I stand," Bishop Duncan told clergy and laity at the convention. "I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Those were the words spoken by Martin Luther in 1521 when he was called before the Diet of Worms for his supposedly heretical works. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V declared the theologian an outlaw and he went into exile.

Bishop Duncan's short response to Bishop Schori came after he told convention deputies that "as a diocese, we have come to a fork in the road."


More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And Another Thing...

This Post grew out of a response I gave to a question posited by "Bob" in a thread on Toby's Classical Presbyterian Blog.


Bob,

Considering a good 90% of modern American Christians are at the least Semi-Pelagian you have quite a question that I believe needs to be SERIOUSLY considered and prayed about in a manner befitting Gethsemane. We fret over (albeit very serious as well) sexuality issues while allowing many of our "evangelical" conservative brethren to preach a gospel of Works Salvation that is in many ways more endangering to the future and health of Christendom than the ills of Liberal social ethics. We tolerate the abominable teachings of Finney, Graham, and others while fighting the onslaught of liberalism in a separate arena. Both problems, Arminianism and Liberalism, ultimately are cut from the same cloth hermenuetically. They each want to place the value of Salvation upon the unworthy shoulders of beings that cannot bear the weight of their own sin. Whether in Finney's theology (see an excellent critique here) that weight is paid by generic "good works" or Liberalism's "Social Gospel" salvation, which like Finney, comes to embrace Process Theology (a modern-day heresy in its own right) and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection is not enough for salvation but merely places one in the position to move in the direction of salvation by checking off various benchmarks on the way to earning a place in the kingdom through various "good works".

The point here is that while it is good that "evangelicals" are fighting the false diversity of Liberal social ethics at the same time they are no better if they deny Sola Fide in the process. To paraphrase something I heard Michael Horton say one time on the White Horse Inn it strikes me as odd that a term like "evangelicalism" can encompass such a broad spectrum of people to include both Benny Hinn and R.C. Sproul who could not be farther away systematically if they tried but are seen as the same because of their shared views on a very narrow slice of theological pie. My Reformed brethren we have to be careful with whom we lie down with and cast our arm around to win secular political battles when in doing so we put ourselves in danger of losing the Kingdom entirely.

Happy Reformation Day!!!

Make sure to give Thanks on this Day for the many martyrs blood that has been spilled so that the Gospel may be brought to us this day 490 years since Martin stood up to the World.

Continuing my Walk

For the second installment of my walk of discernment I would like to highlight two past posts I have made on "Adam". They are not that old so some of you have already read them, but they serve our purpose well.


I thought a nice meaty topic would be in order so I want to discuss an issue that is bearing its head among colleagues and friends here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. That issue, as one can tell from the title, is whether or not Adam and Eve were actual beings, the Garden ever actually existed, and does "Original Sin" necessitate an "Original Sinner"? These are of course not new topics and though at first glance may seem to be third order worries I however take the position that without an actual Adam there would be no need for an actual Christ. So one could say that I hold this argument to be much more than a simple third order concern.

Why may you ask are people even doubting Adam's reality? Does not Paul in Romans 5:12 say that all sin came into the world through one man? Jesus himself refers to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4,5 not to mention Luke 3 records Adam as being in his geneology. Calvin in his commentary on the Pentateuch recalls that:

So God created man The reiterated mention of the image of God is not a vain repetition. For it is a remarkable instance of the Divine goodness which can never be sufficiently proclaimed. And, at the same time, he admonishes us from what excellence we have fallen, that he may excite in us the desire of its recovery.*

Or Abraham Kuyper:

Like Job, we ought to feel and to acknowledge that in Adam you and I are created; when God created Adam He created us; in Adam’s nature He called forth the nature wherein we now live. Gen. i. and ii. is not the record of aliens, but of ourselves—concerning the flesh and blood which we carry with us, the human nature in which we sit down to read the Word of God.

Or A.W. Pink:

Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last Adam's. The responsibility of each of the rational descendants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them accountable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall.

Or Charles Hodge:

We are inherently depraved, and therefore we are involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin.

So here we have Scripture, greats of the Reformation, and contemporary scholars all pointing to a real Adam. So why do Orthodox people seem inclined to accept that Adam was a real being but we of 2007 seem not to think it either necessary or true? Is it because these old white men did not have access to "knowledge" that we have today and if they just knew about textual criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, grammatical criticism, and J, E, P, and D then they would also see the "mythical" properties of the creation text? Well would Calvin change his mind on the necessity of Adam's fall for the reality of Christ's death if he knew of the Yahwist? The easy answer is to say that proponents of the allegory hypothesis are so taken by accommodation with the sciences that their theistic evolutionary stance forces them to concede that no "Adam" ever existed, regardless of what this position does to their theology, because science has proved Homo Sapiens developed independently. But is this answer sufficient? Is it just simple to say that those who hold there is no Adam because of the supposed inconsistencies in the Hebrew and the alleged "two creations" are "wrong" without delving deeper into the questions behind this stance?

What do you think? Does a Christ automatically support an Adam? Or do we think that the story of Creation, without an actual Adam, is a proper myth that helps us and the early Israelites, Jesus, and the Apostles understand our current predicament and that an actual Adam is not required for the Cross?

*-All quotes taken from www.ccel.org



___________________________________________________________________



To continue the conversation about a literal Adam a little further let us examine how not having a "real" Adam destroys the need for an actual Christ. Those of you who do not believe in a physical Adam as expressed in the beginning chapters of Genesis need to reconcile how Christ, who Paul explicitly says in 1st Corinthians 15:42-49 is the second Adam, can be the so-called second of something that did not previously exist? Or put in other words how Adam being a metaphor calls for a Christ to die for a fake rebellion.

I think those of you who deny Adam's reality do not truly comprehend how much the idea of there being no Adam affects the rest of Scripture. It would be like taking away the opening chapter of a novel and expecting to be able to understand the rest of the story. Someone who describes the creation text as myth or folklore must analyze what this does not only to the history of God's relationship to Israel but to their Christology. Because not only does the non-existence of Adam necessitate that God created the world sinful and evil but it requires that Jesus' death on the cross is an action that resolves God's mistake in making an already fallen creation to himself. Not that Jesus was reconciling us, who share in Adam's rebellion, to God but that God was reconciling his own blunder with himself. Michal Horton in his work Putting Amazing Back Into Grace quotes John Calvin who says,"The depravity and malice both of men and of the devil, or the sins that arise therefrom, do not spring from nature, but rather from the corruption of nature." In other words it is not that nature itself was created evil but that nature had to of its own accord fall from the perfection in which it was formed to begin with. This has to mean that at some point in the past an "Adam" was given the free will to sin or as the Second Chapter of the Scots Confession defines it:

"We confess and acknowledge that our God has created man, i.e., our first father, Adam, after his own image and likeness, to whom he gave wisdom, lordship, justice, free will, and self-consciousness, so that in the whole nature of man no imperfection could be found. From this dignity and perfection man and woman both fell; the woman being deceived by the serpent and man obeying the voice of the woman, both conspiring against the sovereign majesty of God, who in clear words had previously threatened death if they presumed to eat of the forbidden tree."

For Jesus' death on the cross to be as Scripture says it to be necessitates a literal Adam who fell from God's grace. A fake Adam creates a Christ who has failed and is a liar. For what need do we have of a Savior that saves us from a death that was his fault to begin with? What do we say when we know that Christ did not die because of our own rebellion but because of his own mistake? How can we say that the literally hundreds of times Adam's sin is called upon by the writers of the Old Testament to show forth the sin of Israel is mere allegory? How can we say Christ died for an allegory or a metaphor and be taken seriously? Adam's reality is VITAL for the gospel to be real. Without an actual Adam our faith is in vain because Christ's atonement is nothing more than a big "sorry about that". This is not the message of the gospel.