Theological Musings

s I mentioned in a recent “Personal Update” post, I have purchased the rights to my first two CDs from the label that originally released them. And in conjunction with that, we are re-releasing those first two CDs with all new artwork.

In celebration of this exciting development, I would like to extend a special offer solely for my Theological Musings readers. I am offering an opportunity for you to purchase all three of my CDs (normally $15 each for a total of $45) for just $30 plus shipping and handling (a 33% discount).

Here are descriptions of the three CDs that you will receive:

Ivory Worship – Originally released under the title “To Worship You”, this CD features intimate arrangements of contemporary worship songs such as “Breathe”, “Draw Me Close”, “Shout to the Lord” and “Agnus Dei”.

‘Tis So Sweet – Whereas “Ivory Worship” featured more contemporary songs, on this CD I returned to my childhood roots with classic hymns. Intimately played in a continuous flow, the music on this CD comprises one hour-long medley of well-known hymns such as “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”, “Just As I Am”, “Great Is Thy Faithfulness”, “It Is Well with My Soul” and others (19 in all).

Christmas Solitude – Focusing on Christmas songs that are centered around the story of Jesus, the same intimate style employed on the other two projects is applied to worshipful Christmas songs such as “O Holy Night!”, “Silent Night”, “O Come, O Come Emmanuel”, and many others. The lone vocal song on this CD features my lovely wife Christy singing a beautiful song she wrote from the perspective of Mary called “I Will Never Be the Same”.

All three of these CDs are available individually on my website (Worship Keys), but to take advantage of this special pricing for Theological Musings readers on that website, you must click this link. When that page loads, you should see a message near the top that says, “Welcome, Theological Musings reader!” That will give you a special link for the pricing offered here.

n the past, we have had some discussion here on this blog about the Westminster Confession of Faith. In a recent question about bibliolatry raised on Kamp Krusty (a very insightful and quite humorous blog), I got into a discussion with Scott Roche about the statement that the WCF gives about Scripture.

Here is the statement that Scott quoted from the WCF:

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church; and afterward—for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world—to commit this revelation wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased.

This sparked some interesting back-and-forth, and Scott and I agreed to talk through this on our blogs. To that end, Scott has posted an introduction to the topic, and then his fuller thoughts about it. I’d like to take some time to respond to Scott here in this post.

First of all, I have to commend Scott for his tremendous graciousness in this conversation. No matter the outcome of this conversation, or whether or not one of us becomes persuaded by the other’s position, it’s just a joy to have this type of discussion with someone who seasons his disagreement with grace and love. Thanks, Scott!

There are things that Scott and I both do agree on, as has been established in the conversation that has already taken place. For one, we both believe that the Bible reveals Jesus to us. We also both agree that Jesus is the object and focus of our faith. That’s enough, in my opinion, to give us plenty of room to fellowship together.

There are a couple of points that Scott made, however, that I would like to shed a different light on. Similar to how I believe that the WCF makes some statements as “fact” that maybe aren’t able to be fully determined (and therefore, in my opinion, should probably be left as opinions), I think Scott may possibly be overstating some points.

While God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it always got written down, at least so far as we know.

I’m actually not sure that this can be stated, even with the disclaimer of “at least so far as we know.” I’ve used some examples in the past that seem to refute this. For example, King Saul (before he’s anointed king) joins a group of prophets and begins prophesying. Yet nothing is recorded as to what he, or any of the other prophets in that group, prophesied.

Likewise, the New Testament records that Anna (in the temple when Jesus was dedicated) was a prophetess (indicating activity prior to her entrance into the story), yet none of her statements prior to the appearance of Jesus are recorded.

And perhaps the most compelling to me is the fact that Paul took a lot of time to instruct the Corinthians in the proper use of prophecy, yet to our knowledge, none of the canonical writings were penned by anyone in the church in Corinth.

So, at best, I think it’s an overstatement to say that God always put his words down in writing. That statement seems to set up a foundation for Scott’s development of his thoughts. If, in fact, that foundation is overstated, then we have to consider the conclusions as potentially suspect or distorted.

Scott also goes on to discuss the statement in the WCF which says that the former ways of God revealing his will to us have ceased.

This is, for me, the most troubling statement in the above-quoted portion of the WCF. Troubling because it seems to serve as the justification for the stated view of scripture (the complete revelation of God to us).

We know from scripture (Hebrews 1:1-2) that God spoke in the past through prophets, and then chose to speak to us through Jesus. This is, to me, very significant, because of what it doesn’t say. Even though some of the prophecies were written down for preservation, and even though some of the words of Jesus have been written down for us, this verse doesn’t say that God spoke through writing and then continues to speak through writing.

Even Jesus said a lot of things (according to John) that weren’t written down. So the speaking to us through Jesus goes beyond words on a page. God seems to want something much more personal than written communication alone.

When God first brought the Israelites out of Egypt, he asked all of them to come to the mountain so he could speak to them. The Israelites refused, out of fear, and asked Moses to mediate for them. So, while Scott points out that the 10 commandments were written down for us, was that because that was how God desired to communicate? Or was it because Moses had to convey to the Israelites what God wanted to tell them personally?

I have long contended that what God originally created in Eden and what he consistently sought to restore after the fall of Adam and Eve was a personal relationship. Hence the eventual appearance of Jesus — Emmanuel, God with us.

So with regard to whether or not God’s methods of revelation have ceased, necessitating complete revelation being written down, I think we would have to say that the answer is that God’s methods of communication have become more and more personal over time. God spoke through Moses, spoke through the prophets, spoke face-to-face in the person of Jesus, then indwells us with his Holy Spirit. There is a progression from separation to intimate relationship. That’s the beauty of the Gospel message that Jesus came to preach!

See, it’s not even an issue of cessationism vs. continuationism. It’s not a charismatic or non-charismatic issue. It’s an issue of asking what type of relationship God desires with us, and how he has chosen to enact that relationship.

Any thoughts in response?

Until next time,

steve

everal times in the past, the subject of orthodoxy has come up on this blog. And quite honestly, I’ve taken a lot of flack over my hesitancy to write some people off as being “heretics”.

This evening, while perusing some blogs, I spotted this paragraph from a commenter:

It seems to me that the wrong way to identify whether someone believes the Bible is to ask them if they do.
Better to find out what they believe on a variety of subjects which the Bible teaches us about, and then determine for them whether or not they really believe it.

That, my friends, is apparently how we are to judge others.

Forgive my bitter cynicism, but I fail to see the justification in this kind of approach. It could easily be paraphrased as such: “Don’t give your brother any benefit of the doubt. Give them, rather, a theological quiz, and grade it based on your own inerrant, infallible, and complete knowledge of the truth.”

No, thank you.

Until next time,

steve

heesy title for this post notwithstanding, I find nothing amusing or cute about an AP news article that was released today.

When the news about Ted Haggard’s resignation amidst confessions of “sexual immorality” broke last year, I opted not to blog about it in specifics. (I can’t even remember now if I wrote anything at all about it.) My choice to not use his name or specifics was for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I didn’t want a bunch of Google traffic based on his name.

I also wanted to be extremely reserved in passing judgment. Not that I didn’t think that what he admitted to was pretty serious. And not that I didn’t think that the way he handled it was extremely inappropriate for a man of his position.

In the midst of the fallout from that scandal (what a cliché that is, eh?), I had concerns about the way his former church handled it, as well. I thought about writing some posts about that and comparing it to some of my own personal experiences with how churches often deal (or don’t deal, as the case may be) with sin amongst its leaders.

Today, however, I find myself not feeling so reserved. And I find myself torn between feelings of tremendous sorrow and harsh anger. I’m trying to err on the side of sorrow here, but it’s difficult.

So, what was the news that came out today? Well, it appears from this news story on Yahoo (HT: Kansas Bob) that Mr. Haggard is asking for support for the next two years because he doesn’t think that he and his wife have “adequate earning power” and won’t for at least two years.

But here’s the rub: Mr. Haggard reportedly received a severance package which included $138,000 in salary, he made $110,000 + an $85,000 bonus (?!?!) last year prior to resigning, he continues to collect royalties on his books (although I imagine the market for them has declined a bit), and lives in a close-to-3/4 of a million dollar home, which is on the market.

So, Mr. Haggard apparently thinks that he needs people to support him, despite all of that. Why? I can’t think of any good reason, either logically or scripturally, why Mr. Haggard should be entitled to financial support from others.

I will still refrain from passing judgment in a strict sense, but I think that perhaps Mr. Haggard got a little too comfortable asking people for money, expecting financial support to an extreme level, and living off the generous gifts of others who quite likely have a much lower standard of living than he.

Lord have mercy.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Until next time,

steve

t’s no secret that one of the very natural tendencies of humankind is toward legalism. And it’s no secret that Christians face the temptation quite often to become legalistic. Even when we attempt to explore liberty, we run the risk of becoming legalistic about our liberty! Ironic, isn’t it?

Usually, the danger in legalism is seen as being too restrictive. In other words, if someone is being legalistic about a certain issue, they are usually drawing a tighter line around something than needs to be there.

But what about the times when drawing that line causes us to miss the point entirely? What if it causes us to completely permit other thoughts/behaviors while focusing on particular thoughts/behaviors that aren’t even relevant?

Such, I fear, is the case with a particular Old Testament commandment.

Someone put together a series of billboards posing as messages directly from God. I’m sure you’ve seen them somewhere along the line. Stark white letters on a solid black background. Things like “Let’s meet at my house Sunday before the game. — God” or “Don’t make me come down there. — God”, etc.

Apart from the constant theological problems in most of the messages (i.e., God’s ‘house’ is not a church building and, ummm, He already did “come down” here and has sent His Spirit to remain here with us), there was one that really jumped out at me and caused me to think about this particular issue.

“Next time you curse, use your own name. — God”

A similar one said, “Keep using my name in vain, I’ll make rush hour longer. — God” Yeah, that’s exactly the type of God we serve, right? Ahem. Anyway, back to my point…

We are all familiar with the commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” And many of us believe that we know exactly what it means, right?

So I got to thinking, what does it mean to take God’s name in vain? I mean, I know what I was always taught it meant.

Be honest. Most of us were taught that this meant not saying things like “Oh, my god” as a careless expression. I was even taught that it was wrong to say “Thank God.”

And then, of course, there were the “substitution words” that were equally sinful. Gosh. Gee. Geez. Golly. Because these were all substitutions for the word God or Jesus, I was told, they were equally sinful.

Now, contrary to what you might be expecting, the point of this post is not to actually defend the use of any of those words or phrases. I’ll leave that up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

But, my thought process went something like this: By focusing so much on the casual phrases and “substitution words” that are used, have we missed a bigger point? More frightening, are we actually condoning behavior and thoughts that are in violation of this command while believing that we are innocent because we “don’t say those things”?

And so I began to mull over what it means to take God’s name…

Wait a minute. What is God’s name? Is it “God”?

We use the term “God” (with a capital G, of course) as the name for the god we worship. We rightly believe that our god is different from all other gods, and so we distinguish him by calling him “God”. But is that his name??

It’s almost sad that we don’t actually use his name. And while I have no evidence for this, I believe that the reason we don’t actually use his name is a derivative of the Jewish tradition of not speaking his name for fear of violating this commandment.

However, one must be truthful and acknowledge that we do use the term “God”, even with a capital G in other ways. As was pointed out in a post on another blog (a blog unfamiliar to me, and one I only found in looking for some other information about this topic after I had already decided to write this), many Christians say “God bless you” just as casually as the phrase “Oh my god” is used. Is that offensive? To most people, no. At least not in my experience.

But, and here is the rub: How many times do we invoke the authority and blessing of our God on the things that we are doing, teaching, saying, thinking, desiring, exhorting, preaching, etc.? And how many times do those very things that we are doing, teaching, saying, thinking, desiring, exhorting, preaching, etc. go against the very nature of what we have revealed about our God, yet we claim his backing and authority for them anyway?

Is that not a greater offense to our God?

Or when we claim to represent Jesus (which if we believe that Jesus is divine, than we must treat the name “Jesus” as a name, if not the name, of our God) and yet live a life that does not reflect his character and work, is that not an offense to our God? Are we not “using [his] name” in a vain manner?

Think about it, and feel free to discuss or dispute it below.

Until next time,

steve