"he won't be angry with you"

“Not too long ago I conducted a funeral for the spouse of a very dear friend of mine. The spouse died of AIDS. My friend moved in a very fast crowd, and the funeral service in the home was quite informal. There was a keyboard artist playing jazz and plenty of booze and balloons. The people who came to the service were not the kind of people who are generally found sitting on the front row at the the First Church by the Gas Station. In fact most of the folks who were at the service had long since given up on religion. I could understand that. I’ve almost given up myself on several occasions. I went to the keyboard artist and said to him, “Son, when you finish this piece bring it to an end because I’m going to say something religious.” When he stopped playing and there was silence, I decided to follow Jesus’ example. He would probably (judging the report of the gospel writers who chronicled his life) be more comfortable with people like this than with the normal folks who attend normal funeral services. So, after saying a quick silent prayer, I said to the folks there: 

“I don’t do many funerals with balloons and booze. But it’s okay because that’s the way [my friend] would have wanted it. The balloons are appropriate because this is not a funeral service, it’s a graduation service. Our friend isn’t here. She’s in another place where there isn’t any more pain. She’s in heaven, and I’m going to tell you why.” 

I told them about the people Jesus loved. I told them that their friend wasn’t in heaven because she was a ‘good’ person (they knew better than that) but because she knew she wasn’t and had turned to One who loved her enough to die on a cross in her place. 

“I’m here. I went on, “for only one reason. You needed someone to tell you the truth. I’m just one bad person telling other bad people the most important thing you will ever hear: God is God, and you should remember that. But if you go to him, he won’t be angry with you. In fact, he’ll love you. Our friend found that out, and we wanted to make sure you knew.”

As I looked around the room, there was hardly a dry eye. I didn’t have to tell them they were guilty. At least they had that right. They needed someone to tell them about a God who would love them and forgive them if they would only go to him.

Steve Brown, Approaching God

Is the Church Reaching Generation OMG?

Kenda Creasy Dean's lecture begins at about the 7:20 minute mark. If you have youth or are working with them in the church, pay attention.

Blessed are the Peacemakers

This article will be posted in Thursday's Kernersville News under the Words to Live By Column.

Recently, I’ve been attending a weekly seminar on conflict resolution and mediation or as the Bible would call it, peacemaking. I know you’re thinking, “Why would a pastor need training on that? The church is full of peace-loving congregants and wholesome marriages.” Indeed, study after study show that the church fares no better than the world in scandal, conflict, and divorce. For many this is confirming evidence that Christianity is no different than any other religion and that being a Christian doesn’t work. I know it looks discouraging, but in reality we shouldn’t be surprised. We know full well that the church is full of sinners—the same may be said of most of her pulpits. As I’ve sat through this class there are three things that have jumped out at me which I’d like to share.

Firstly, conflict offers us an opportunity. Relational conflict provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate the power of the gospel and to glorify God. As the offended and injured forgive and as the offender and sinner repents the categorical distinction between those who believe and those who don’t is delineated. In the humility of obedience as we engage with those with whom we have conflict or as we step in to mediate, we exemplify the ministry of Jesus Christ who has given us this ministry of reconciliation and peacemaking. Jesus himself says that peacemakers will be called the sons of God. In making peace, not in avoiding conflict, do we show ourselves to be His children.

Secondly, our ability to forgive is directly proportional to our apprehension of the forgiveness we have received. Jesus himself taught us this when he said to Simon the Pharisee, “He who has been forgiven much loves much”. The conclusion we may draw from this is that unforgiving people do not believe they have been forgiven. And that may be in two ways: either the unforgiving person is proud and self-righteous or the unforgiving person is ashamed and self-contemptuous. In both cases contempt is present. As one pastor has said, “Either it’s I hate thee, or I hate me”. The presence of contempt in any relationship is the most common indicator that the relationship will not last. Surprising enough, we don’t stick it out with people we perceive hate us. However, when a person who has offended sees love and compassion in the face of the person they have offended, a wall of hardness and fear crumbles and a breakthrough happens. Regardless of what situation you face, do you have full-confidence that if you look to Jesus, you will see compassion, love, and forgiveness? Sadly many of us don’t, and many of us profess to be Christian.

Lastly, if we bear the grudge and or allow the bitter root to grow in our hearts, it will destroy us. Ken Sande, in his book The Peacemaker, notes, that “unforgiveness is the poison we drink in hope that others die”. Sadly, too many people are in bondage to the compounded effects of shame, contempt, resentment, and regret. Though the road to reconciliation and restitution may be a long journey, the way out of the maze of despair begins first with looking to and trusting the One who paid our debt – who stood in our place before the judge and bore the condemnation we should have received. In His face, we see mercy and love, and the wealth of that resource is sufficient for every need.

10 Things I always seem to see while counseling couples

I always seem to end up sharing these ideas with couples I am counseling whether they have been married a long time and have gotten into a difficult spot or they are an engaged couple preparing for marriage. These are simple propositions without qualification. Though they are not laws, they do seem to be reasonable generalizations.

1. Every woman I have counseled longs to rest in the arms of a strong man. This is a longing for security. In this longing are deep issues of identity and meaning.
2. No man I have counseled wants to rest in the arms of a strong woman. Rather he wants to have the sort of arms in which a woman might rest. This is a longing for significance. In this longing are deep issues of identity and meaning.
3. The wife does not feel secure because her husband has a good job and provides lots of stuff. She feels most secure when her husband is present, direct, and engaged.
4. The husband feels most significant by what he sacrifices for his family and provides for his family.
5. When relational intimacy (emotional and physical) breaks down because of conflict, the conflict is confounded by the fact that the wife does not feel secure (You don't seem to cherish me; I don't think you love me) and the husband does not feel significant (What do you mean I don't love you? I work a job I hate everyday for you). The conflict escalates because each partner's longing for either security or significance is threatened. Oftentimes each is asking questions about their own issues rather than addressing the other's longing. The husband is distant and aloof. The wife feels disconnected and unsafe. The husband senses her distance and caution, and his longing for significance is threatened. The argument escalates when the husband grows angry that the wife doesn't see his sacrifice or doesn't feel safe. As anger escalates, the wife increasingly does not feel safe and pulls away. The husband gets angrier. On and on this cycle escalates until someone pushes the "thermonuclear self-destruct button". Couples should work to see the other's longing and address the question each is asking. The wife is asking, "Do you love me? Do you cherish me?" The husband is asking, "Do you see my sacrifice for you? Do you feel safe?"
6. The husband's fear that he is insignificant is oftentimes lurking behind arguments about money and sex.
7. The wife's fear that she is unsafe is oftentimes lurking behind arguments about sex and money.
8. The wife should recognize and acknowledge the sacrifice the husband makes without expecting less from him.
9. The husband should recognize that his ability to provide is not what his wife wants most, but rather this is what he wants to be for her. He should continue to sacrifice but not at the expense of being present with his wife.
10. Husbands, it is not enough for you to have told your wife you loved her when you married her. When you vowed to love, honor, and cherish, you promised to continually be telling her you love her. USE. YOUR. WORDS. She needs to hear you tell her love her and why you love her. Set your heart on her by telling her and talking with her.

The Agenda of Seminary

Dr. Richard Pratt was asked to comment on what he would change about seminary by the Gospel Coalition. You can read the whole article here. Incidentally, I had another friend who was told by his mentor who, upon hearing that he was going to seminary warned: You'll loose all your courage, and It takes ten years to get over seminary. Here's what Richard had to say...

If I were king and could wave my magical scepter, I would radically change the basic agenda of seminary.

After 22 years of teaching in a seminary, I slowly began to realize something. We were not preparing the kinds of leaders that evangelical churches in North America need. Let’s face it; evangelicalism has seen better days. God is at work in many places and in many ways, but on the whole, the news is not good. Our numbers are dwindling; our theology is unraveling; our zeal for Christ is dissipating. Now more than ever, we need seminaries to give the church leaders who are empowered by the Spirit for radical, sacrificial devotion to Christ and his kingdom. And they’d better do it quickly.

I was recently in China, talking with the president of a house church network of more than 1 million people. He asked me for advice on preparing the next generation of pastors. I looked at him and said, “The only thing I know is what you should not do.” He smiled and asked, “What’s that?” My reply surprised him. “You should not do what we have done in the West. The results of that approach have become clear.”

The agenda of evangelical seminaries is set primarily by scholars. Professors decide how students will spend their time; they determine students’ priorities; they set the pace. And guess what. Scholars’ agenda seldom match the needs of the church.

Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.

If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.

Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry.

A Shrinking Condundrum

An Associated Press article which came out this week entitled, 

Methodist survey aims to stop membership decline

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — It's the conundrum Protestant denominations with declining memberships and shrinking budgets are desperate to solve: How to stem the decades-long losses and attract new worshippers.
The United Methodist Church, the third largest denomination in the country, thinks it could be closer to finding the answer. It commissioned an ambitious survey of nearly all its 33,000 U.S. churches to find out what its growing memberships are doing to keep congregations thriving.
Of those churches, the four key factors of vitality stood out as "crystal clear findings that are actionable," according to the survey:
_ Small groups and programs, such as Bible study and activities geared toward youth.
_ An active lay leadership.
_ Inspirational pastors who have served lengthy tenures at churches.
_ A mix of traditional and contemporary worship services.

American Teenage Mutant Christians

 Thanks Nathan G for pointing to this.

( via CNN) -- If you're the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning:

Your child is following a "mutant" form of Christianity, and you may be responsible.

Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." Translation: It's a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem.

Dean is a minister, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and the author of "Almost Christian," a new book that argues that many parents and pastors are unwittingly passing on this self-serving strain of Christianity.

She says this "imposter'' faith is one reason teenagers abandon churches.

Confession: Water of Life

I've been considering writing out prayers for our congregation's worship service. Here's this Sunday's Confession.

Our Heavenly Father, forgive us our sin. Instead of turning to you who is the fount of every blessing, we have dug cisterns of our own when we were thirsty. We have, in our stubbornness, assured ourselves that we may have peace without you. But Father, there is no peace.

In our restlessness, we have given ourselves over to pleasure and comfort believing we would never be free of sadness, pain, or boredom.

We have been faithless in our devotion to you, and have not kept our promises, nor have we wanted to honor those to whom we have made promises.

Rather than love you and others, we have set our affections on other’s approval or upon circumstances playing out as we demand. We have looked to them to save and deliver us, even as we hoped they would give us peace.

We have kept for ourselves the recognition and property which belongs to and is due to others. Our over-desires have conceived in us an envy in which we would rather see others deprived of the good they enjoy if it means that you would not give us the same.

These are the kinds of people we are, and we are sorry.

Father we want more than regret over our failings,

We want brokenness for the offense to you.

We want more than managed behavior,

We want to love you obediently.

We want more than cleaned up lives,

We want new hearts.

Father, we cannot be who we ought, let alone who we want because we do not have the power to be other than who we are: miserable sinners. And that is what we are.

But is that all you must be?

No. To those who are dead, Jesus Christ came to give life. To those who are stuck in old thoughts and patterns of living, Jesus came to make all things new. To those who are sick with sin, Jesus says, I have come not to call the righteous but sinners. And to those who are thirsty, Jesus Christ says, "...let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Tim Keller on Demythologizing the Culture from GC 10

Tim Keller Session 1 from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Forsyth Jail and Prison Ministries

Everything I've Learned...Almost

I'm starting a list of everything I've learned. Granted, there are things which I intuit, presuppose, and confess to knowing. However, there are those things which I've come to learn through experience which have in someway have become touchstones to which I've returned again and again. Here are a few:

1. I don't know much of anything.
2. My wife told me this about my preaching, "Don't sex up the gospel; you can't make it gooder news."
3. Men and women are basically different.
4. When suffering with a kidney stone and the nurse is late in coming to give you your morphine shot, be nice to her. People with kidney stones aren't in any position to speak to their care providers in any tone of voice other than one of grateful respect.
5. Never attempt to replace a disconnected sparkplug wire when the engine is running. The result is shocking.
   

A Response to “Jesus is the Gospel!” Part 2

continued...

4. And then there’s that word "immutability."
“To Aristotle, and to many Christians still today, God is the Unmoved Mover. God can’t change, God can’t become human, God can’t suffer, God can’t become sin, God can’t crucified and numbered among the transgressors. God can’t go to hell. So when Jesus does those things he can’t really be God – but he is! The gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified was foolishness to the Greeks because they couldn’t get past their revered law of non-contradiction.” (p.6)

In an overflow of McSwain’s confusion of the two natures of Christ, he states that God is not “unchangeable in his being.” Rather, God cannot change – for he is not like man that he should change his mind and who does everything according the counsel of his own will. God is independent and he is unchanging. Though the Father invites us to interact with him personally, it doesn’t mean that his personality is equivocally the same as ours. For God is not contingent, but rather all things are contingent upon the godhead.

It is also worth noting that what the “Greeks couldn’t get past” was not their revered law of non-contradiction but their pride and disdain for weakness. The epistles of Paul leak – especially 1 and 2 Corinthians -- the foolishness of the gospel made manifest in the one who became the servant of all. Non-contradiction is not the problem Paul faces, but rather pride and boasting in self, achievement, and reputation.

5. Universalism and Particular Redemption
“Paul doesn’t tell us that Christ died so we wouldn’t have to, he says when Christ died we died, every single human being died with Christ (2Cor5:14).” (p.10) and
“If the cross covers all sins for all times, past, present, and future, how can their still be leftovers? Was the work of Christ impotent or ineffective? Is there still justice to be meted out?” (p.13) and
“For instance, surely it is better to live with the question – How can one who belongs to God end up in Hell? -- than to live with the dangerous idea that some belong to Jesus and some do not (even the goats of Matthew 25 belong to the shepherd!). Did Jesus die for some but not for others? Did Jesus decide from all eternity that he would create some folks and then send them to hell without a chance?” (p.14)

At times McSwain sounds Reformed, at times he sounds Arminian, and at others, universalists. Take the above three quotes.

The first quote sounds as if every person is united with Christ, and it certainly follows that union with Christ means redemption and salvation in him. If this is true, all are safe regardless of whether they have believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth.

Secondly, the powerful effect of what Christ has accomplished is secure. He is able to save completely those who are being saved. I like this. Christ died. He bore all of God’s wrath so that non is left to be expended on me.

Thirdly, I don’t think he’d like the Reformed position of particular redemption. The trouble with those who espouse a universal sacrifice of Christ for “whosoever” means that at least for some, the redemption of Christ is not enough – you’re not safe. I don’t expect many to be able to swallow particular redemption easily, but in response to his question, “Did Jesus decide from all eternity that he would create some folds and then send them to hell without a chance…” Why not? Jesus told the goats, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”

That McSwain posits the question as to whether Jesus decided from all eternity exposes his pervasive inability to navigate the subtle distinctions of theological discourse. Though he claims he is Trinitarian in his position, his discourse reflects a bi-tarian position (God-Jesus) which fails to honor and recognize the Father’s work in redemption. Repeatedly he speaks of the trinity as God, Son, Holy Spirit. In so doing, he linguistically and even pragmatically negates the economic work of the Trinity: the Father ordains and predestines, the Son obeys and secures salvation through his obedience, and the Holy Spirit empowers and applies that salvation.

6. A conditional submission.
“A person cannot truly confess until he is given a safe place.” (p.12)

McSwain rightly speaks against the manipulation behind a lot of what is gospel presentation. However, he implies in this quote that confession is impossible without “safety.” A person’s confession is not dependent upon whether they are given a safe place. Confession is squeezed out of a heart which apprehends the truth. One day every tongue will confess – some of those confessions will not be because individuals are safe, but rather because the weighty glory of God Almighty is crushing it out of them. The Holy God of the universe does not except or welcome his creatures on their terms.

Final Thoughts.
I don’t believe that McSwain is out to present a plausible heterodoxy. Rather, I think he rightly apprehends the increasing irrelevance of the gospel as forgiveness approach for this younger generation. I do think his passion in ministry is commendable and inspiring. However, as one who leads others, his communication of the subtleties reflects a lack of circumspection and wisdom, and as such he appears a maverick charging ahead and doing his own thing because he likes his way of doing it more then other’s way of not doing it. Is this unjust? The children will tell.

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

Luke 7:34-35

A Response to “Jesus is the Gospel!”, Part 1

Recently, Christianity Today included an article on the recent controversy within Young Life regarding a paper written by Jeff McSwain and the ministry’s formulation of gospel non-negotiables. It seems that the area director and a good many of the staff in Durham/Chapel Hill resigned because of the disagreement. You can read the CT article here. You can read Jeff McSwain’s paper here, and you can read the Young Life Statement here.

After reading the paper, here are my thoughts. If I'm wacked or my church history isn't what it should be, would somebody tell me?

1. Not a bad place to start.
“Is it possible that we could clearly and faithfully preach a Christ-centered gospel without the penal/legal formula and the bridge illustration paradigm?” (ref. p.2)
What seems to be behind some of McSwain’s thinking is all the debate in the Emergent Church circles on penal substitutionary atonement. Though I am not sympathetic with arguments against the centrality of justification by faith in the propitiation which Jesus Christ has worked in his own’s behalf, McSwain’s concern about the manner in which the gospel is being presented and the subsequent confusion has some merit. In particular, I believe Dr. Timothy Keller and others have done great work on critiquing gospel presentation models.

Keller notes two current models of gospel presentation: gospel is forgiveness and gospel is freedom. Our increasingly secular and irreligious culture finds the gospel as forgiveness increasingly irrelevant because the starting presupposition: “there’s a God and he has rules” is not believed. To try and convince people who don’t believe they’ve done anything wrong that there’s forgiveness offered for their sins is incredibly difficult. However, there is another means to communicate our sin and Christ’s provision.

Keller suggests that our gospel approach should follow a “gospel is freedom” model. The gospel is freedom says that sin is slavery. (Slavery is naturally repulsive to a culture who values freedom, autonomy, and choice and is consumeristic and independent), Keller writes, “…the way to show more deeply secularized persons their need for the gospel is by saying, “your sin makes you a slave! You are actually being religious, though you don’t know it -- trying to be righteous in a destructive way.” (Slavery is the biggest nightmare of the “choice--worshipper”. We say, “you are not really in control” so they are threatened). This approach creates anxiety and relieves it by showing how Christ redeems us (lit. “ransoms us from slavery”), liberates us.

2. Nomenclature.
McSwain uses labeling which inclines the reader to prejudice. The labels he gives the model he espouses: the “Trinitarian/Incarnational Model” allows him to take the generous orthodox position while the term “Legal/Separation Model” implies a litigious, restrictive and ungracious position. Whether intentional or not it’s an old straw-man’s trick.

3. Bad historical exposition with heterodox conclusions.
In his paper, McSwain writes the following,

“It stands in drastic conflict with orthodox Christology regarding the two natures of Christ. “The Church Fathers who formulated the creeds were adamant in insisting that God the Son assumed a sinful human nature in the incarnation. To them, the incarnation itself exploded any so called separation of divinity and impurity. Against Nestorian heresy, the Church in the year 451 came down squarely on Biblical testimony that Jesus Christ is two natures but one person. The one person aspect is in critical view here, because it keeps us from saying Christ’s divine nature and sinful nature were just two hermetically sealed natures pasted together. Nestorianism was an effort to protect the purity of the divine nature of Christ by separating it out from the human nature. Instead of saying “the human nature of Christ became sin, or “the human nature of Christ died,” we can say with more orthodox correctness that God became sin, and God died. We must recognize that when we say Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man, we do not mean that he is made up of two 100%’s glued together we mean that he is wholly man “like us in every way” and at the same time wholly God. “Amazing Love, how can it be, that Thou, my God, wouldst die for me?” (p. 6)

Problematically for McSwain is that he appears to be purporting heterodoxy rather than orthodoxy. The council he notes in 451 AD took place in Chaledon in response to the monophysite heresy and sought to formulate a position on the relationship in Christ’s person between his humanity and divinity. The creed which contains the sign of Chalcedon is attested to by all orthodox churches. Chalcedon states that we confess, “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence….” What this means is that the attributes of each nature may be attributed to the person, however, one does not confuse the attributes with the two natures. So, though I appreciate what Charles Wesley wrote, when he exclaimed in wonder and praise of the gospel that “my God wouldst die for me.” He was in error in the use of his language. God cannot die. Though it is true that Jesus can die, that Jesus is God, and that Jesus did die. God die? No, he cannot die. And so the assertion “that God became sin and God died” falls outside of orthodoxy and is exactly the opposite of the intent of the formers of Chalcedon who insisted that the two natures were without confusion, change, division, or separation. God did not become sin, nor did he die. Jesus, however, did and this is what we proclaim.

Prior to his misunderstanding of the creedal formula, McSwain states that the church fathers asserted “that God the Son assumed a sinful human nature.” Roundly, let it be said, they did not and he did not. Christ took on our humanity and came in the flesh but he knew no sin. That “Jesus became sin for us” is not in an ontological sense but in a positional sense in that he bore its consequential condemnation upon the cross and so removed it. Additionally, the language “sinful human nature” which (aside from being an unbelievably careless statement and heretical) sounds ironically Gnostic as if all flesh (that is physical bodies) is sinful rather than the nature which has been corrupted by our having been born in Adam.

To be continued...

Taking Care of the Stone

What's all this talk of taking care of stones? Is that like a pet rock?

Well, actually, no.

While in seminary I had read that Charles Simeon (minister of Holy Trinity Church in Cambridge) exhorted his students to "mind the three-mile marker." I lost the exact quote years ago. However, "minding the three-mile marker" became a rallying cry of sorts to not neglect exercise. Simeon, an exercise enthusiast himself, often swam in the Cam River (which could not have been very clean) and was regularly seen walking the countryside of Cambridgeshire -- in particular the three-mile walk to the stone and back. For the Christian and the "reading man," one must remember that we are embodied souls. To neglect the care of the body and to deny one's physicality (that the physical world is real) is to fall into pseudo-Gnostic error.

Thinking of stones and weighty matters moved me to locate the quote of Charles Simeon which has provided such help over the last 15 years. I am please to provide it in its entirety here.

"It is your duty to God to work hard at the studies which belong to the University. Hard regular study is the best discipline which your minds can have, and the most likely to fit your characters to usefulness in the ministry, if you are called to that office. But act wisely. Remember to give your hearts to God in the way of this duty. Use common wisdom also. Your success in the Senate House [picture to the left] depends much on the care you take of the three mile stone out of Cambridge. If you go every day and see no one has taken it away, and go quite round it to watch lest any one has damaged its farthest side, you will be best able to read steadily all the time you are at Cambridge. If you neglect it, woe betide your degree. Exercise, constant, regular, and ample, is absolutely essential to a reading man's success."

May 15, 1829
Charles Simeon

Why I baptize the children of believing parents.

Scripture Verses: Genesis 17:2-7, Matthew 3:13-17, Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:38-41, and Hebrews 6:13-19.

Before we go forward with the paedo baptism discussion, we must define a couple of terms and get a couple of presuppositions out on the table.

Firstly, we must understand that all of Scripture testifies to Jesus Christ and is the outworking of the “Covenant of Grace” – God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham.

Secondly, when speaking of “covenant,” I am speaking of, as O. Palmer Robertson defined: “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” A covenant is an unbreakable promise. Hence when ANE cultures made covenants they spoke in terms of “cutting” a covenant which itself speaks to the brokenness which is consequent when the vow is broken. (See: Genesis 15). This unbreakable promise is accompanied by the sign of “cut” pieces which is a self-maledictory oath. Lastly, what happens when one breaks a covenant? Answer: One is broken. That we do break unbreakable promises so easily only testifies to how broken we are. The Bible is clear that to be an unbreakable promise breaker. Is very, very bad.

Borrowing from Francis Schaefer’s article on infant baptism, here’s why I believe the children of believing parents are to be baptized.

The Covenant of Grace is spiritual (not merely physical). The promise to Abraham (to whom circumcision was given as a sign to the Covenant) that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars in the sky, that he would be a blessing to the nations, and that he would be the father of many nations was/is spiritual (faith) over and against physical (circumcision). In Romans 4 Paul shows that the offspring of Abraham are those who believe God. One is not merely a child of Abraham outwardly (having been circumcised), but one is a child inwardly (having a circumcised heart).

The Covenant Grace is unchangeable. An unbreakable promise is irrevocable and unchangeable; this is what the author of Hebrews calls an “anchor for the soul.” That the Covenant is unchangeable means: that the promise never changed in various dispensations or in the coming of Christ who fulfilled the promise and is the promised ‘seed’ through whom the nations would be blessed AND that the recipients of the sign of the Covenant have not changed either. Children were included in the Covenant in the OT, and thus they should be included in the Covenant in the NT.

The Covenant of Grace is accompanied by a sign and seal. Abraham received the Covenant with a sign and seal. This is, in essence, a ‘sacrament.’ The sacrementum was the oath a Roman legionnaire soldier to be loyal to his general. Rather than being an oath that we take to God, the sacrament is God’s oath to his people. As there has always been one Covenant of Grace there has been one sacrament attesting to that Covenant. In the OT it was circumcision, and in the NT it is baptism. In particular we see the link between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12 “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

The Covenant of Grace does not weaken the family (and community). If those who purport ‘faith-baptism’ are correct, what naturally results is twofold: firstly there must be a marked division in the Covenant of Grace (in that now we are to be suspicious of our children’s expressions of faith) and secondly, the NT family must be a weaker unit than it was in the OT. One would expect the Covenant and NT family to be stronger than it was in the OT not weaker.

The Covenant of Grace is fulfilled in Christ. We find, rather that the Covenant is stronger and more inclusive because of what Christ has done. Consider the following:

1. Circumcision was for males only; baptism includes men and women, boys and girls.
2. Circumcision was for the nation of Israel only. Baptism is for the Kingdom of God which includes people of every tribe and nation.
3. Circumcision signified cleansing. Baptism, too, signifies cleansing.
4. Circumcision is a ‘bloody’ event. Baptism, because the blood of Jesus has been shed, is bloodless.
5. Circumcision looked forward to the coming of the promised Seed. Baptism looks back to the finished work of the promised Seed, Jesus.
6. Circumcision for children born within the community of the Covenant did not necessitate “believer’s circumcision.” Baptism, too, is to be administered to the children of the Covenant.
7. Circumcision was a sign of partaking in the benefits of the Covenant of Grace. Baptism is a sign of partaking in the benefits of the Covenant of Grace.
   

To be a Christian means one now sees that they have been (and continue to be) an “unbreakable promise breaker,” and so one has surrendered to the Unbreakable Promise Maker who made an unbreakable promise to save unbreakable promise fakers.

Justification by Vomit

I collapsed across the finish line after last year's Christmas services, and after a day of familial and gastronomic mirth, I prepared for the re-entry into ministry life.

Re-entries are usually violent and ungraceful. The transition from vacation to normal life passes from the lightness of vacation through the atmosphere of responsibility, falling back to the firmness through gravity's pull, and slamming into the mass and density of life. Ah, the impact crater spreads debris and shockwaves for miles.

For a pastor, the fall back into the desperate pace of church life is marked with the shocking regularity of Sunday morning. Thankfully in my case, God put a stop to that. The day after we returned, I got sick as a dog. Being bedridden led me to an awareness that, though I had apprehended it, I had never been able to articulate it, and now I am (thanks to my good friend, Ping) able to relate it to you: I realized that I am only free when I am sick.

C.S. Lewis has written, that his "ideal happiness...would be to read the [Renaissance] Italian epic -- to be always convalescent from some small illness and always seated in a window that overlooked the sea, there to read these poems eight hours of each happy day."* Lewis speaks of the same principle. Illness provides a justifiable excuse to rest. A "small illness" is too ambiguous a thing for me to mediate. I'm always of the assumption that I can push through some measure of difficulty. What I need (and needed) was something a little more definitive.

The humble desperation of either trying not to vomit or desperately sprinting to the toilet is wonderfully centering. You really don’t care about anything else. You don’t worry whether there are empty nurseries or if there is toilet paper in the church bathroom or the bulletin is typo-free or if the overheads are correct. You don’t care whether or not your sermon is "finished" or the light bulbs have been fixed or doggone it, that that person who has dropped in unannounced is just so disappointed in the church or me, and they’ve just got to let me know -- something.

“Sorry,” I say, “I can’t answer your question, hear your concern, listen to you complain-- I’ve got to throw up now.” How incredibly freeing! But it’s also brilliant. Because, at this very moment, I am not being insensitive or ungracious, I am actually loving them, by getting away from them as quickly as possible so that they won’t get sick either. And what is the response to this terse, “Not...now!”? It is sympathy and kindness and concern. Is that incredible or what?

I have framed this new principle into one of the classic formations of Reformed theology. You’ve heard of soli Deo gloria or perhaps the three solas: fide, gratia, scriptura? Well let us add to it: sola aegrotus “by illness alone” or its theological cousin and more widely recognizable, soli vomitio, “vomit alone.” I really think this has potential.

There is also the universalist approach which sadly is more definitive, less debatable, and absolute; it is called: sola morte.

*This quote is pulled from Alan Jacobs excellent book on the life and thought of C.S. Lewis entitled, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis.

All content copyright, unless noted otherwise, Randy Edwards, 2001-2006. All rights reserved.