Brand and Norman, eds. Perspective on Church Government - 5 Views of Church Polity - A short book review

Brand, Chad Owen and R. Stanton Norman, eds. Perspective on Church Government - 5 Views of Church Polity. Nashville: B&H, 2004.

According to the editors, this book was assembled with a desire to “drive [the reader] more and more to the Word of God to find answers to how the church ought to be led today” (23). For this purpose, besides the introduction, which includes a short historical overview, the book presents five different authors’ writings on their view on church polity and the respective replies.

In The Single-Elder-Led Church, Akin, while comfortable with a multiplicity of congregational approaches (40), seeks to defend that “the case for the single-elder position, as a scriptural acceptable option, can be made on biblical, theological, and practical grounds” (64). In his quest, one of his repeated arguments is that “who is giving leadership and direction to the church is far more important than how many are involved in this assignment” (26, 44). Overall, Akin offers a good defense of congregationalism and of the singularity of the terms pastor/elder/overseer. He is weak in his defense of a single-elder-led congregation, at times falling into inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions. I am afraid this position has been accepted because of pragmatism, and I join with Zahl in failing “to see a strong enough nod to the fluid and free-floating gifts of the Holy Spirit” (76).

In The Presbytery-Led Church, Reymond attempts “to demonstrate that the Presbyterian form of government alone passes biblical muster” (93). Reynolds is too bold in his approach, in light of his weak defense. Reymond falls prey to circular reasoning (143) and anachronistic exegesis (144). Also, he is not always consistent in his terminology. His emphasis on connectionalism is appreciated, but his avocation of the necessity for an “ecclesiastical connectionalism” (112, 154) is not. As White states: “independence does not mean isolation from fellow believers but independence from nonbiblical ecclesiastical structures” (140).

In The Congregation-Led Church, Garrett states that congregationalism “is that form of church governance in which the final human authority rests with the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decision-making” (157, 198). He produces a solid scriptural defense combined with commentator evidence from all backgrounds, a historical summary, a theological defense, and a pragmatic defense. Garrett spends time demonstrating that congregationalism, while not always easy, allows all people in the congregation to grow spiritually. He offers a small section warning against some of the modern phenomena in Baptist life which he believes conducive to true congregationalism (190-2).

In The Bishop-Led Church, the Very Rev. Dr. Theol. Paul F. M. Zahl presents a refreshing, provocative, candid, and honest view which is pragmatic, lacks scriptural support, and preferentially honors a specific tradition. His approach includes two categories: esse and bene esse, but he errs when he states that an esse for church polity “can never be sustained from the [Biblical] text” (214-6). His two proposed advantages for episcopacy are not even well defended.

In The Plural-Elder-Led Church, White states his thesis: that “the Scriptures do in fact show us locally autonomous congregations functioning directly under the headship of the Word, . . . and the divinely instituted guidance of the elders” (260). He offers a standard defense of biblical plural eldership. His main purpose seems to be to discredit a fictitious higher ecclesiastical body. His division of teaching and ruling elders is “reading into the text what is ‘plainly’ not there” (288). He also offers some practical considerations, but falls short of producing an “incontrovertible” (284) presentation.

White, Duesing, and Yarnell, eds. Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches - A book review

White, Thomas, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcom B. Yarnell III, eds. Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008. 183 pp. $ 8.04.

Though, not directly touted as such, this volume is a collection of papers presented at the second annual Baptist Distinctive Conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in September of 2006. In the context of restoring integrity in Baptist churches, this volume offers papers on the topics of church membership by John Hammett and Mark Dever; on the topic of baptism by Daniel Akin, David Allen, Thomas White, and Jason Lee; on the topic of the Lord’s supper by Thomas White and Emir Caner; on the topic of Church Discipline by Gregory Wills and R. Stanton Norman; and on the topic of the priesthood of believers by Malcolm Yarnell III.

Summary

In the introduction to this volume, co-editor White proposes that “the presentations in this book seek to confront these challenges and how a church can maintain proper ecclesiology while remaining relevant to culture” (18). The challenges he is referring to are five: extreme individualism, theological denigration, emergence of megachurches, consumer driven culture, and the seeker sensitive movement. He also adds that the ordering of the chapters is thematic, but not in order of importance.

The first two chapters focus on regenerate church membership. Hammett looks “at the Biblical rational for regenerate church membership,” then he traces “its rise and fall in Baptist life” and argues “for its centrality in Biblical ecclesiology.” Finally he suggests “ways that it may be recovered in Baptist churches today” (22). Dever, writing on the same topic, approaches the discussion with a theologically driven, yet pragmatically applied directive on how to regain meaningful church membership.

The next four chapters focus on baptism. Akin begins this section by defining baptism from a theological point of view with an exegesis of Rom 6:1-14. His chapter is followed by historical, lexical, and Biblical analysis of the necessity of immersion, wherein Allen reminds us that “baptism symbolizes cleansing, but is far more than cleansing. To substitute sprinkling or pouring for immersion focuses on the cleansing only; it lacks the symbolism of the method of cleansing that is the cross of Christ” (105). White’s chapter follows; in it he brings “six overlapping categories” into the discussion: subject, mode, meaning, place, administrator, and formula. This section is concluded by Lee’s attempt at connecting baptism and covenant historically, but not theologically.

The next section focuses on the Lord Supper. White presents a theological study on the topic and offers a good resource to all the issues one must consider and all the positions that are present in Christendom. Caner presents a historical overview which culminates in a useful analysis of five views on the supper: laissez-faire, open, cracked, closed, and locked communions. Both authors do a good job at defining their terminology in an area of theology where terminology is used with very little consistency.

This is naturally followed by two chapters on church discipline. Wills leads the reader through the Baptist development and decline of this doctrine, introducing him to the efficiency movement and the revolution of individual freedom. Norman trails Wills’ chapter with a theological and historical treatise on how to reestablish proper church discipline. A very much needed chapter on the priesthood of believers follows. In it, Yarnell reminds us of the plurality of the term “believers” in this doctrine and that we do still have a mediator: Jesus Christ himself. Duesing concludes the volume by identifying its purpose as a tool to combat ecclesiological indifference and pleas with his readers to combat this indifference “for the sake of future churches” (251).

Critical Evaluation

One really cannot critically evaluate all eleven essays in such a short review, therefore an attempt will be made to evaluate the volume as a whole and at times some specific issues will be raised regarding specific authors or topics. As is usually the case with a volume of this type, one finds some repetition of ideas and concepts and even some differing opinions on specific topics. For example, both Hammett’s habitual appeal for pre-baptismal new members’ classes and Hammett’s and Dever’s plea for waiting on baptism, seem to be contradicted by the opening paragraph of Akin’s chapter on baptism. A few differences aside, this book, overall, offers a very cohesive view of what the authors see as necessary to restore integrity in Baptist churches. The reader cannot leave, after having read this volume, without being convinced at least to evaluate the concepts of regenerate membership, baptism, the Lord’s supper, and church discipline and how they are applied in one’s church. Also, one will leave this volume, hopefully, with a renewed understanding of the essence and importance of a proper understanding of the priesthood of believers.

When it comes to the structure and purpose of the book, a few adjustments might be suggested. First, while White offers five characteristics in his introduction, it is telling that as he expounds them, he only expounds the first four (membership, baptism, Lord’s supper, and church discipline), ignoring the priesthood of the believer. Throughout the volume there seems to be much cohesion and flow within the first ten chapters. This is probably due to the fact that Hammett’s chapter touches all the topics that follow as he introduces an ecclesiology of regenerate church membership. Unfortunately, the last chapter by Yarnell, which is very important to the discussion, almost feels isolated. Due to its importance on the topic, it might have helped the discussion if this chapter had been at the beginning of the volume, settling the issue before continuing with the rest of the work. Second, again in the introduction, White spends much time describing five challenges to Baptist ecclesiology and leads the reader to understand that these chapters were written specifically to “confront these challenges.” That direct confrontation is found lacking in many of the chapters; the chapters do deal with issues that can be used to confront those challenges, but the loop is not well closed.

As for specific comments on specific chapters, I will only mention some here. While appreciating the intent, I cannot but have some disagreements with Dever in his chapter on regaining meaningful church membership. Dever is obviously a proponent of a very institutional church, which places great emphasis on structure. Why do I say this? From the first page of this chapter, emphasis is placed on attendance of members. For Dever, members who do not “attend church”[1] are in sin because they do not follow Heb 10:25. One wonders if he would consider the majority of members who attend but do not encourage one another also as being in sin according to Heb 10:25. In his bare outline of membership, Dever does slightly soften his stance by allowing “a few, particular exceptions” to his regular attendance rule, unfortunately he does not specify what these exceptions are. He also places much weight on pastors and their role in the institutional structure. Why do I say that? He ends his chapter with twelve steps to regain meaningful membership, which he suggests as a “twelve-step recovery plan for pastors to regain church membership” (57). Why for pastors? Would it not make more sense, if the “local church is entrusted with the responsibility of defining church membership” (50), for these twelve steps to be a plan for the church? There is much that can be gleaned from Dever’s chapter, but one who does not approach the body of Christ in such an institutional manner will be frustrated by his language and some of his concepts.

While the six categories offered by White are necessary for a complete discussion on baptism and while his foresight in seeing the need for a discussion of the definition of true church in this discussion is much appreciated, White presents several weak arguments in the chapter on baptism. His argument for baptism as an initiatory ordinance into the local church is only tangentially connected to the great commission and overall weak. His insistence that “baptism must be associated with the local church” (113) is found in the midst of a variety of “should” statements and is not supported scripturally. Finally, his personal opinion that baptism should be performed by a pastor or staff member does not do justice to the great commission. Having said all of that, White’s humility in presenting his personal opinion is much appreciated and his balanced presentation of counterarguments in his chapter on the Lord's supper is noble.

Conclusion

Whether the editors meant restoring honesty, or unity, or soundness to Baptist churches when they used the term integrity in the title, this volume successfully initiates all three of these processes by directing the reader’s thoughts to some important topics in ecclesiology and therefore lives out its purpose to combat indifference on the topic.

[1] While defining a church as “not a building” (47), Dever still uses the terminology of attending church. I just wonder what he would say to the words of John Gill who accused those “who call going to a place of public worship, going to church” of “great impropriety” (John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 559).

White, Duesing, and Yarnell, eds. First Freedom - A book review

White, Thomas, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcom B. Yarnell III, eds. First Freedom. Nashville: B&H, 2007. 183 pp. $ 1.16.

This volume is a collection of papers presented at the first annual Baptist Distinctive Conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that took place in September of 2005. The title of the conference was “The First Freedom: A Conference on Religious Liberty,” and included papers from Emir Caner, Barrett Duke, Daniel Heimbach, Richard Land, Craig Mitchell, Russell Moore, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III. Each paper constitutes a different chapter in the book with topics covering theology, history, ethics, comparative religions, and jurisprudence.

Summary

As stated by co-editor Jason Duesing in the introduction, the book has mainly two purposes: “to provide an introductory look at the biblical and historical foundations of religious liberty,” and to remind “Baptists in the twenty-first century of the price that was paid by their forefathers for the establishment and defense of religious liberty” (4). Duesing also offers, in the introduction, a useful summary of each of the ten papers presented in this volume. I highly recommend it to anyone who quickly wants to determine the content of each chapter. Not wanting to repeat needlessly his effort, I will provide here a short summary of the book as whole, dealing with individual authors as needed, but not necessarily dealing with each individual paper. The structure of the book, as will be discussed in more detail in the critical evaluation, is of ten individual chapters, and while each chapter is a unit in itself, one can detect a flow, throughout the book as a whole, from theology to history to application. Duke and Patterson, therefore, begin the volume with a biblical analysis of the foundations of religious liberty. The concept of religious liberty is seen to stem from fundamental human rights, as seen in Scripture, and to be congruent with the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, “Christians embracing the exclusivity of Christ as the only saving and accurate expression of the true and living God are properly the most effective advocates of absolute religious liberty” (46). As Duke articulates it, for God “[t]o have designed humans to seek him and find him, and then to ordain an institution with the power of life and death to restrict them from this search, would be equivalent to creating people with a need for water and then not providing any water to drink” (22).

While all the authors offer some historical support for their positions, the chapters by White, Yarnell, and Land provide the historical background section for the volume. This volume, thus, presents a historical perspective of the ideas associated with religious liberty starting with the European Anabaptists, through the English Baptists, and crossing the pond to the American Baptists. The latter are reviewed from two different perspectives: the contributions made by some who were instrumental in the foundation of the Southern Baptist Convention and the contributions made in the founding and development of America. In the words of Basil Manly Sr., this rehearsal of history is meant to help “Baptists fulfill their duty by furnishing direction, imposing restraints, supplying powerful motives, and promoting perseverance” (91).

The volume then takes a turn to the applied, starting with a look at the interaction between natural law and religious liberty and its application to today’s social and political atmosphere. Following it, we find an explanation of the differences between religious liberty and religious autonomy with its application to politics. On its tail, we find an exposition of 1 Tim 2:1-10 with its implications on the American church, for our children and grandchildren “will find religious liberty ... not in the words of the Constitution or in the ‘natural rights’ of humanity, but by being hidden in Christ and living together in his body” (153). It is on a similar note that Caner subsequently optimistically approaches an analysis of the possibility of religious liberty in Islamic countries. He concludes in the affirmative, but warns the reader that “the road to freedom in countries that have been immersed in tyranny and theocracy for centuries can be a tough and long one” (168-69). The volume ends with an analysis of the current (2005) American political situation in which Pressler presents a good historical and logical understanding of the first amendment and an overview of some current efforts by believers not to allow the “national secular religion” (181) to deprive them of their, and others’, God-given right to religious liberty.

Critical Evaluation

The structure of the book presents the major plight of this volume. While the ordering of the chapters does present a somewhat flowing argument, each chapter is truly a unit in itself, not necessarily connecting with the previous or the following one. This allows each unit to be self-sufficient, but also results in several weaknesses. First, had this been a single work, the material could have been organized much more efficiently and effectively allowing for the volume to be more fluid. Second, had this been a single volume, there would not be so much repetition. Most of the authors, attempting to make their point, include some mention of history, especially Anabaptist history. Many of the same facts are therefore needlessly repeated by multiple authors; this is epitomized in the duplication of a quotation by Roger Williams by both Duke (20) and White (64). Third, one has to look at the whole work to gain an understanding of all the theological or all the historical arguments present in this volume, in a sense decreasing its usefulness as a research tool.

Given the number of theological writings which are purely philosophical or historical in nature, this volume’s detailed look at Scripture is a breath of fresh air. This being an introduction, many, but not all, Scriptural arguments were presented (for example, the justification for religious liberty from the perspective of the sovereignty of God was not investigated) and therefore only constitutes a good first source to start getting acquainted with the arguments or to start further research. Nevertheless, as an introduction it serves its purpose. From a Scriptural perspective, the only fusty aspect was found in Yarnell’s essay’s title, which promises theology, but really only delivers a historical evaluation of William Screven’s, Oliver Hart’s, and Richard Furman’s Political theology and how it impacted the Southern Baptist Convention. As interesting as it was, a detailed scriptural development of Political Theology would have been much more invigorating for the soul.

While, as mentioned above, the historical background could have been more effectively combined in one single section, its presence in this volume was also well appreciated. The sober reminder of the sacrifices paid by our Anabaptist and Baptist forefathers helps the reader to have a greater appreciation for his/her religious liberty, and it provides support for Caner’s thesis that change can happen even in Islamic states, where it seems unlikely, though change will be costly. The historical explication of the road to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the expounding of the intents of the founding fathers provided yet another sober reminder that while religious liberty for Christians might be counter cultural in today’s secularly dominated society, it is a basic right at the foundation of the American government and a way of life stemming from the faith of the masses who crossed the ocean in centuries past.

Conclusion

While this volume has much to commend it as an introduction to the topic of religious liberty, ultimately its greatest strength lies in the fact that throughout the volume, the reader is reminded that religious liberty stems from the Almighty, and therefore Christians, as His followers, are to “be courageous advocates of religious liberty, defined as the free marketplace of ideas,” for “we never have to fear such liberty because with the truthfulness of Scripture and witness of the Holy Spirit of God empowering that message, truth will always ultimately carry the day” (48).

Georgia Tech Ranked No. 12 Worldwide

US New and World Report ranked Georgia Tech as no. 12 in its World's Best Universities: Engineering and IT Universities, for 2009.

Go Jackets!!!

Going to Church: a great impropriety - John Gill

The word church has various significations, which it may be proper to take notice of, in order to settle the true sense of it, as now to be discoursed of. Some take it for a place of worship, and call such a place by that name; but wrongly, at least very improperly: it is a remarkable saying of one of the ancients, even of the second century, Not the place, but the congregation of the elect, I call the church. . . . The papists, indeed, call an edifice built for religious worship, a church; and so do some protestants, I might add, some dissenting protestants too; who call going to a place of public worship, going to church; though with great impropriety.

found in John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 559.

... Hum ... terminology. So what do you think, does our use of terminology matter? When many Christians use the terminology "going to church" are they really committing a great impropriety?

Union in the Body - John Gill

This union of saints in a church-state is signified by their being joined, and as it were glued together; it is an union of spirits so close, as if they were but one spirit; so the members of the first Christian church were of one heart and one soul, being knit together in love; and it becomes members to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Acts iv. 32, Col. ii.2, Eph. iv. 3.

found in John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 565.

... Hum ... unity. So does this look like your body of believers?

Latin / Greek / Arabic / Old Norse Study Tool

Here is a site that might help all the Latin / Greek / Arabic / Old Norse students out there.

perseus digital library

On the nature of the blogosphere ...

There are many blogs out there which are like spider webs. You innocently start reading one article, and before you know it, you get caught in their web. (Due to my lack of writing time, my blog is safe.) So beware, readers out there, you might be their next victim ...

Community of Theologians - Malcom B. Yarnell III

In Clear and Useful Instruction, [Pilgram Marpeck] promoted the idea that all Christians receive spiritual gifts and are empowered by Christ to fulfill the Great Commission. Their belief that the Spirit spoke to the entire community as it read the Scripture together encouraged the Anabaptists to seek conversation with other Christians. Theology, for them, was always done best in communal Bible study. This helps explain one of the most poignant facts of the Continental Reformation. The Anabaptists seemed more than willing to enter debates with the state church theologians, even when it led to persecution. What surprised their opponents repeatedly was the intricate knowledge of Scripture that even illiterate Anabaptists expressed, a knowledge learned in church.

found in Malcom B. Yarnell III, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 102.

I keep on thinking about that last sentence and am reminded of the account found in Acts 4:13 (NKJV):

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.

Could it be that the Anabaptists' ecclesiology really impacted their Christian walk as Yarnell seems to imply in his book? Could it be that during their communal Bible studies, they too had been with Jesus instead of only hearing about Jesus?

The Senior Pastor - Conclusion

In conclusion, while I would not go so far as to say that the presence of a senior pastor is unbiblical, it would seem that its Scriptural justification is weak and that the rationale used to support the need of a human senior pastor, which appears to be rooted more in tradition or pragmatism than in a solid Biblical mandate, are unconvincing. It would seem, then, that in the case of a plurality of pastors, given the weak Scriptural evidence for a designated human senior pastor, allowing Christ to be the senior pastor and the elders to serve as the Holy Spirit leads, with no hierarchical titles, would be the better New Testament model. Even though a few practical considerations have been proposed, the most important factor to consider is that this position seems to require fewer assumptions to be made about details that Scripture does not furnish.

• Introduction
• New Testament Evidence (Intro)
• NT Evidence: the angel to the church at ...
• NT Evidence: James and the Jerusalem Council
• NT Evidence: a final word
• Old Testament Evidence
• Evidence from the synagogue
• Some first and second century evidence
• Arguments from pragmatism
• First among equals: final comments
• Fourth view: final comments

The Senior Pastor - Fourth view: final comments

So what of the fourth view, the absence of a human senior pastor? At least two final comments need to be made about it. While this view advocates the absence of a human senior pastor, it does not mean that it lacks a senior pastor. The senior pastor in this view is the one found in 1 Pet 5:4: the chief Shepherd.[1] Jesus is the head of the church,[2] under which are all believers, including pastors, who use their gifts among the congregation.[3] If the New Testament church is to use Christ as an example, one could point out that in Christ's ministry, there was no plurality of equal elders and that Christ was the senior pastor figure. According to the fourth view, Jesus still is the senior pastor.

The second comment is that while some proponents of the fourth view like to structure the church in such a way as to strictly enforce parity and equality among the pastors,[4] this view can, and should, make room to acknowledge the differences in the pastors' gifts and talents[5] without having to identify any one pastor as 'first among equals'. Often the main disagreement with this view is that it is idealistic and will not work in practice because, as Patterson states, there is an "innate difficulty of 'shared leadership' or any approaches where all elders are perceived as equal."[6] Pragmatically speaking, though, dealing with decision making within this view can actually be easier and healthier than in any human senior pastor view. If all pastors agree, there is no problem. If there is a division between the pastors, the high view of the centrality of the headship of Christ and the reliance upon the leading of the Holy Spirit necessitate proponents of this view to believe that any difference in opinion is likely the result of one or more of the elders not being filled with or led by the Holy Spirit. This dictates a period of prayer, repentance, and the seeking of guidance from the Holy Spirit which eventually will result in full agreement between the pastors. The single-elder counterpart would possibly result in a bad decision being made if that single-elder is the only one making decisions and he is not being led by the Spirit at that time. It might not be a speedy process, but it is a more robust process, reminiscent of the multiple redundant systems on most aircrafts nowadays: if one fails, there are two more to back it up.

So what do you think, can the church operate with Christ as her senior pastor, or must we fall into pragmatism?

---

[1] The Greek arcipoimenos could be translated chief pastor or even senior pastor.

[2] Eph. 5:23, Col 1:18.

[3] 1 Pet 5:1.

[4] Waldron, 192.

[5] Ibid., 216-7.

[6] Patterson, “Single-Elder,” 152.

The Senior Pastor - First among equals view: final comments

Before summing up this series, I would like to make some final comments on the last two views mentioned in the introduction. While I have not seen possible Biblical justifications, nor seen much convincing evidence in some examples of Jewish tradition or in some of the church fathers, nor found justifications in pragmatism for the first two views of the senior pastor, the question at hand is: is there a justification for the first among equals view?

It is important to note that in this view the distinction made between the 'first' and the rest is only in visibility. Strauch states that the 'first among equals' principle "allows for functional, gift-based diversity within the eldership team without creating an official, superior office over fellow elders."[1] White also presents such a view when talking of a small congregation with, for example, only one paid elder who, as a result may be the main preacher. "In such a situation," White states, "it is natural for the one man to have a more public 'face' than the other elders, not because he is a different kind of elder but merely in how his gifts are exercised in the fellowship."[2] Hammett also possibly presents a similar view. While he agrees that "in New Testament terminology, the pastor is an elder, and all the elders are pastors," he also adds that "in terms of contemporary Baptist usage, the pastor is the one primarily responsible for the public preaching of the Word,"[3] therefore seemingly reducing the distinction to a functional distinctive.

According to Strauch, there is never a distinction in authority, for such a change would present a "very real danger" which may lead the "first among equals" to become a "first without equals," thus eliminating what he calls Biblical eldership.[4] The point is well taken, but a question arises in the mind of the author: why then even bother to mention a distinction?

If the main distinction between 'the first' and the others is that he is more visible, then why make a distinction? And if the different is that he is possibly more fulltime, and possibly the only one being paid or paid more than the others. What if two of the pastors are more visible, possibly more fulltime, and possibly paid? Are they both senior pastors? Is there a distinction between them? Furthermore, with the risk of opening another can of worms, why should one be paid and not the others? So while the intent is appreciated, the question remains, why make the distinction?

One possible need for such a distinction, even though there is no indication of this in the writings of Strauch or White, is that, as Dargan would say, our modern culture demands a single pastor, and thus this third view makes room for one. Then the questions is: should we make such cultural accommodations? Are they necessary? Are they beneficial? What do y'all think?

---

[1] Strauch, 48.

[2] White, 281.

[3] Hammett, 185.

[4] Strauch, 49.

Littell, Franklin H. The Anabaptist View of the Church - A book review

Since I have to write a bunch of book reviews for my course work, I figured I'd post them here. Here is the first one. Enjoy.

Littell, Franklin H. The Anabaptist View of the Church, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. The Dissent and Nonconformity Series, No. 11. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1958. 229 pp. $ 22.00.

In the midst of a “surge of Anabaptists studies” in the late 1950s (x), the late Franklin H. Littell, Professor of Church History at Emory University, better known as the father of modern Holocaust studies in America[1], revised and enlarged his original study on the Anabaptists and their identity.

Summary

In an attempt to correct the misconceptions about Anabaptists created by the four centuries of church historians, Littell presents a study which does not dismiss Anabaptists as peripheral and does not base itself on extremely hostile polemics (139) which “generally can be said to reflect the theology of the Reformers more than the economy of the Anabaptists” (142). His quest begins by an attempt at identifying the essence of these “radical groupings [which] developed not on the margins of the sixteenth-century Christendom, but rather in the very centers of the Reformation” (1). After proposing a working definition for the Anabaptists proper as “those in the radical Reformation who gathered and disciplined a ‘true church’ (rechte Kirche) upon the apostolic pattern as they understood it” (italics his, xvii), Littell proceeds in chapter one to present a historical overview of the larger “Anabaptist” movement. This larger movement he will come to call the “Left Wing of the Reformation” and isolate among it a smaller group of proper Anabaptists which include Swiss Brethren, Hutterites, South German Brethren, and Dutch Mennonites (45). His approach is initially geographical, subdividing his overview into three sections: North Germany (3-11), Switzerland (12-18), South Germany and Strassburg (18-27), but then turns more chronological and topical. Ultimately, the purpose of this first chapter is not only to delineate the variety of groups that have been rightly or wrongly classified as Anabaptist, but mainly to historically substantiate his thesis of the centrality of the view of the church in Anabaptist thought and praxis (which gives nature to his possibly mislabeled title, more on this below).

Chapters 2 through 4 then focus on the groups which are proper Anabaptist, for they “gathered and disciplined a ‘True Church’ (rechte Kirche) upon the apostolic pattern” (italics his, 47) and more specifically on their theology. Littell divides this in three fairly self explanatory chapter titles: ‘the Fall of the Church’, ‘the Restitution of the True Church’, and ‘the Great Commission’. In ‘the Fall of the Church’ Littell looks at the Anabaptist primitivist tendencies. For the Anabaptists, “the New Testament was clear both as to the content of the Christian faith and the organizational procedures in the True Christian community” (46). Littell points out that primitivism was not a new concept or even a purely Christian concept and that Anabaptists did not arrive at their position from a historical tradition of philosophical perspective, but from a commitment to scripture. He then proceeds to look at the historical and theological understanding of the fall of the church from the classical Golden Age.

This leads him straight into ‘the Restitution of the True Chruch’ where he expounds on the Anabaptist belief that the life and virtue of the Early church could be recovered (79). He points out that “after a short period of general protest, a strict Biblicism triumphed over prophetism and chiliasm in the large section of the Left Wing”(82). The focus was now on the restoration of the True Church according to Biblical principles. He therefore distills the Anabaptists’ marks of the True Church into: believer’s baptism; spiritual governance; community; the Lord’s supper; and passive obedience as the outworking of their view on the authority of civil government. Finally, Littell transitions into ‘the Great Commission’ where he stipulates that this passage of scripture was central to Anabaptist theology and practice. He ends his book with the last chapter, which was the first chapter in the first edition, where he chastises historians for not being fair to Anabaptists and for being bad historians, thereby giving us some insight into his research theory and application.

Critical Evaluation

This well written, informative, and well researched work is to be commended for its scholarship at a time when such a position as taken by Littell was not the status quo of academic thought on Anabaptism. Littell’s commitment to original source, his commitment to the careful evaluation of said sources (150), and his fearless chastisement of his contemporaries for abandoning the Anabaptists and passing them “in dim review behind the glittering personalities of the chief reformers” (139) are what make this work uniquely relevant. The twenty-first century reader, though, might sense some lacunae even in Littell’s research. As mentioned several times by Littell, the topic at hand had engendered much more interest since he wrote the first edition, in part, due to the then newly available, numerous primary sources. Possible lacunae in research on his part could therefore be due to the lack of said resources in the 1950s. This could explain the total lack of discussion of the Italian and French Anabaptist movements. Therefore, ultimately, while Littell is a very good starting point in the understanding of Anabaptism, another updated and revised version would provide an even fuller picture of the Anabaptist movement. Someone needs to pick up the torch.

Said future researchers might try not to fall in the same trap as Littell when it comes to entitling their work. Littell entitles his work The Anabaptist View of the Church, for his central thesis is that their view of the church is what really defined Anabaptists, but, while he spends much time describing the ecclesiology of the Anabaptists, it seems to me that Littell really sets out to describe Anabaptists as a whole and not just their view of the church. Therefore, it would seem that the title does not do the work justice and might even deter some reader who might wrongly ignore it as being too narrow in focus and too technical in nature.

Another aspect which could possibly mislead the casual or cursory reader as to Littell’s intentions could arise from his positioning of baptism as the Anabaptists’ first mark of a true church in Chapter 3. It should be noted that based on his overall work, Littell does not place undue emphasis on baptism, but the positioning of it as the primary item in his list tends to lend credence to the misconception that Anabaptists were mainly concerned about believer’s baptism. It could also be beneficial, since Littell was in the business or rescuing Anabaptists’ reputation, if he included some discussion of the lack of emphasis of the original Anabaptists on baptism by immersion.

Finally, it is ironic that, while he cautions his reader not to read “back into the Reformers and radicals a logical coherence and clarity of thought which neither party possessed until after a series of hard fought controversies” (3), he himself seeks from the very beginning to postulate a hypothesis that in itself is an attempt at identifying coherence and clarity of thought in the Anabaptists, mainly that the central issue that brings all these groups together is the concept of a “True Church”. I do not argue with Littell’s conclusions, for he does a good job at supporting them, but, granted that he does a good job at factually showing that they themselves did not necessarily understand or were aware of this coherence, his warning is nevertheless ironic.

Conclusion

Littell set out to do two things in his work: redeem the Anabaptists and show that their central concern was to restore a True Church by following the New Testament. He clearly achieved his purposes in a work where the research is thorough and well documented. His book is informative and challenging, a must read for any student of the Free Church and for any believer who wants to be encouraged to follow the New Testament in all aspects of their life.

[1] Joelle Farrell, “Rev. Franklin H. Littell, scholar of the Holocaust,” Obituaries at Philly.com (May 25, 2009), [on-line]; accessed 22 September 2009; available from http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/45973912.html; Internet.

The Senior Pastor - arguments from pragmatism

After a little pause in this series, do to some changes in our lives, I will continue our pursuit to find arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor. Having exhausted the possible Biblical justifications for the necessity of a senior pastor, and having not seen much convincing evidence in some examples of Jewish tradition or in some of the church fathers, we will now analyze some common justifications for such an office in the local church. Often the following line of reasoning is used to justify such an office: with a plurality of pastors, there is a need for a head, someone who will set a vision, [1] and someone who can decide in case of division. Akin notes that Adrian Rogers

states with his characteristic wit, "Anything without a head is dead. Anything with several heads is a freak." That is simply a colorful way of recognizing the fact that someone has to lead. Though many may give counsel, provide input, and share wisdom, there nevertheless must be a leader out front leading the way. [2]

Also some argue, as Patterson stated, that a single leader is what one would expect from human social order. [3] F. F. Bruce argues it in the following way:

Committee rule in general is weak unless there is a strong chairman. Quite often the strongest personality will become chairman in any case, and spiritual strength need not be excluded from his qualities. In practice such a man will become primus inter pares, and once his position is accepted and perpetuated, before long he will be regarded, in theory as well as in practice, as primus pure and simple. [4]

While these arguments make good logical sense, are they necessary? Historically, this has not always been the case, even in Baptist life. It is very telling that Dargan, in the late nineteenth century, considered churches having 'one pastor' to be a modern (late 19^th century) custom.[5] As a matter of fact, elders (plural) could "be found in Baptist churches in America throughout the 18^th century and into the 19^th century,"[6] and even in the 17^th century.[7] While there is some disagreement about the historical normality of this plurality in Baptist life,[8] it did exist, and as Akin adds, some "also believed that all elders were equal in office but different in duties; they were equal in rank but different in service."[9] Waldron states that "the majority of the Particular Baptists were committed to a plurality and parity of elders in their churches."[10] One could conjecture that these movements, which were known for their desire to follow sola scriptura, put away the traditions inherited from the writings of people like Ignatius, and while seeking Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, developed these nontraditional patterns. So what happened to make things change in the subsequent years? Hammett points to a transition possibly due to the outstripping of qualified men due to the rapid growth of Baptist churches in the early nineteenth century.[11] It is possible to envision that this temporary situation probably would not have lasted. Had it not been for modernity, with time, local congregations might have reverted to the plurality of elders that was common in the early nineteenth century. Unfortunately, as Hammett purports, in the twentieth century "the business model entered Baptist life and perhaps conditioned people toward adoption of the single pastor, patterned after the chief executive officer of the business world."[12] Anyhow, whether new or old, this pragmatic 'need for a head' seems to miss the point that Scripture states that Christ, not a human senior pastor, is the head of the church.[13] Even someone like Jalland, who would argue for a monepiscopacy, is quick to admit that "… [Jesus] alone is the true 'plenipotentiary' of God."[14] If, in addition, one also realizes that God is one and has one will, it only makes sense to envision that if all the pastors are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will be of one accord, for the Holy Spirit within them is not divided, and there will be no pragmatic need for a human senior pastor to make the final decision. To use the same metaphor used by Adrian Rogers, can we say that since Jesus Christ is the head of the church, anything with another head (viz. a senior pastor) is a freak? Ultimately we have to ask ourselves if human pragmatism is the best option in the Church of Jesus Christ; after all we are told to "lean not on our own understanding."[15]

Before summing up this series, we will look at a few final considerations about the first among equal view and the forth view presented in the introduction to this series. In the meantime, are there any other pragmatic reasons you can think of to justify a human senior pastor? Do you think that they are valid?

---

[1] This line of thinking has been strengthened recently by the publishing of church growth literature which points to the need for a strong single pastor. Grudem does a good job of refuting the literature on three separate issues and notes that Wagner himself admits that a model more like the first among equals view presented in this paper would have the same results (Grudem, 929-31).

[2] Akin, 72. One could argue, that since Scripture states that Christ is the head of the church, any other head, as a senior pastor is sometimes called, would make the church a freak, to use Rogers' terminology.

[3] Patterson, “Single-Elder,” 152.

[4] F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 206; quoted in Samuel E. Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church?, gen. ed. Steve B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 197.

[5] Dargan, 186.

[6] Dever, 20.

[7] Waldron, 200-1.

[8] Paige Patterson, "A Single-Elder," 240-1.

[9] Akin, 57.

[10] Waldron, 201.

[11] Hammett, 179.

[12] Ibid., 180. Hammett’s comment does not necessarily mean that the proponents of the first two views are also proponents of a CEO model. Akin clearly states that this is not the case (Akin, 69). What could be gleaned by the facts is that the drive for a senior pastor at that time in history might have been culturally motivated and therefore might not be a tradition that Baptists should hold on to.

[13] Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19.

[14] Jalland, 93.

[15] Prov. 3:5.

House for sale.

Most of you who know us, know that we have a house for sale in Wake Forest, NC. This is the house we had been working on and whose progress some of you have followed through this blog. We are trying to sell it by word of mouth, so as not to pay the huge real estate agent fee, so if you know of anybody who could be interested, please refer them to the bog we have dedicated to the sale of the house:

http://mnchome.wordpress.com

We're still alive ...

So they say that unless you blog at least every three days, you lose your readership ... well let us see: my last blog entry was June 11th. I guess I lost my readership, except for all you folks that are real hard core Maël and Cindy fans, or all of you that use feed readers ... so for y'all: we're still alive.
Much has has happened this summer. Both of my paternal grandparents passed away. We finished remodeling our house. We moved to Texas for me to attend Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Busy summer.
I do plan to finish the senior pastor series, and possibly another series I started two years ago and never finished. I also plan to try to opine a little more on what I am studying and reading. I have lots of home improvement articles from my experience with the house. In short, I have enough to blog every three days ... now, where can I get the time?
Enough for now.

Working away from home.

We went to visit Cindy's mom and did some more work on her house. One of the projects was this spiral deck staircase. It gives her a shortcut from the car to the house without having to use the long ramp.

It was an interesting project to figure out: lots of weird angles. My laser guided skill saw actually came in handy to set the saw blade at the right angles.

We were pleased with the final result.

The Senior Pastor - some first & second century evidence

We continue our pursuit to find arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor and quickly look at two early church fathers and their writings. 

Looking at first century writers, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch present a very strong argument for the presence of a monepiscopacy in the first century. As an example, Ignatius writes in his letter to the Ephesians, that being "subject to the bishop and the presbytery," was an essential characteristic to "be real saints."[1] Obviously, Ignatius' view of the bishop is that of a singular figure separate from the presbytery. While Baptists do not agree with this interpretation of Scripture, one has to admit that this could be seen as evidence that a traditional senior pastor type of office had developed in the early church; even though that is not the direction the early church followed. It could even be argued that much of what some associate as being the responsibility of the senior pastor was gleaned from the writings of Ignatius about the bishop: overseeing the Eucharist (Ignatius To the Smyrnaeans 8.1b, 2b), overseeing baptism (Ignatius To the Smyrnaeans 8.2b), and overseeing marriage (Ignatius To Polycarp5.2b).[2] While this is interesting and might give some insight on where the traditional senior pastor view might have originated, it only proves that the church moved in this direction in the first century, but cannot prove that this was God's plan for the church as laid out in Scripture.

Much has also been made of the fact that in the second century writings of Justin Martyr, Justin makes mention of a 'president of the brethren'[3] (singular) who officiates the administration of the Lord's Supper. The translation notes of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, though, suggest that "this expression may quite legitimately be translated: 'to the one of the brethren who was presiding.'"[4] This translation does not point to an office per se, as one would think when reading the title 'president of the brethren'. Therefore this person, whoever he was, was not necessarily the holder of a certain office and, as a matter of fact, did not necessarily have to be a fixed individual, but just the one who was presiding in that instance. This could allow for a first among equals type of figure, but does not necessitate it. More importantly, it reduces this evidence to a preference of translations and, while it can stimulate invigorating discussions, it does not prove the existence of a senior pastor office in the second century.

I am sure there is more first and second century evidence out there. Anyone?

 

---

[1] Ignatius of Antioch To the Ephesians 2.2b.

[2] Alan Knox suggests this as a possibility in Alan Knox, "Following Ignatius," The Assembling of the Church, entry posted October 1, 2008, http://www.alanknox.net/2008/10/following-ignatius.html (accessed January 28, 2009).

[3] Justin Martyr Apology 1.65, 67.

[4] Ibid.

The Senior Pastor - Evidence from the synagogue

Continuing our pursuit to find arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor takes us to extra Biblical evidence. Some might argue that one should look at the synagogue's structure to find a justification for a senior pastor, so we will start there.

Jalland, in his Origin and Evolution of the Christian Church, tries to make an argument for the emergence of a bishop, separate from the presbytery, and against the understanding that the terms for elder and overseer are used to represent the same office in the New Testament. While, as mentioned already in this paper, Baptists do not agree with his argument, Jalland presents a historical perspective on the synagogue which might give some insight into the synagogue's structure and might shed some light on the perceived necessity for, and origins of, a senior pastor.

In his description of the organization of the synagogue, Jalland makes much of the fact that a synagogue not only had elders, but it also "included the 'ruler' (archisynagōgos)"[1] of the synagogue. He then suggests that the Rom 12:8 reference to 'he who leads' (which he translates 'he that presides') might be the Christian equivalent to "the Jewish 'ruler of the synagogue',"[2] since it is his contention that the early Christian communities were Christian synagogues. To support his position even more, he points out that there was also a "prominent place assigned to the Kathēdra Moysis in the synagogue building," possibly in the same position "as the later episcopal kathēdra." He then conjectures that it was possible that this seat was "assigned to the archisynagōgos," and speaks of archeological evidence that might point to the fact that such a seat was present in "the earliest remains of a Christian church."[3] In the midst of this series of conjectures used to substantiate a historical trail from the synagogue ruler to the monepiscopacy, Jalland candidly admits some crucial issues. First of all he states that "admittedly the archisynagōgos had no specific liturgical function in synagogue worship,"[4] therefore making his role different from our understanding of a bishop or, more appropriately for the topic at hand, from the traditional understanding of a senior pastor figure. He also admits, even if buried in an endnote, that "possibly Acts xiii, 15 shows that the 'ruler of the synagogue' and the 'elders' were not always clearly distinguished."[5] This is because Acts 13:15 refers to rulers (plural) of the synagogue (singular). Therefore even with these possible parallels presented by Jalland, there does not seem to be a clear cut case for a traditional senior pastor figure in the synagogue setting, and while the synagogue 'ruler' is at times singled out by his title, this seems to be more of a functional distinction, not an authoritative distinction.[6] 

Therefore, the synagogue evidence could, at best, possibly point to a leader of leaders type of figure, but one needs to remember that the church is not equivalent to the synagogue, thus any parallel between the two can hardly be used to substantiate a need for a single senior pastor. Maybe we will have better luck with first and second century writings ...

 

---

[1] T. G. Jalland, The Origin and Evolution of the Christian Church (New York: Hutchinson's University Library, 1948), 34.

[2] Ibid., 89-90.

[3] Ibid., 91.

[4] Ibid., 91. As a matter of fact, he states that the rule’s “main duty was concerned with the selection of the readers of the scriptural lessons, and the preacher of the ‘discourse’” (Ibid., 34), and therefore he was not necessarily the preacher of the ‘discourse’.

[5] Ibid., 180n 93.

[6] Some authority figures are seen in the synagogue setting with possible typical pastor functions. The elders were to “pronounce sentence of excommunication against those who were judged to be notorious breakers of the law” (Ibid., 34-5). Also the ‘ministers’ were responsible to teach “the young and of inflicting corporal chastisement on those condemned to receive such punishment by the decision of the presbyterate” (Ibid., 34). In both cases these roles are in the plural and neither of them falls upon the ‘ruler’.

The Senior Pastor - Old Testament Evidence

Continuing the search for Biblical arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor brings us to the defense arguments based on Old Testament leadership models. Often Moses, David, the prophets, and the high priest are pointed to as examples of singular leadership figures whose lives can be used as a Biblical model for a senior pastor figure. One must question, though, if throughout the history of the kingdom of Israel, these really were singular figures, since there seemed to have been a triad of leaders: king, prophet, and priest. In this triad, any one of the three might be seen as the leader of Israel at a particular instance in time, but at other times one of the other three would play a prominent role. It is then legitimate to ask which one of these three would the senior pastor be modeled after, since in this plurality, the primacy shifted, not due to their position, but due to their heart condition. Therefore, here one can at best only honestly see a first among equals model.

As for pre-kingdom figures, Moses is often used as an example to support having a single leader. Akin, when discussing elders in the Old Testament context, points out that "it is instructive to note that the elders shared in the work with Moses yet remained under him."[1] Tidwell, in his book on church administration, claims that Ex 18:13-27, describing Jethro's 'organizational' advice to Moses, is "the most fruitful passage in all of literature on leadership and organization."[2] Though, as Akin himself admits, "it is not easy to determine the precise relationship between Christian elders and the elders of the Old Testament, . . . the differences are substantial enough to reject any direct correlation."[3]Also, if one were to try to make a correlation, it is important to keep in mind that, as Akin states, Old Testament "elders ruled as a collective body, and the term is almost always found in the plural."[4] Akin still sees this collective body as working both "with and under"[5]Moses, and thus identifies Moses as an example of a senior pastor. If one ignores Akin's own warnings and looks to Moses as a prototype for a senior pastor, he would be the most convincing Biblical argument for a typical senior pastor position and possibly even for a leader of leaders position. What is lacking from this discussion, though, is the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the fact that when looking at the Old Testament, one has to keep in mind that not all people in the Old Testament were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Leaders like Moses, who were indwelled by the Spirit of God, obviously needed to have a more prominent role in leadership. Could it be possible that if all the Old Testament elders had been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, as is the case with New Testament elders, that this scenario would have been different? Therefore, could it not also be possible that since in the church, all believers and all believing pastors are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, that this hierarchy is not necessary? This line of argument does not deny the benefit of looking to the Old Testament examples of leadership when one wants to learn about godly leadership skills, but it does point to the fact that a one to one correlation between any person or office in the Old Testament and the New Testament is conjectural at best. 

One also needs to keep in mind that many of these Old Testament figures were images of Christ. So one could say that their use could support the fourth view's position that Christ is the only legitimate senior pastor of a congregation. In addition, the role of priest is now associated with every believer. But ultimately, one has to keep in mind that the church is not equivalent to the temple, thus any parallel between the two can hardly be used to substantiate a need for a single senior pastor.

Next, we will briefly look at the first century synagogue structure to see if we can find arguments for the necessity of a senior pastor there. In the meantime, can you think of any Old Testament evidence that would actually support a senior pastor concept?

 

---

[1] Akin, 41.

[2] Charles A. Tidwell, Church Administration - Effective Leadership for Ministry(Nashville: B&H, 1985), 104.

[3] Akin, 42.

[4] Ibid., 41.

[5] Ibid., 66.

community of believers - R. T. France

While commenting on Matt. 18, R. T. France states that:

The portrait of the church which thus emerges is an attractive one. Status-consciousness and formally constituted authority have no place. The focus is on the relationship and mutual responsibility of all members of the community, each of whom matters, and yet all of whom must regard themselves only as 'little ones.' The resultant pastoral concern and action is not the preserve of a select few, but is the responsibility of each individual disciple, and, where necessary, of the whole group together. The structure is informal, but the sense of community is intense. And overarching it all is the consciousness of the presence of Jesus and of the forgiveness and pastoral concern of 'your Father in heaven.

found in R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 674-5.

France, in his footnotes, also directs the reader's attention to the formulation of a similar idea by E. Schweizer, who in G. N. Stanton (ed.), Interpretation, 161, states that Matt. 18 shows "a community which seems to know neither elders nor bishops nor deacons," in which "everyone is involved on a par with everyone else."

How does this view of the church compare with your body of believers?

End of the school year.

Wow, another year has gone by. I have just finished my second and last semester at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, and have 1 more Monday class to teach at The College at Southeastern, then the summer begins. This is going to be a busy summer. "Why?", you might ask. Well, let me tell you ...

Two years ago I wrote a blog post entitled Deciding in Community (I more recently posted an update on that prayer request in Deciding in Community ... Update). Since then, though, there has been another opportunity for us that we and our community of believers have been praying about: going to SWBTS to pursue another PhD, this time in theology, to then be able possibly to go to France and do some theological education (details here are still very fuzzy). After two long years, much prayer, and many people approaching me confirming God's leading, we have decided to pursue that option. That means that we will move to Fort Worth, TX; we have to be there no later than August 17, 2009.

... and that means that we need to finish remodeling the house so we can put it on the market to sell. We also need to pack and move all of our junk, and we have less than 3 months to do it all !!!

As for writing ... I'm going to try my best to finish my current series on the senior pastor in a timely manner, but besides that and the occasional pictures of the house, this will probably be a quiet summer.

We covet your prayers, both for the summer and for the years ahead.

Cook-out at the Disseau's.

Last week, I had several students from my Statics class at St. Augustine's College, and a few others, come to the house to eat and hang out. I have often wanted to do this, but in the many years I have been teaching college level classes, I have never quite gotten around to it.

We did not discuss forces and moments or centers of gravity, but life, dating, cooking, fishing, ethics, and much more. It was nice to be able to relax and get to know my students a little better. Unfortunately, I will not be back at St. Augustine's College next year, but luckily, due to technology, I'll be able to keep in touch with some of them.

May I urge the ones of you who are in academia to take time to spend with your students on a non-academic level? These young adults need mentoring, and mentoring goes far beyond just academia. I promise you, you will never regret pouring your life into theirs, after all ... that is what teaching is all about.

The Senior Pastor - NT Evidence: a final word

As we discussed earlier, it would seem that, not only is there no command or direct teaching in the New Testament with regard to a senior pastor figure, but also the passages used to support a senior pastor position seem to require some level of eisegesis to provide evidence for such views. Before evaluating the Old Testament support offered for the necessity of a senior pastor, an additional New Testament question also has to be raised. Proponents of all four views would agree that the three Greek terms, pastor, elder, and bishop, are all used to describe one single office, yet proponents of the traditional view and the leader of leaders view seem to identify the pastor as a separate or special elder. They see the Eph 4:11 pastor-teacher as "a distinct role among the elders,"[1] even though all elders should be "able to teach."[2] Since Eph 4:11 is a passage concerning spiritual gifting and not an office in the church, and since it is not a strict singular reference,[3] it seems more logical to conclude, as White does, that "since there is only one office of elder, as far as eldership itself is concerned, the elders would be equal to one another,"[4] or as Hammett states, "in the New Testament terminology, the pastor is an elder, and all the elders are pastors."[5]

In the next post, we will look to see if there is any Old Testament support offered for the necessity of a senior pastor. In the meantime, what do you think: is there a such a thing as "a distinct role among the elders"?

---

[1] Dever, 23 and Akin, 65.

[2] 1 Tim 3:2 (NKJV).

[3] The reference is actually in the plural, but due to the context of the "one body" of Christ (Eph 4:4) it should not be interpreted as a prescription of multiple pastors and teachers in the local body of believers.

[4] James R. White, “The Plural-Elder-Led Church: Sufficient as Established – The Plurality of Elders as Christ’s Ordained Means of Church Governance,” in Perspectives on Church Governance: Five Views of Church Polity, eds. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: B&H, 2004), 280.

[5] Hammett, 185.

The Senior Pastor - NT Evidence: James and the Jerusalem Council

In the last post we looked at the role played by the reference to the angel (singular) of the church of ... in the book of Revelation in our journey to determine which senior pastor view constitutes the better New Testament model. We concluded that due to the weakness of the evidence, any direct New Testament argumentation, therefore, must come from the interpretation that James was in essence the senior pastor of the Jerusalem church. 

This supposition is usually supported with two arguments: the role he played in the Jerusalem council and the singular mention of his name in various Scripture references. When analyzing the Acts 15 passage, Cowen pointed out that "one man presided over the meeting and led them to a decision. That man was James, the brother of Jesus. Though there were many elders, there was only one leader. . . . One might call James the senior pastor of the Jerusalem church."[1] F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on the book of Acts, states that "if the elders of the Jerusalem church were organized as a kind of Nazarene Sanhedrin, James was their president, primus inter pares."[2] Both men seem to take this position because of the fact that when James spoke and pronounced his judgment, the apostles, the elders, and the whole congregation were quick to "recognize his leadership"[3] and subsequently follow his judgment. It seems that much is made of an incident where a prominent figure, respected by the congregation in Jerusalem "due more to his personal character and record than to his blood relationship to the Lord,"[4] presented his consideration[5] at the council. Acts 15:13 states that "after they had become silent, James replied." This statement could portray a traditional senior pastor who, at the appropriate time, spoke his verdict. It could also portray a leader of leaders type of senior pastor who spoke his personal verdict, but which required a later acceptance by the rest of the elders. It might portray a first among equals elder who, because of his personality and charisma, happened to say the final word.[6] But, it is also very possible that all James did was see an opportunity to summarize the debate and bring it to its logical conclusion. This does not necessitate his being the senior pastor in Jerusalem.

Grudem, quoting Strong, also points to the fact that proponents of the position that James was the senior pastor of Jerusalem point to the singular mentioning of James in Acts 12:17; 21:18; and Gal 2:12 to confirm the leadership status of James.[7] Again it seems that much is made of the fact that James was a prominent figure in history and a prominent figure in the Jerusalem church. The same could be said of Peter, yet, while some argue that Peter was the first pope, few would argue that Peter was the pastor of the Jerusalem church. One would further think that if James were the main pastor of the Jerusalem church, in the letter to the Galatians, James would not have been mentioned as one of three pillars of the Jerusalem church, along with Cephas (Peter) and John,[8] but rather as the (singular) pillar of the church. It is only logical to think that people like Peter, James, and John stood out because of who they were, not because they had been appointed to a special position.

It would seem that, not only is there no command or direct teaching in the New Testament with regard to a senior pastor figure, but also the passages used to support a senior pastor position seem to require some level of eisegesis to provide evidence for such views. Before evaluating the Old Testament support offered for the necessity of a senior pastor, an additional New Testament question also has to be raised. This will be the topic of my next post.

---

[1] Cowen, 16.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. , NICNT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 292. Like Bruce, Strong also uses the term "president of the church" to define James' position (Grudem, 929). Note that Bruce here uses the Latin terminology of "first among equals" used by Strauch to point to a senior pastor figure, again pointing to the fact that one needs to be careful not to attribute too much meaning to these titles.

[3] Bruce, 292.

[4] Ibid.

[5] BDAG offers "to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon" as the possible meaning of the Greek krinw (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 568).

[6] Strauch actually mainly points to Peter (Strauch, 45-6) as the leader of the Jerusalem church, and considers that James was "one of the chief spokesmen" (note the plural) (Ibid., 131) and not the main spokesman.

[7] Grudem, 929.

[8] Gal 2:9.

The Senior Pastor - NT Evidence: the angel to the church at ...

We continue our journey to analyze all views on the senior pastor, and evaluate them to determine which view constitutes the better New Testament model. In the last post we introduced two New Testament passages that are the center of much discussion in the literature: the role of James in the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15:13-21, and the addressing of letters to the messenger (singular) of the seven churches in the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation.

With regard to the latter one, the comment is often made[1] that the angel (singular) or messenger of the specific churches in the book of Revelation could very well be the senior pastor of these churches. This interpretation could be correct under a couple of different circumstances. It could point to a hierarchical-archbishopcy as advocated and practiced in the Roman church, where there is one single bishop over several churches in a single geographical area. On the other hand, it could also point to a single citywide mega church with a senior pastor. These are the only views which I deem logically acceptable since, if the church at Ephesus, for example, was a collective of multiple smaller groups which, together, were called the church at Ephesus, and each had a single pastor, as some would purport, and there was no hierarchical-archbishopcy, then the passages in Revelation could not have been written to the (single) pastor of the (single) church in Ephesus. The letter would have had to be addressed to the pastor of a church in Ephesus, or to the pastors of the churches in Ephesus, or to the pastors of the church in Ephesus.

The hierarchical-archbishopcy scenario is problematic for several reasons. It is assumed that the term bishop is synonymous with the terms elder and pastor, and that it represents an office in the local church, therefore not allowing for a bishop to represent this extra level of structure outside of the local church. One could argue that the hierarchical-archbishopcy office does not have to be connected to the term bishop, but then one would be at a loss to find any term, except possibly for the term apostle (not the gifting mentioned in Eph 4:11, but the role the twelve played and which was limited to their lifetimes), which Scripturally prescribes, or even describes, this scenario. Nevertheless, the hierarchical-archbishopcy office could only have had an indirect influence in the eventual creation of today's senior pastor office, therefore even if the reference in the book of Revelation could furnish Scriptural evidence for a hierarchical-archbishopcy, it does not furnish direct Scriptural evidence for a senior pastor.

This leaves us with the single city wide mega church scenario as the only acceptable option to justify a senior pastor interpretation of the Revelation passage. Since at least two of the proponents of the first two views, who consider this as possible evidence for a senior pastor, are also proponents of a collective of multiple churches resulting in multiple pastors, as explained above, this should render a senior pastor interpretation of this passage problematic and forced for them. It should also be noted that the 'first among equals' view could hardly justify the writing to a single pastor with such a title, since their perspective does not identify him by a title, and that the last view finds no need to understand the term angel as anything other than a messenger.

Ultimately, since this sub-discussion is all based on the possible interpretation of the identity of the angel, which both Cowen and Dargan, who are on opposite sides of the issue, consider unresolved,[2] this passage should not be given much weight in the context of this study. Any direct New Testament argumentation, therefore, must come from the interpretation that James was in essence the senior pastor of the Jerusalem church, which will be the focus of my next post. In the meantime. What do you think: who are these angels?

---

[1] See Cowen, 15; and Patterson, “Single-Elder,” 151-2, for a couple of examples.

[2] Cowen, 16; and Dargan, 53.

Construction in Community - take two

Alleluia! Thanks to several friends who came to help on April 18th, the siding on the east side of our home is basically finished! We still have to finish the siding on the little storage room, but the daunting, huge wall is done. Well ... the vent at the top is rotten, so we will have to fix it (we'll probably have to use a 40' ladder for it; does anybody have access to one we can use?), but ... the siding on the daunting, huge wall is done!

Here is a montage of people worshiping God by serving others. Enjoy!

The Senior Pastor - New Testament Evidence (intro)

As mentioned in a previous blog post, I am on a journey to analyze all views on the senior pastor, and evaluate them to determine which view constitutes the better New Testament model. As Paige Patterson stated during the question and answer session of a recent Baptist distinctive conference,[1] the term senior pastor, as used in current evangelicalism, is not found in Scripture. Not only is the term not found in Scripture, but, as he states in an article entitled "Single-Elder Congregationalism," "there simply are no 'commands' on this issue."[2] Dever similarly agrees when, in the section entitled "Relationship of the Elders to 'The' Pastor", he states: "If you ask the question, 'Does the Bible teach that there is to be a Senior Pastor-figure alongside, or inside the eldership?' I think that the answer to that question is 'No, not directly.'"[3] Nevertheless, the discussion on the issue has to begin with Scripture. Therefore I will begin the discussion by analyzing various passages of Scripture, both in the New Testament and the Old Testament, which might give some insight on possible Biblical patterns on the topic.

Much discussion in the literature is centered on two passages in the New Testament: the role of James in the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15:13-21, and the addressing of letters to the messenger (singular) of the seven churches in the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation. My next two posts will look at these two passages. In the meantime, can you think of any other NT passages with which people support the office of the senior pastor?

---

[1] Paige Patterson, “Observing Two Ordinances” (paper presented at Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church conference, Fort Worth, TX, September 26, 2008), available at http://www.swbts.edu/events/conferences/UponThisRock/conference_audio.cfm. (accessed Fall 2008). During the question and answer session after presenting his paper on the two ordinances recognized by Baptists, while talking about other pastors baptizing and the senior pastor not baptizing, Patterson states: “… other pastors who aren’t the quote senior pastor, find that terminology in the Bible.”

[2] Paige Patterson, “Single-Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church?, gen. ed. Steve B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 150-2.

[3] Dever, 23.

[4] See Cowen, 15; and Patterson, “Single-Elder,” 151-2, for a couple of examples.

The Senior Pastor - Introduction

Many people have written numerous books supporting differing perspectives on the organization of the local church and the biblical offices[1] found therein. In modern Baptist churches, and in many non-denominational churches, the predominant organizational model is congregational church governance[2] coupled with a single pastor, or a pastoral staff which is usually composed of a senior pastor and a variety of associate pastors or ministers who have different roles and levels of authority. The focus of this series of blogs is to study the office of the pastor, and more specifically the office of the senior pastor. In the literature and in practice, there are multiple views of the role of a senior pastor. These range from a strong leader figure to the absence of a human senior pastor altogether. While proponents of each view seek not to contradict Biblical mandates, one has to wonder if any single view best represents the New Testament model. It is therefore the intent of this series to analyze all views and evaluate them to determine which view constitutes the better New Testament model.

So as to simplify our discussion, when the office of the pastor is referred to in this series, several things will be assumed. The office of the pastor is assumed to be one of only two offices[3] found in the New Testament. Therefore throughout this series, even though the term pastor will be almost exclusively used, Scriptures referencing any of the three terms mentioned above will be used to gain a better understanding of the role of this office, and when at times the other terms will be used, it is understood that they all refer to one and the same office. Another assumption that will be made in this series is that, in the New Testament, and some would say in earlier Baptist life, the plurality of pastors is found to be more the norm than the exception to the rule. This assumption has recently been much debated,[4] especially since many Baptist churches are setting up elders in a Presbyterian ecclesiological fashion,[5] but while there are issues with the Presbyterian model, plurality of elders can exist and has existed in non Presbyterian ecclesiology. Nevertheless, since the issue of the necessity of a senior pastor is nonexistent if there is only one pastor, for the sake of this series, a plurality of pastors will be assumed.[6] Finally, when talking of pastors, it is also assumed that they possess the characteristics found in the New Testament passages: 1 Tim 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Having stated these assumptions, a discussion of the differing views of the senior pastor can now ensue.

A brief literature research of the topic leads to four views of the role of a senior pastor. The first view is the most common one: the senior pastor is the leader (some may even say 'head' or 'under-shepherd') of the congregation. The other pastors, usually called associate pastors or ministers with specific designations, help him in the work of his ministry. He is the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation. While talking of congregational rule, when there is room for pastoral decision making and vision casting, his decision is the final decision. He might seek advice from the other pastors and be very open to their thoughts and suggestions, but ultimately 'the buck stops with him'. Throughout this series, this view of the role of a senior pastor will be referred to as the 'traditional' view.

The second view is similar to the first one: the senior pastor is still the leader of the congregation with associate pastors helping him in the work of his ministry. He is still the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation. However, in view number two, unlike in the traditional view, when there is room for pastoral decision making and vision casting, his vote counts as only one among equally weighted votes with the other pastors. He could be seen as a moderator or 'president' of the 'pastor board'. He is officially designated as the senior pastor, and possibly the people see him as their main pastor. This view will be referred to as the 'leader of leaders' view and seems to be the view advocated by Dever who states "that we can discern a distinct role among the elders for the one who is the primary public teacher of the church."[7] This view seems to separate the pastor-teacher as a special elder in title and role, but not in authority. One could see it as a variation of the first view, where the senior pastor sees the benefit of having a 'board' of pastors to work with and therefore relinquishes his sole authority to this group. In both of these views, the senior pastor is specifically identified as such, distinguishing these two views from the next two views.

The third view is called by Strauch the 'first among equals' view.[8] Strauch pictures the difference between the senior pastor and the other pastors as being one of function, not title. The senior pastor is "the natural leader, the chief speaker, the man of action;" he challenges, energizes, strengthens, and ignites the group.[9] In this view there is the sense that this leader is the leader because of his personality and outgoing attitude. He is probably the most outspoken of the pastors and possibly the main teacher also, but he is not officially designated the senior pastor. Note that the difference between views two and three can be very subtle. While it seems that the outworking of both views is similar, the fundamental difference is in the need to officially name this separate office and the implications which develop because of it.

The fourth view is one void of a human senior pastor altogether.[10] In this view, all the pastors are equal in the eyes of the people and equal in practice. Some advocates of this view will purport that Jesus Christ is the rightful senior pastor of any congregation.

In future posts, we will look at scriptural evidence, Jewish tradition, the writings of the church fathers, and common justification presented in favor of a senior pastor to try to analyze all views and evaluate them to determine which view constitutes the better New Testament model.

---

[1] The author notes that he is not comfortable with the use of the term office. For a discussion on the problems with the term “office” see Edward Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, trans. Frank Clarke (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1961), 171-180. In it, Schweizer points out that the Greek term for office (archv) is only used for “Jewish and Gentile authorities” (Schweizer, 171) and that the more appropriate New Testament term is the Greek term for service: diavkono". He then adds that “official priesthood, which exists to conciliate and mediate between God and the community, is found in Judaism and paganism; but since Jesus Christ there has been only one such office – that of Jesus himself. It is shared by the whole Church, and never by one church member as distinct from others” (Ibid., 176). Thus to identify some specific gift as an office runs the risk of setting up a clergy-laity division which is only seen in the New Testament when referring to the Jewish and Gentile priests. As he states: “it is nowhere forgotten that such renunciation of titles, honors, and offices testifies to the Church’s newness in contrast to the old religious or secular order” (Ibid., 178). Unfortunately, even though the author is not comfortable with the term "office" and has adopted the term "role" instead, due to the common usage of the term "office" in the literature, the author will use the term "office" throughout the series.

[2] For this reason, while the content of this series could be applied to other models, congregationalism will be assumed. For an explanation of congregationalism and an explanation of the various other models see: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 923-36; and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker 2004), 1079-97.

[3] The other office found in the New Testament is the one of the deacon, which is clearly not within the scope of this series.

[4] See Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman, eds., Perspectives on Church Governance: Five Views of Church Polity (Nashville: B&H, 2004) and Steve B. Cowan, gen. ed., Who Runs the Church? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) for two examples of recent works where the issue of church governance and specifically the issue of multiplicity of pastors is debated.

[5] Obviously this is not the view of elders presented in this series.

[6] When referring to this plurality, it is important to understand that the author does not envision a Presbyterian model, which differentiates teaching pastors from ruling pastors.

[7] Dever, 23.

[8] It is important not to attach too much significance to the title of these views. They are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature. For example Akin, while defending the first view, refers to the pastor-teacher as 'first among equals' (Akin, 65).

[9] Strauch, 46.

[10] This view is alluded to by Grudem (Grudem, 933) and can also be found in the writings of the New Testament Restoration Foundation (Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia, (Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2003), 119). Among other places, it is being practiced currently at Messiah Baptist Church in Wake Forest, NC.

Living out my doctrine - some thoughts on Thiselton's The Hermeneutics of Doctrine

I recently had to read the first two parts of Thiselton's The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. In it, Thiselton attempts to rescue "doctrine from its marginalized function and abstraction from life, and deliver it from its supposed status as mere theory" (xvi) by using hermeneutical theory. One way he does this is by continuously directing the reader to the practicality of doctrine and to the essential intertwining of intellectual belief and the believer's action. Looking at historical confessions of faith, Thiselton points out that they were "practical, participatory, [and of a] first person nature" (9). Thiselton states that these confessions not only "declare a content, but they [also] serve to nail the speaker's colors to the mast as an act of first-person testimony and commitment" (13). Therefore doctrine was not and should not be just theoretical, but practical. "The test of a 'real' belief, in contrast to what we may merely claim to believe, lies not in whether such a belief lies consciously in the mind, but in the course of action, or in the habituated actions, which proceed from the belief" (28). As Käsemann states: "In the bodily obedience of the Christian, carried out as the service of God in the world of everyday, the lordship of Christ finds visible expression, and only when this visible expression takes personal shape in our lives does the whole thing become credible as Gospel message" (47). This is why, according to Thiselton, Paul, in 1 Corinthians, focuses on God having lordship over our bodies; bodies which "give currency to what our beliefs, attitudes, values, and doctrines actually amount to" (50). Think of what would happen if all Christians actually lived out their doctrine. Lord, help me to live out my doctrine!

Raleigh's TEA Party

We tried something new today: we participated in our local Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party. We went to downtown Raleigh where what looked like 1000s of people gathered to avail themselves of their first amendment right. Here are some pictures of things we saw.

 

Construction in community

On March the 28th, several of our brothers and sisters in Christ gathered at our home to help us work on it. People started to come by at 8:00 AM and the last ones left sometime after 7:00 or 8:00 PM. Throughout the day, the main focus was putting on siding (you can see before, during, and after pictures below), but Cindy had some people help her accomplish other tasks. We are very thankful for all who came, and for the ladies who provided lunch and supper for all of us. This was a great encouragement to us.

Have you encouraged your brothers and sisters in Christ lately?

While we were working, our neighbors' real estate agent came by. He talked to Paul, Cindy, and Alan. While talking to Alan, he asked if all the people working were part of one church. When Alan answered yes, the man made the comment that you don't see people getting together to help each other much anymore. So, while people served God by serving us, they glorified Him and proclaimed His transforming work in their lives to our community at large. 

Have your actions proclaimed God's transforming power in your life lately?

What's left?

With the strong possibility of our moving to Texas in the summer to pursue another PhD, this time in Theology and at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, some have wondered how much we still lack to do on our house. The answer is quite a lot!

The house we bought was a foreclosed home which had been empty for over a year before we bought it. The siding and several windows were rotting. The front porch had some rotting issues also. The roof, sump pump, and the air conditioner needed replacing. The fascia boards were rotten. Inside, the carpet was filthy and damaged. The kitchen floor turned out to be rotten down to the sub floor. The bathrooms were nasty. Most light fixtures had been taken /stolen by the previous owners. Most appliances had been removed. All in all ... it was a big mess.

Since then, the roof, the sump pump, and the AC unit have all been replaced (these are the only things we actually contracted out). About 60% of the siding has been replaced. Most (but not quite all) of the rotting issues with windows and fascia boards have been dealt with. As for the inside, one of the two full bathrooms and the half bath have been re-floored and are done, with the exception of some trim work. The master bath is still completely gutted - you can still see some studs. The kitchen floor has been tiled, the living room floor has been replaced with hardwood floors. Most of the upstairs hall and part of one of the three bedrooms have also been floored with hardwood floors. Most of the walls have been repaired and painted. The kitchen cabinets are in the process of being refinished. All the molding was very abused, so Cindy is repairing all of it and painting it white since we removed it to install the floors. The fireplace has been re-done.

What is still missing? The master bathroom needs to be put back together: floor, bathtub, sink, toilet, etc. The bedrooms need to be floored and their molding needs to be repaired, painted, and installed. The dining room (my tool shop) needs to be floored and have some sheet rock work done. We have a french door to install in the kitchen and the cabinets need to be finished. The counter top also needs to be finished. We have to floor the steps and finish its surrounding molding. 40% of the siding needs to be installed and the whole outside needs to be painted. We still have to build the porch for the kitchen french doors to open out to, and the deck needs to be repaired. The front porch still needs attention, as the posts are bad. We added the structure for a pergola on the deck outside the dining room french doors to provide structural support for an overhang over that door; now we have to finish it. Plus, many other little details need to be figured out and taken care of.

There. Now you know how you can pray for us or help us, if you are handy and want to do some construction.

Update on the hall floor

It seems that life is still very busy, and I have not had time to write much, but I did want to take a minute to post a couple of pictures of our upstairs hall floor (still in progress). When we bought the wood flooring for the house, they had some abused boxes of thinner, lighter Brazilian cherry wood for really cheap; we thought we could use it for some decorative borders with our normal Brazilian cherry floors. Here is our first attempt, and probably the more complex attempt for this house.

As usual, I started by laying out a plan. It first started with some hand sketches:

Then I did a more detailed layout on AutoCAD (often this step is just a detailed hand drawing):

And finally, you get to do it all. You judge the results. BTW, the wider pieces will darken with time, increasing the contrast with the lighter border.

judging people - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

from I Have a Dream - August 28, 1963, found on http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html.

How are you judging people? Are you judging them by their appearance? Are you judging them by their ideas? Or, are you judging them by their character?

Our Fireplace.

Well, we finally finished redoing the fireplace. As you can see below, the house came with a brick fireplace and an uninteresting surround. The mantel was nice so we decided to keep it.

BEFORE

AFTER

The new surround is all homemade, including the fluting and slate inserts. It was an interesting project that required me to learn some new wood working techniques. I am indebted to Bink for his tips on Making Grooves in Wood where I leanerd how to cut nice fluting and to This Old House for thier Easy Mantel Makeover where I got very useful tips on how to tile a fireplace surround with slate. More than these, I need to thank my neighbor, Don, because without his planer, I could not have achieved this look, and Jackie at Sherwin Williams, for his superb stain matching skills which allowed us to match the new woodwork with the original mantel stain color. 

Deciding in community ... update

Almost two years ago, I can't believe it has been that long, I wrote a post entitled Deciding in Community. In it, I shared a letter that I wrote to our local body of believers asking for prayers and wisdom in discerning God's will. I was not just soliciting prayer for us; I was asking for people to pray that God would reveal to them also what His will was for our lives. While I was very much so convinced that I needed to follow that approach (read the letter for my rationale), I have never seen this done in my lifetime as a believer and was not sure what to expect, and as a matter of fact, that was precisely my answer when people asked me what I expected.

So how did it all work out, you might ask? Well, interestingly enough, God did precisely what I was praying He would do. As He worked in my heart to communicate to me that the job opportunity for which I had asked wisdom about accepting or declining was not what He had in store for us, He did the same in the hearts of my brothers and sisters in Christ. As I talked to several of them individually, one by one they told me that they just did not see us in Louisiana at that job. It was neat to see God work in that way.

Do I believe that He always works in that way? No, I never want to put God in a box. Do I think that we underestimate how God can communicate to the whole body about our lives? Yes. We have bought into a very individualistic society and individualistic Christianity and unfortunately often miss the corporate component of our faith. Ultimately, the bottom line is that as believers, our lives are not our own, our lives belong to the Father and He is in control of them. All we have to do is be obedient.

Since my post two years ago, I have seen many brothers and sisters make decisions, some with the help of the body, and some individually. In every case, my prayer has been that they would seek the will of the Father, not their own will, and that they would have the courage and boldness to do it. Personally, though, I pray that God will not just tell them, but that if it would be His will, that He would tell me also.

I find myself at another crosspoint in our lives: would you pray that the Father would let you know what it is I need to do? Looking forward to hearing from you ...

Update ...

A new year has started, and it brings to the light the fact that another year has passed ... and that I have not blogged in a while: not that I have not wanted to, I just have not had time. 

So what is going on in our lives? Well, I have a new job. Since August 2008, I have been Assistant Professor of Engineering and Mathematics at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, NC. After three years of teaching high school, I have gone back full time to my true profession: college teaching. So in the fall I taught: Intro to Engineering and Problem Solving, Intro to Electrical and Computer Engineering Laboratory, Foundations of Physical Science, and 3 sections of Foundations of Physical Science Lab. In the spring I should be teaching: Engineering Graphics, Statics, 2 sections of College Algebra, and 2 sections of Foundations of Physical Science Lab. With this new position, which has taken a lot more of my time than I was expecting, I have dropped my adjunctive teaching load at The College at Southeastern to one class: Introduction to Computers. 

What have I been doing with my spare time you might ask? Well, I have been working on the house more. It used to be that during the semester I could only work on a small project. I had to wait for breaks to get stuff done. Now, I have a little time many evenings to do stuff. We've been working on the kitchen, the fireplace, molding throughout the house, and more. Below you will see pictures of the kitchen progress.

BEFORE

NOW

It is still not finished. We will be making new doors 

for the cabinets and adding marble tile counter tops

and backsplash.

BEFORE

NOW

We needed more storage room, so we added a

pantry. We will be replacing the 4 ft. kitchen 

window (just to the right of the picture) with a 4 ft 

french door to replace the lost door.

 BEFORE

NOW

The wood door will be replaced with a white door

to match the other doors in the kitchen.

I will be posting pictures of the fireplace as soon as I am done with it.

We also made time for some fun during December. We had friends over to help us go caroling in our neighborhood. Cindy's Mama stayed with us during Christmas week. We opened our home up for friends on Christmas. And we had a big New Year's Eve party with (and without) lots of friends.
As for writing ... I will try to be better in 2009. I should have a series come out pretty soon on the senior pastor: a paper that I am revising and expanding and that I will post here, probably in February. I also have many more other thoughts that I want to write down ... we'll just have to see what happens. In the meantime: y'all have a Happy New Year!

Pictures of the season

Sorry I have not updated the blog in a while. We have been, and still are, very busy. So I figured, I would just post a couple of pictures and ask you to be a little more patient with me ...

Fall is setting in here in Wake Forest, NC, and the temperatures are dropping. While Cindy does not like the cold, it has its benefits: firewood burning season has officially opened at the Disseau's.

And it's a good thing too, because we have had our first snow flurries. I did not see it, but Cindy took pictures of what looks like a blizzard (see the white streaks).

But all this cold unfortunately has also forced us to pick all of our green tomatoes that were still on the vine. Cindy is currently wrapping them in newspaper (a trick Grandmother Schoolbus' neighbor told us about in October). The hope is that they will slowly ripen and that we will have good tomatoes for a while longer.

Clean Energy - The Windpower Myth?

Take control of your home’s energy needs by harnessing a free resource—the wind. How? With a residential wind generator from Skystream®. Designed for homes just like yours, the smart, modern Skystream 3.7 converts wind into electricity you can use. It lowers your electric bill by as much as 80%, protects you against volatile electricity prices, reduces your dependence on foreign oil, and produces clean energy that doesn’t affect global warming. Most importantly, it provides independence and stability for you and your family. - http://www.skystreamenergy.com/

Sounds good doesn't it? Well, let's see.

I currently saw an article in Carolina Country Vol. 40, No. 9, Sept 2008, the journal of our electric cooperative, that advertised that the Carteret-Craven Electric Cooperative was posting meter data from a privately owned wind turbine.  The setup was described as:

a Skystream 3.7 residential wind turbine installed last year at a waterfront home on Harker Island. The turbine is at a height just under 50 feet and basically free of wind obstructions from the south across the water. The wind quality from all other directions, however, is lessened because of trees and buildings in the wind’s path.

(image from http://www.skystreamenergy.com/images/photos/thumbs/28-sunset_ut.jpg)

The location is not totally ideal, but probably more ideal than many others. So how much is this turbine producing? Well, so far it has produced a minimum of 121 kWh per month and a maximum of 394 kWh per month with an average of 273 kWh per month. This gives an average total of 3274 kWh for a whole year. 

To put this in perspective, we currently pay $0.12 per kWh and therefore this wind turbine would save us $393 per year. Sounds good until you realize that the cost of the turbine and installation could be on the order of $12,000 to $18,000. This means that it would take at least 30 years to pay for itself, if it were maintenance free. Unfortunately, it only has a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years.

I could not get an exact maintenance cost value for this model (many sites just said it was virtually maintenance free), but for some models, I saw maintenance costs ranging from $200 to $500 per year. So, for the sake of argument, if I bought one and it was maintenance free and it produced 400 kWh monthly (compared to the 273 kWh from the journal's test case) it could take 20 years to recupe the cost of the turbine, or 32 years if it cost me $200 per year to maintain, and 157 years if it cost $500 per year to maintain. (Remember that it only has a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years.)

I do understand that there are many government incentives out there, therefore you might recuperate your money in less time, thanks to tax payers out there, but even that does not make up for the deficient technology.

So what is my conclusion? Privately owned wind turbine: I don't think so!

universe - etymology

universe
1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)).

The question I have is: why understand versus as past participle (pp.) of vertere instead of understanding it as the Latin (L.) noun versus which means line or verse. After all "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) is a single verse (universe) which describes the universe. I wonder how much hard data people have to determine etymology and how much is just conjecture?

church - etymology

Long story ... but I ran across the Online Etymological Dictionary. This is a neat little tool that gives you the etymological background of words. Of course I had to check a couple of words out, and I figured I'd share my findings with y'all over a couple of posts.

church
O.E. cirice "church," from W.Gmc. *kirika, from Gk. kyriake (oikia) "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord." For vowel evolution, see bury. Gk. kyriakon(adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Gk.-to-Gmc. progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it was probably used by W.Gmc. people in their pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic, via Gmc. (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages use variants of L. ecclesia.

(For abbreviations see below)
I found this definition very interesting. Here are a couple of observations:
1) the term church does not derive from the term ekklesia which is commonly translated church in the English translations of the Greek New Testament.
2) the term church is derived from an old tradition of calling the place where Christians meet, "the house of God." A tradition which apparently goes back to c. 300. See Spurgeon's quote for my view on this terminology.

So, what do we do with this information? The use of words changes over time, and their etymological root does not have to represent the current meaning. So is it useless? No. There is some historical interest in it. For example, in this case, we see that "houses of Christian worship" apparently existed since ca. 300. It also points to the strong possibility that the term the "Lord's house" is 1700 years old. This gives us some insight into the mutation of Christian customs over time. And, if nothing else, it is an interesting bit of trivia, so just enjoy it.

BTW ... the following is of interest also:

kirk
c.1200, northern England and Scot. dial. form of church, from O.N. kirkja "church," from O.E. cirice (see church).

Abbreviations:

Gk. Greek, Indo-European language spoken in Greece in the classical period, c. 8c. B.C.E.-4c. C.E. Among its dialects were Ionian-Attic (the language of Homer and the Athenian dramatists), Aeolic (used in Thessaly, Boeotia and Lesbos), and Dorian (the language of Sparta).
Gmc. Germanic, a branch of Indo-European, ancestral language of English, German, Dutch, Frisian, Scandinavian tongues and several extinct languages such as Gothic and Frankish.
L. Classical Latin, the Italic language of ancient Rome until about 4c.
O.E. Old English, the English language as written and spoken c.450-c.1100.
O.N. Old Norse, the Norwegian language as written and spoken c.100 to 1500 C.E., the relevant phase of it being "Viking Norse" (700-1100), the language spoken by the invaders and colonizers of northern and eastern England c.875-950. This was before the rapid divergence of West Norse (Norway and the colonies) and East Norse (Denmark and Sweden), so the language of the vikings in England was essentially the same, whether they came from Denmark or from Norway. Only a few of the loan words into English can be distinguished as being from one or the other group.
O.Slav. Old Slavic, another name for Old Church Slavonic (q.v.).
Russ. Russian, East Slavic language of Russia.
W.Gmc. West Germanic, the subgroup of Germanic comprising English, Dutch, German, Yiddish, Frisian, etc.; also the language spoken by the ancestral group during the presumed period of unity. I've made a family tree of the W.Gmc. languages here.

I've been rated!

So, from time to time, I am in the habit of doing a Google search on my name. It is always fun to see what pops up.

When I did it a minute ago, I found that I had been rated on RateMyProfessors.com. I did not know that this site existed and even less that someone had rated me. So since this blog is about sharing our lives, I figured I'd share it with you: apparently I'm hot!

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1045849

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)

It would seem to me that none of the arguments for a tripartite law offered by theologians throughout the years gain a sure footing in Scripture, and that even their philosophical arguments are strained at times. The early writers seem to have been driven by a theological motivation, versus the clear commands of Scripture, to use a tripartite division of the law, whereas the latter writers seem to rely on the early writer's arguments. Since several convincing Scriptural arguments have been offered for the unity of the law, it makes more sense to keep the law as one. This has a wide range of implications on theology and ethics, but those will have to be the scope of set of posts, which I do not have time to write now.

In closing, let me just suggest that even if one denies that tripartite division of the law and takes another approach such that the Mosaic covenant was conditional and that believers are now under the law of Christ, there is still room to look at the Decalogue as a picture of God's character, and therefore it is still useful to help us develop our ethics today.

In this series:
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Introduction)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Historical Overview)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Analyzing Aquinas' arguments)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Analyzing Calvins' arguments)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Wrapping up with two more historical views)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption)
Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption)

Having interacted with some of the main proponents of the tripartite division of the law throughout history, and having interacted with some of their thoughts, we shall now entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption. As seen already, the tripartite approach is often accused of being arbitrary in its identification of the various categories of laws. This is because, by their own admission, the different precepts/law categories are not neatly divided, but intertwined. For example, reformed theologian Willem A. VanGemeren states,

The book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22-23:33) – with its regulations for worship (20:22-26; 23:14-19) and its civil laws (21:1-23:13) – extends the Decalogue in three directions. First, there is the complex development of case law. … Second, the criminal laws specify the penalty for breaking the commandments. … Third, the book of the covenant reveals the complexity of Israelite law. The moral laws (i.e., those reflected in the Decalogue) are intertwined with the civil laws, penal code, and ceremonial laws.[1]

To demonstrate this, he then proceeds to use Ex 22:19-29 as an example. In this passage, he shows that the topics covered vary from moral precepts, to penal precepts, to casuistic/civil precepts, back to moral precepts, and finally to ceremonial precepts, all intertwined in one passage. Reformed Professor John M. Frame is even more candid in his admission that the division between the supposed three parts of the law is not cut and dry. He tells us,

The law does not, of course, come to us with the labels "moral," "ceremonial" and "civil" attached to its provisions. What we call "moral" laws are mixed together in the texts (almost randomly, it seems) with "civil" and "ceremonial" laws, and we must sort them out by determining their meaning and current applicability. Those that apply most literally today we call "moral," those which apply least literally we call "ceremonial." "Civil" is a different kind of category, based not on applicability but upon function, and these would be divided between "ceremonial" and "moral" depending on their applicability. Remember too, that literal and non-literal applicability is a matter of degree, so we may expect some "gray areas," some laws that do not fit neatly into either "ceremonial" or "moral" categories.[2]

His sorting process is quite different from the traditional assumption that only the Decalogue is the depository of moral laws, and after reading his decision making process, one is left to wonder if "applicability" is really a Biblical identification of morality. As can be seen, the lack of clear distinction between the three parts of the law does point to a lack of credibility for the tripartite division of the law.

Barrick picks up on this and stipulates that the,

Division into three categories of law is unmasked as a fallacy by the testimony of the Book of Deuteronomy alone. Moses’s second exposition (4:44—26:19) presented the Decalogue and then illustrated each of the Ten Commandments by means of various legal stipulations. Such an arrangement demonstrates that the so-called civil and ceremonial stipulations are inextricably interwoven with what are considered to be the moral laws. Violation of any of the stipulations is a breach of the Decalogue.[3]

Another Old Testament text that does not square with the tripartite division of the law is Jer 31:31-2. Here God states that "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD" (Jer 31:31-2 NKJV). If God has made a New Covenant which is not like the covenant at Sinai, is it acceptable for us to say that only parts of the Old Covenant have changed? There is nothing in this passage that allows the reader to accept that this is a renewal of the Old Covenant. After all, the term used here has a primary definition of "new," not "renew," and the text speaks of a New Covenant, not like the Old Covenant. It is hard to imagine that this would imply any kind of continuity with the Old Covenant. There is also nothing which substantiates the Calvinistic position that this is a reformatting of the Old Covenant, or even that it is a hyperbolic statement, for again, the promise is of a New Covenant, not just a new medium.[4] Adeyemi also points out that "since the Old Covenant will be abolished, so will its Torah which cannot be divorced from it. ... This view accords with several statements in Isaiah about a Torah other than the Mosaic Law being given by Yahweh when Israel is in her land and Messiah is reigning."[5]

Both Moo and Strickland also offer the Sabbath commandment as an exemplary test case of the abrogation of the Decalogue, and therefore as proof that if the Decalogue is the depository of God's immutable moral law, then even the moral law has changed. The argument goes like this: reformed theologians claim that the Decalogue is the eternal moral law. If that is the case, then all of the Ten Commandments should still be valid for New Testament believers. But the fifth commandment states that rest should be pursued on the seventh day, and since it is in the Decalogue, the lack of observance of the Sabbath in this way is a moral matter. Believers, including ones in the reformed tradition, have been meeting on the first day of the week since New Testament times, because it is sanctioned in the New Testament. Does that then mean that the eternal moral precepts are subject to revision and that God's nature has changed?[6] Aquinas would not agree that God's nature has changed,[7] neither would Calvin,[8] and most probably, neither would modern reformed theologians.

Finally, looking at the use of the law in the New Testament, Moo argues that "Jesus and the New Testament authors treated the Mosaic law as a whole," and that "Jewish theology refused to allow a 'picking and choosing' among the commandments of the law." He also argues, by looking at Matt 23:23, that even though Jesus possibly followed a Jewish tradition of categorizing the law, he insisted that "even the 'light' commandments still must be done." He further points to Gal 5:3 and James 2:8-1, and their message of keeping or breaking the whole law, to suggest that the same perspective was adopted by the New Testament community. [9] Barrick picks up this same theme when he states that "to be disobedient to any one of the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant is to be guilty of disobedience to all of the stipulations of the covenant (Jas 2:10)."[10] Ultimately, Moo also analyzes Paul's use of the terms for the law and the reformed tradition's varied, and apparently arbitrary, interpretation of which laws Paul is referring to (moral or ceremonial law) and does not find any substantiation for their interpretations.[11]

If the historical arguments for the tripartite law are flawed and if Scripture does not seem to support this idea, why is it so popular?

---

[1] Ibid., 30-1.

[2] Frame, 203-4.

[3] Barrick, 229.

[4] Femi Adeyemi, "What is the New Covenant 'Law' in Jeremiah 31:33?" Biblioteca Sacra 163 (July-September 2006): 315-9.

[5] Ibid., 320-1.

[6] Bahnsen et al., 81-2, 88.

[7] Aquinas Summa FS.Q100. A8.

[8] Calvin Institutes 4.20.15.

[9] Bahnsen et al., 85.

[10] Barrick, 231.

[11] Bahnsen et al., 85-6.

Building the Church - Charles H. Spurgeon's

I want you to notice this, that they were breaking bread from house to house, and ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart. They did not think that religion was meant only for Sundays, and for what men now-a-days call the House of God. Their own houses were houses of God, and their own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord's Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord. They elevated their meals into diets for worship: they so consecrated everything with prayer and praise that all around them was holiness to the Lord. I wish our houses were, in this way, dedicated to the Lord, so that we worshipped God all day long, and made our homes temples for the living God...

Does God need a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does he dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance this is! No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives, and eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and praises the Lord in all that he does, and there is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to the fear of the Lord.

To sacrifice home worship to public worship is a most evil course of action. Morning and evening devotion in a little home is infinitely more pleasing in the sight of God than all the cathedral pomp which delights the carnal eye and ear. Every truly Christian household is a church, and as such it is competent for the discharge of any function of divine worship, whatever it may be. Are we not all priests? Why do we need to call in others to make devotion a performance? Let every man be a priest in his own house. Are you not all kings if you love the Lord? Then make your houses palaces of joy and temples of holiness. One reason why the early church had such a blessing was because her members had such homes. When we are like them we will have “added to the church those who were being saved.” - Charles H. Spurgeon

found on The Assembly of the Church. According to Alan's post this is from a sermon entitled "Building the Church" (or "Additions to the Church") concerning Acts 2 which Spurgeon gave on April 5, 1874.

Is this the picture of your house?

Divisions ...

I am currently reading a book on the Italian reformation: Firpo, Massimo. Riforma Protestante ed Eresie nell'Italia del Cinquecento. San Donato Milanese: Editori Laterza, 1993. In the last chapter, the author focuses on Anabaptist movements in Italy. There was a close tie between these movements and the Moravian church, and therefore the author spends some time quoting texts from the 1500s about the Moravian church. From the comments made, it would seem that the Moravian church was quite the sight. See for yourself (all translations are mine):

The Anabaptist Giuglio Gherlandi in October of 1561, a year before his capital sentence was executed in a Venetian prison, stated: "I have tried to find a people who were freed, by the gospel of truth, from servitude to sin, and who would walk in new life and heavenly regeneration by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and who were empowered by God, through the Holy Spirit, to resist sin [...], this people are his holy church, immaculate, separate from sinners, without a wrinkle or spot or any such thing; that, which like at the time of the apostles Peter and Paul was in Jerusalem, now is in the country of Moravia."

In the small village of Cinto, people stated about the Moravian Church, that in those faraway lands "are certain Churches [...] that govern themselves with great charity and great love, and in those places all are allowed to live according to Christ and to hold to whatever opinion one has and likes without fear, and the ones who are in some need are always helped by their brothers."

But, even with such accolades, the Moravian church was plagued with an issue: division. So much so as to make the Venetian artisan Marcantonio Varotta doubt the veracity of the Moravian movement.

"I left Moravia," he would tell to the inquisitor in Udine in January of 1567, "because while I was there, for about two months, I saw many faiths and many sects, one against the other, one condemning the other, all producing catechisms, where all wanted to be ministers, and some pulled this way and some pulled that way, and all wanted to be the true church. In a single small place called Austerlitz, there were thirteen or fourteen varieties of faiths and sects. So, I started to consider the fact that these heresies could be false and that the faith of the Roman church could be true."

Unfortunately, divisions still plague the church today. Some are due to preferences; some are due to differing philosophies of ministry; some are due to theological issues; some are socially acceptable, some are not. It would seem that for Varotta (and for many throughout the centuries) divisions are not a good witness of Christ's redeeming work in His children's lives. I am not suggesting that there is nothing important enough to divide over. I am not inciting us to do away with denominations. What I am asking is that, as believers in Jesus Christ, for the sake of His Kingdom, we learn from each other and love each other, even when we do not see eye to eye on everything. Basically, my prayer is that we strive to portray to the world the (single) body of Christ. Our unity amidst diversity is something that only Christ can do. That is part of our witness to the world that Christ has transformed us.

"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." - John 13:35 (NKJV)

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Wrapping up with two more historical views)

To finish the historical analysis, I would like to look at two more instances: the 1689 Baptist Confession and a recent book on the topic.

Looking at the 1689 Baptist Confession, we see again that like Calvin and Aquinas, the authors of the confession related ceremonial laws with moral duties when they stated: "ceremonial laws [which] ... also gave instructions about various moral duties."[1] But, basing themselves most probably on the thoughts of Calvin, they also used these created categories. Since this is a confession of faith, as stated above, we should not expect to have a defense of the tripartite division of the law; instead we have Scripture references listed in support of their statement. In support of the ceremonial law, the following Scriptures are cited: Heb 10:1, Col 2:16-7, Eph 2:14-6. Yet again, the understanding of these Scripture hinges on the use of the terms for the law. As mentioned before by Moo and Hoehner, there is little to no indication that these are referring only to ceremonial laws, and therefore are deemed not to be sustentative proof for a tripartite division of such laws.

When reading modern theologians of the reform variety, the tripartite division of the law is also often assumed and rarely explained. In his presentation of the reformed perspective in the Five Views on Law and Gospel book, VanGemeren assumes the traditional tripartite division of the law when he states: “The laws of the Old Testament have also been commonly categorized as moral, ceremonial, and civil. Each one of the Ten Commandments expresses the moral law of God, whereas most laws in the Pentateuch regulate the rituals and ceremonies (ceremonial laws) and the civil life of Israel as a nation (civil laws)."[2] What VanGemeren fails to do, is to defend his view Biblically. Instead, he points to Calvin and the Westminster Confession, who themselves had accepted the tripartite view from earlier sources. This deserved Moo's criticism that VanGemeren assumed his tripartite position "without arguing the case. [Even though] this distinction, vital to his whole argument, is nowhere clearly stated in the Bible."[3]

In the next post I will start looking at generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption. In the meantime, do you know of anybody else who tries to defend the tripartite division of the law?

---

[1] Samuel E.Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 3rd ed. (Webster: Evangelical Press, 1999), 232-3.

[2] Greg L.Bahnsen et al., Five Views on Law and Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 30.

[3] Ibid., 85. To be fair to VanGemeren, it seems very common for modern reformed theologians to rely on the formulations of Calvin and the Westminster Confession.

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Analyzing Calvins' arguments)

As for Calvin, he stated that he gathered his tripartite view of the law from the "ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes [judicial and ceremonial laws] had to do with morals."[1] Therefore, like Aquinas, Calvin admitted that the laws which he called ceremonial and judicial had to do with morals, even so he, like Aquinas, adopted, defined, and used different categories for them. Unlike Aquinas, who tried to justify his reasoning through logic and some Scriptural exegesis, Calvin seemed to have relied on the wisdom of the ancients. It is of interest to note that Calvin did not say that the ancients justified this tripartite division of the law with solid Biblical arguments, but only that they "did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals."[2] It is almost as if he assumed that the motivation of the ancients was derived by a need to fit their purpose, instead of being derived by the clear teaching of Scripture. Since this abrogation pattern is clear in Aquinas, could it be that Calvin suggested that this tension between the Decalogue's not being changed and the changing work of Christ was the motivation for Aquinas' arguments trying to justify a tripartite law? Possibly, but we have no proof of it.

In Calvin's theology, the law ultimately was divided as follows:

The moral law, ... is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. ... The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fullness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures (Gal. 3:24; 4:4). The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly. And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so, also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual."[3]

Therefore the moral law found in the Decalogue is timeless, but the ceremonial law and the judicial law are not. In this description, Calvin quotes Gal 3:24 as a supporting Scripture for his treatment of the ceremonial law. This passage, which in the letter to the Galatians comes at the end of a section on the purpose of the law, states: "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3:24 NKJV). It is hard to envision that this passage, written to a predominantly gentile church, was referring only to the Jewish nation, as Calvin would have it seem.[4] Also, the context of the passage does not seem to allow for a purely ceremonial understanding of "the law," but to a more holistic understanding of the law. Therefore it is hard to agree with Calvin's definition of the ceremonial law based on this passage. As a matter of fact, if this passage is read in light of verse 25, where Paul writes: "But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Gal 3:25 NKJV), one could understand this section of Scripture as arguing for a view where we are no longer under a tutor for the "whole" law, and therefore one does not need to hold to a tripartite division of the law.

In the next post, I will look at some more modern uses of the tripartite law, and their justification, or lack there of, for using it. In the meantime, if you are better acquainted with Calvin and his writings, do you know of anywhere else where Calvin does a better job of defending the tripartite division of the law?

---

[1] Calvin Institutes 4.20.14.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 4.20.15 (emphasis mine).

[4] In all fairness, one must at least consider the possibility that Paul here could have been using the term "we" to refer to his Jewish heritage rather than to him and his audience. While this interpretation would be more in line with Calvin's thought, it does not seem to square with the general sense of the passage and the specific use of "all" in verse 22.

Today's Medical Industry

I recently had to have outpatient surgery for a tonsillectomy. This is what I woke up with!

At first, I thought that this was an indictment on our medical community. You know, one of those cases where you go in for a simple tonsillectomy and instead the surgeon made a mistake and performed plastic surgery to turn my "hobbit feet" into beautiful feminine feet.

But, I had to stand corrected since my throat was hurting and all: obviously they had taken away my tonsils. It is then that I realized that in today's economy, private clinics are looking for that edge, which will get them customers. I was not aware of it, but apparently the clinic I went to, was having a special: cut out your tonsils and while you are under anesthesia, you get a free pedicure.

Actually, this is the handy work of Brandi M., my good friend and surgical technician on my case, who thought it would be funny to have her co-worker paint my toes while I was under. I'll get you back, Brandi ... I'm not sure how yet, but I'll get you back!

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Analyzing Aquinas' arguments)

The question that now begs to be answered is: are the arguments given in favor of a tripartite law acceptable, after all, the mere fact that many have accepted this division as a fact since the Middle Ages does not justify its acceptance. Therefore, to understand if it is appropriate to divide the law into three parts, I will analyze the arguments offered by the proponents of such a perspective, starting with Aquinas.

In his six article approach to "Of the Precept of the Old Law" (Q99), Aquinas started by defending that the law is made up of many precepts and not of only one precept. He did so by pointing to the plural "ordinances" used by Paul in Eph 2:15 when he wrote about the law of commandments.[1] This point is well presented and defended. The only comment that can be made about this point is that he could be accused of using Eph 2:15 selectively to prove his point of multiple precepts while ignoring the implications of Eph 2:15 when it comes to the wholeness of the law. While the author would agree with Aquinas, that Scripture here refers to "ordinances" plural, the author would also agree with Hoehner, in his commentary on the book of Ephesians, when he points out that the "term o nomo" must refer to the whole Mosaic law and not just the ceremonial law as some suggest," and as such, he argues that "it is a false dichotomy to distinguish between the moral and ceremonial laws, making only the ceremonial laws inoperative."[2]

Aquinas then proceeded to point to the Decalogue to support his claim that the Old Law contains some moral precepts because moral precepts are necessary to make man become good, so that he can be in friendship with God who is supremely good. He thus argued that "it was necessary for the Old Law to include precepts about acts of virtue: and these are the moral precepts of the Law." [3] As we saw in the previous post, some disagree with Aquinas about the statement that the Old Law contains only "some" moral precepts, but with that exception, one cannot fault his position just yet. Some discomfort is felt by the modern evangelical when Aquinas augmented his argument with a philosophical argument for the need of moral principles in the Old Law. To do so, he used the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus[4] to maintain that God cannot have a friendship with man "unless man become good."[5] This latter argument can be seen as unnecessary, and its use of apocryphal literature makes it more suspicious to the modern evangelical. But, if one ignores this part of the argument, the claim that the Old Law contains moral precepts is a valid one.

Aquinas continued by seeking to prove that there are precepts which are not moral, but ceremonial. He did so by looking at Deut 4:13, 14, where Moses stated that God declared to Israel His covenant, that is the Ten Commandments, and that the LORD commanded Moses to teach the Israelites statutes and judgments, that they were to observe. Aquinas is translated here as using the phraseology "ceremonies and judgments," instead of the NKJV's terminology, "statutes and judgments," and this is where he seems to get the term ceremonial law.[6] The Hebrew term used here is qx, which BDAG defines as "something prescribed, a statute or due," or as an "enactment, decree, ordinance," or a "law in general."[7] This same term is used in the next chapter of Deuteronomy when the Decalogue is introduced with: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. ... You shall have no other gods before Me ...." (Deut 5:1-7, NKJV, emphasis mine). Therefore Aquinas' insistence on the use of qx as meaning ceremonies[8] is deemed not to be well founded since the Decalogue (the commands associated with the moral law according to Aquinas) are introduced with the same term that Aquinas wants to use to identify ceremonial laws. Frame, a proponent of the tripartite law, further furnishes a critique of Aquinas' use of the ceremonial term when he writes,

It is misleading to define "ceremonial" etymologically as "laws pertaining to ceremonies." Many of the laws commonly grouped under the "ceremonial" category, such as dietary laws [and] clothing laws, have nothing to do with "ceremonies." And some laws having to do with ceremonies, such as the "regulative principle" and other doctrines concerning public worship, are commonly described as moral rather than ceremonial laws.[9]

It would therefore seem that Aquinas' argument for the presence of ceremonial decrees is invalid on many fronts. In addition to this, when Aquinas replied to the objection[10] that "human actions are called moral, ... therefore it seems that the Old Law given to men should not comprise other than moral precepts," he simply answered that "human acts extend also to the Divine worship: and therefore the Old Law given to man contains precepts about these matters also."[11] This is circular reasoning; instead of defending his statement that Divine worship is not a moral concept, he arbitrarily put it in a different category and then used its being in that category to justify the existence of that category. In this same section, Aquinas admitted in the reply to another objection that "to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept," but he then differentiated the worship of God from the precepts prescribing the worship of God, which are in themselves not moral, but ceremonial.[12] Here again, Aquinas seemed to change categories without substantial justification. He conveniently created a new category, but did not justify its existence.

Aquinas next proceeded to argue for judicial precepts by looking at Deut 6:1. Here he interpreted the words commandment, statutes, and judgments as referring to moral, ceremonial, and judicial law.[13] This is the same terminology used in Deut 4 and Deut 5 (as seen above) and Aquinas here used a similar weak reasoning with judicial precepts as he used above with moral precepts: he again conveniently created a new category, but did not justify its existence. In addition, he augmented his argument by pointing to Rom 7:12, "therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good," as additional substantiation of his tri-partition. Here he related "just" with the judicial precepts, "holy" with the ceremonial precepts, and "good" with the moral precepts.[14] Moo, in his commentary on Romans, does not allow for such an interpretation, for he says that "Paul brings together as essentially parallel terms 'law' and 'commandment'; both referring to the Mosaic law, the former as a body, the latter in terms of specific commandments that Paul has cited in v. 7 as representative of the whole."[15] If Moo is correct, then the term "holy," associated with the entire law in the first part of the verse, cannot in the next breath refer only to ceremonial laws, as Aquinas purported it does. Here again, Aquinas admitted that the "act of justice, in general, belongs to the moral precepts," but then, in a similar manner as with ceremonial precepts, he differentiated between the determination of the acts and the acts themselves, concluding that the determination of the acts belongs to the category of judicial precepts.[16] Just as with ceremonial acts, it must be stated that this change of category is not substantiated. Ultimately, it is very interesting that Aquinas himself agreed that the ceremonial and judicial precepts have their basis in the moral law, and yet he worked very hard to separate them into different categories from the moral law.

Aquinas finished his defense of the tripartite law with his fifth article, in which he investigated the possibility of the presence of a fourth division of the law. His arguments against a fourth division are similar to the ones made above and do not add much to the discussion of this blog series. Some more discussion is found in questions 100-108 of the Summa. In these questions, Aquinas continued to develop his ideas about the tripartite law and specifically postulates arguments on the duration of each kind of precept. Aquinas believed that "the precepts of the Decalogue cannot be changed by dispensation,"[17] and yet he also believed that when Christ came, a change had to have happened in the law for, according to Aquinas: the New Testament law is different from the Old Testament law;[18] "the judicial precepts are no longer in force";[19] and that "the Old Law is said to be 'for ever' simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts for ever in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed."[20]

In the next post, I will look at Calvin and his defense of a tripartite law. In the meantime, what do y'all think. Are Aquinas' arguments valid? Am I being too severe with him? Did I miss something?

---

[1] Aquinas Summa FS.Q99.A1.

[2] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians - An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 375-6.

[3] Aquinas Summa FS.Q99.A2.

[4] Aquinas referred to Ecclesiasticus almost 250 times in his Summa, often using the introduction "it is written."

[5] Aquinas Summa FS.Q99.A2.

[6] Ibid., FS.Q99.A3.

[7] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brow-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 349. The author takes this occasion to point out that he is not a Hebrew scholar, and therefore some of the nuances of the language might have escaped him as he makes arguments based on the Hebrew text.

[8] It should be noted that the insistence on the word ceremonial which transpires in the English translation, might, or might not be as strong in the original Latin, but no matter what term was used in the original, it is hoped that the translators represented Aquinas' ideas correctly, as it is with these ideas that the author is interacting.

[9] John M. Frame, "Toward a Theology of the State," Westminster Theological Journal 51 no 2 (Fall 1989): 204n.

[10] The format of the Summa starts with a series of objections to his article, followed by the defense of his article and answers to the objections aforementioned.

[11] Aquinas Summa FS.Q99.A3.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., FS.Q99.A4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 440.

[16] Aquinas Summa FS.Q99.A4.

[17] Ibid., FS.Q100.A8.

[18] Ibid., FS.Q107.A1.

[19] Ibid., FS.Q104.A3.

[20] Ibid., FS.Q103.A3.

Great sandals ...

During the summer, I like to wear sandals with my shorts. I tend to be rough on clothes, and my last pair of sandals needed to be replaced. So, my wife convinced me to buy a pair of Keen Newport Sandals, even though I thought that they were UGLY, and still do, but I went along with her and agreed to buy them and try them. At first, they felt tight, but after a day or two of walking in Paris, they formed to my foot and became quite comfortable (BTW - after you machine wash them, they get tight again). To be honest, though, I really was not 100% sold on them until we took a 4 1/2 hour hike in the French Alps, going from an altitude of about 4300 ft to an altitude of about 6600 ft. They did great! They were very comfortable; they had a very good grip on/in: trails, rocks, icy-cold streams, grass, wet grass, and even snow; ... I really have no complaints.

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Historical Overview)

As was mentioned in the previous post, according to R. T. France, evidence for such a tripartite division of the law "cannot be traced back earlier than the Middle Ages."[1] However, there might be some evidence that at least a dichotomy between ceremonial works and the works of the law existed at the time of Jerome. According to Luther, Jerome had introduced "notable error and ignorance" in the understanding of Rom 3:19-20 when he suggested that Paul was here calling ceremonial works, works of the law.[2] A possible bipartite understanding of the law also could have existed at the time of Augustine, for Luther claimed that Augustine resisted Jerome,[3] and Aquinas stated that in Contra Faust, Augustine held "that in the Old Law there are 'precepts concerning the life we have to lead, and precepts regarding the life that is foreshadowed.'" Aquinas then related these precepts to moral, ceremonial, and judicial principles by arguing that both moral and judicial principles fall under the "life we have to lead" category. [4]

Fast forwarding to the Middle Ages, in Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas himself discussed the law (which he referred to as precepts) and its three parts (moral, ceremonial, and judicial) in his section entitled "Treatise on the Law" and more specifically in questions 99-105. Of interest is the fact that in his writings, Aquinas did not just assume this partition of the law, he actually developed an argument for the existence of these three parts. A future post will deal with Aquinas' position in detail, but now let us continue our historical overview.

Jumping to the time of the reformers, Luther seemed to accept at least a dualism of the law when, in The Bondage of the Will, he referred to "the civil or moral law."[5] Calvin, in book two of Institutes of the Christian Religion, presented a bipartite view when he discussed the law, emphasizing the moral and ceremonial aspects of it,[6] but later, in book four of the Institutes, when he discussed civil government, he presented a clearly tripartite view of the law when he stated: "the well known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law."[7] While Calvin did not present a logical defense of the tripartite division of the law as Aquinas did, his use of this tripartite division to justify the abrogation of only part of the law and his interactions with and citations of a variety of Scriptures are also of interest to the question at hand.

After the reformation, the tripartite division of the law seemed to slowly solidify as an accepted concept. Some still held, as John Owen stated in his Two Short Catechisms, that "the whole law [was] moral and ceremonial," pointing to a bipartite view of the law,[8] but ultimately, the tripartite view was propagated and popularized by the Westminster Confession (1646), which was the basis for a variety of other confessions of faith, including the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. In the 1689 Baptist Confession, the tripartite division of the law is clearly seen in the chapter on the law of God (Ch. 19), where it reads: "besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship" and that "to them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people."[9] While the 1689 Baptist Confession did not provide an argument for its views, but simply stated the belief of its signatories, as is customary for confessions, it did however substantiate its articles with a variety of Scripture references which are also of interest to the quest at hand.

Looking at contemporary times, it is interesting to note that the Baptist tradition found in the 1689 confession has not survived in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, where no mention of the tripartite law is made. Some current thoughts and discussions on the issue of the law and the gospel are summarized in Five Views on Law and Gospel, first published by Zondervan in 1993. In this book, the reader is presented with the following five views: the reformed perspective, the theonomic reformed approach, the evangelical (holiness code) approach, the dispensational view, and the modified Lutheran view.[10] The first three have to maintain that the law is at least bipartite, if not tripartite for their approach. The last two do not have to hold to any division of the law.

As we continue this discussion, we will next tackle Aquina's arguments for a tripartite division of the law. In the meantime, do you know of any other historical figures that might have convincingly argued this position?

---

[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 180n. Unfortunately, France does not document this statement. Based on the research done, it is assumed that France's reference to the Middle Ages is a reference to the work of Thomas Aquinas.

[2] Martin Luther The Bondage of the Will CXLIII. References to classical, medieval, and renaissance works will be cited as per section 17.5.1 of the 7^th edition of Kate L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica FS.Q99.A4.

[5] Luther Bondage CXLVI.

[6] John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.7, 2.8.31.

[7] Ibid., 4.20.14.

[8] John Owen Two Short Catechisms XIV.Q2.

[9] Samuel E.Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 3rd ed. (Webster: Evangelical Press, 1999), 232-33.

[10]Greg L.Bahnsen et al., Five Views on Law and Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 5.

When in France, ...

Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Introduction)

During my last semester at SEBTS, I took a Christian Ethics class. It seems customary, when studying Christian ethics, to assume that the Mosaic law is tripartite, which means that the Old Testament law is assumed to be divided into three parts: moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial. Following that assumption, the New Testament believer is to assume that the moral law is still valid in the believer's life, while the last two parts have passed away with the coming of Christ.

The problem is that while ethicists often hold to this view, it seems that New Testament and Old Testament scholars do not agree with them. For example, R. T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, states:

It is sometimes suggested that Matt 5:17-20 is concerned only with the moral law, not with ceremonial and civil laws of the OT. But this convenient distinction of the law in three categories has no biblical basis, cannot be traced back earlier than the Middle Ages. Moreover, such a selective approach is difficult to square with Jesus' insistence on the importance of the smallest details of the law (v. 18) and the 'smallest commandments' (v. 19).[1]

Hays states that the tripartite division of the law "suffers from three major weaknesses: It is arbitrary and without any textual support, it ignores the narrative context, and it fails to reflect the significant implications of the change from Old Covenant to New Covenant. This approach, therefore, is inadequate as a hermeneutic method for interpreting and applying the Law."[2] Barrick bluntly states that "no one can justly separate the moral, civil, and ceremonial parts of the Law from each other: it is a unit."[3] These are only a few of the objectors and of the objections to the tripartite division of the law.

In the next sets of posts, I will try to look at the validity of such a division of the law through a historical and theological approach. In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Is a tripartite division of the law valid?

---

[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 180n. Unfortunately, France does not document this statement.

[2] J. Daniel Hays, "Applying the Old Testament Law Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (Jan-Mar 2001): 30.

[3] William D. Barrick, "The Mosaic Covenant," TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999): 213.

Graduation

Well, it is official now. I have my Master of Divinity with Pastoral Ministries and Biblical Languages. Cindy's mom and Bro. Ronny were able to come up for the ceremony. Tonight we get together with other graduates from Messiah and a bunch of friends to share in the life and celebrate.

One Week to Go!

After 6 years, I have finally finished my MDiv program at SEBTS. I took my last final yesterday, and now I am just waiting for commencement. God willing, in a week, I'll have to change my profile description to omit "seminary student". After 16 straight years of college, I am finally going to take a sabbatical from school. Hallelujah!

Hopefully this will give me some time to write all that has been floating through my mind in the last year or so, and to finish a few series that have been left unfinished. So if you had given up on me ... hopefully, I'm baaaaaack!

New Movie

I was recently made aware of a new movie coming out in theaters on Friday, April 18th: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I contacted Dr. Bill Dembski, professor, author, and fellow blogger (I know Alan, I have not blogged in a while ...), whom I had the privilege of meeting last summer while I was in TX. He told me that the movie was well done and suggested that I go see it. Therefore, here is my plug for the movie, which is getting much fire from evolutionists' sites. I'll let you know what I think of it after we see it on the 18th. BTW - if anybody is interested in going with us, let us know.

love above everything else - Bill Clinton

"The reason we have to put love above everything else is because we see through a glass darkly and know in part. Therefore, it almost doesn't matter whether the Bible is literally true, because we know in part. We see through a glass darkly. Humility is the order of the day. The reason we have to love each other is because we might all be wrong." - Former President Bill Clinton

found in J. Gerald Harris, "Jimmy Carter aglow over New Baptist Covenant Celebration," The Christian Index 187, 4 (02/14/2008): 12-3.

Well, here is the epitome of Derrida's deconstructionist thought and postmodern relativism: it does not matter whether something is true or not because we are probably going to misunderstand it anyhow. The problem is that knowing in part does not mean not knowing at all; just because we cannot comprehend 100% does not make truth useless. I wonder if the former president would want his physician to think that anatomy almost doesn't matter because, after all, we don't really understand all that is going on in the body anyhow.

Don't get me wrong; humility, unity, and love are essential in our daily Christian walk. Paul teaches us to "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good" (Rom 12:9). Our very faith depends on the veracity of Scripture, and that is a "good" we should cling to. It does matter that the Bible is literally true. Our unity as believers is based on "walking in the light" (1 Jon 1:7) and following Him: the one who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6, emphasis mine).

It is finished.

Well it took a while, but the living room's wood floor is finally finished. This week we put in the final corner, finished the border that goes around the room, and set it up so that when we are ready, we can start flooring the dining room. Next flooring project: the upstairs hall and the steps.

I can't stop …

So we left our renovation site (home) for our Christmas break and went down to Georgia. Obviously, though, construction is now in our blood. What did we do for most of our break? Yes, you guessed it, we built stuff. Cindy's mom was in definite need of shelves for her collection of books. They were all so improperly stored in many cardboard boxes. So with the very generous loan of tools from extended local family and lots of work, the books are now properly displayed and stored on her new bookcase, featuring 20 fixed shelves and 15 adjustable shelves, in her new reading room. We did not have time to do the finishing touches, so we will have to go down to add molding and to paint the adjustable shelves. For the meantime, though, we rest content that the books have a proper resting place.

Update on the living room floor

In a previous post, I posted some pictures of our living room floor. Here are a couple of update pictures:



Now, if I can find time to finish the last corner and start the transition into the dining room, we'll be able to call the living room floors done.

Our first fire in our fireplace

Well, I did my doctoral work in combustion, but I learned how to set up and start a fire in a fireplace years earlier from my papà. So when it came to having our first fire in our fireplace, I used his patented fire stacking technique. Judge for yourself ...

Now, first you start with a good under layer of paper.

Then you add a good layer of small branches: kindling, as they sometimes call it.

Finally, you put on the smaller logs with the larger logs in waiting.

Now the next tip was furnished by our chimney sweeper. After you open the damper, in the chimney, burn one piece of paper per story in your house to warm up the flue and start the drafting process. Once that is done, light the paper under the kindling and enjoy!

authenticity - David F. Wells

The postmodern reaction against Enlightenment dogma will not be met successfully simply by Christian proclamation. Of that we can be sure. That proclamation must arise with a context of authenticity. It is only as the evangelical Church begins to put its own house in order, its members begin to disentangle themselves from all of those cultural habits which militate against a belief in truth, and begin to embody that truth in the way that the Church actually lives, that postmodern skepticism might begin to be overcome. Postmoderns want to see as well as hear, to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is said. This is a valid and biblical demand. Faith, after all, is dead without works, and few sins are dealt with as harshly by Jesus as hypocrisy. What postmoderns want to see, and are entitled to see, is believing and being, talking and doing, all joined together in a seamless whole. This is the great challenge of the moment for the evangelical Church. Can it rise to this occasion? - David F. Wells

found in David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 315.

I would add that this is not a postmodern challenge, but it is valid for all times. As DC Talk sings of in What if I Stumble?: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Will you please live out your faith? If not, will you stop telling people that you are a Christian? (BTW - I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about submission.)

A week in France: looking for the history of the church - day 2

The next morning started with a good breakfast and the picking up of our rental car: a new Volkswagon Passat (btw - this was a really fun car to drive around France). From there, we checked out of the hotel and made our way to the Papal palace in Avignon where we arrived just in time for the Heineken delivery; after all it would not be a good papal palace without a good stock of beer, right?

The palace was quite interesting. Not only did we get to walk through this great building and learn much about the catholic history of the time, but we also were able to see a couple of artifacts concerning Protestantism of the time. We saw a copy of an indulgence note and a copy of engravings left on prison walls in the 16th century by Protestants who had been imprisoned by the pope.

We then proceeded to drive north toward the city of Orange. Orange is famous for its Roman amphitheater. Many amphitheaters have much better preserved steps/seats, many are larger, but few have such a well preserved back wall (because of the construction techniques, weather, materials, etc., the back walls are very prone to collapse). Of interest is a statue of the emperor, found in the middle of the wall, who is overseeing the show and blessing it. By the way, located just outside the amphitheater is a temple dedicated to such emperor worship. How convenient, you could thank the emperor for the games on your way out.

After some shopping and a good crêpe meal, we headed to Anduze, home of Le Musée du Désert: a museum of protestant history dedicated mainly to the desert period (1685-1789), which is considered to go from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes to the French Revolution. The museum was closed when we got there, so we looked at local potteries, found all the sites we wanted to visit the next day, and settled in for the evening.

church and culture - David F. Wells

Ways of thinking and organizing in our society often become our ways of thinking about ourselves and organizing our lives. Thus, those who gaze at a computer screen by day and a television screen by night may well feel awkwardly obsolete in church if there is not another screen on which to gaze. The demands of efficiency, and the rational, impersonal workings of bureaucracy, are so much a part of who we have become that many of us also want our churches to have the feel of a smoothly run corporation. Our capitalism has been so virile and abundant, filling our lives with goods in quantities unknown in any previous age, that it seems only natural - at least in middle class, white churches - to expect the same range of choice in programs and services as we experience in the commercial world. The norms of the workplace so easily and so unknowingly become our own internalized norms. And this is true of most people. - David F. Wells

found in David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 22-3.

Wells unfortunately points out that way too often, culture has transformed the church, but is that what is supposed to happen? No, as I stated a while back when I posted a short post called The kingdom of heaven, Christ calls us to transform culture, not for culture to transform us. So let me ask again: are we affecting the world around us?

The windshield wipers and the internet

It is amazing what one can learn from the internet. I often joke with people that I have learned how to do all I have done on the house by surfing the web. While this is definitely an exaggeration of the truth, I have learned much from the web.

For example, I have learned how to install a new circuit breaker from the web, and, like Cindy likes to say, I am still alive to tell about it. I have also learned how to install wood flooring from the web. The process is very simple and with some ingenuity can be embellished: see the pictures of our Brazilian Cherry wood floors, with border, that I am currently installing in the living room and will eventually install throughout the house.

From time to time I reach an impasse or need some input, and so I go and search, search , search, until I find the answer. For example, several months ago our windshield wipers on the Saturn started misbehaving. I could turn them on, but could not turn them off unless I turned the car off at precisely the right time: when they were at their lowest position. Since we are in a drought, it has not been very inconvenient, but with the advent of fall and the lower temperatures in the morning which cause condensation on the windshield, it finally had to be fixed. So where did I turn to try to figure out what might be wrong with my 1998 Saturn SL2's windshield wipers? Well, you guessed it: the internet and my friend Google. I entered the search string: "1998 Saturn SL2 windshield wipers do not stop," selected the first proposed site which had a link to a site which contained the answer: replace the motor.

The answer at first did not make any sense. I talked it over with a couple of friends and did some tests and convinced myself that the motor was the problem. So I asked a friend if he could change the motor. And guess what? The site was right, changing the motor did fix the problem. So if you are having the same problem, now you have TWO sources confirming the solution. BTW, the reason it fixed the problem has to do with the gearing in the motor, but I won't go into that here.

So next time you have a question, hop on over to the information superhighway, you never know, you might find the answer to all your know how problems.

More Philosophy and Ecclesiology

Another comment that came to mind last night:

My professor was pointing out one of the flaws of post-modernism: it claims that truth is known in community and that as long as the community agrees that something is the truth, then it is valid in that community, even if that truth would not be agreed upon in the community next door. He correctly pointed out the lack of absolutes this type of thinking displays, and therefore that line of thinking is flawed.

This got me to think of Christendom. Aren't denominations just that: communities that agree something is true, even if its truth is different from the community next door? Isn't this mentality then by parallel flawed? Or am I committing an informal fallacy? Yet, some in Christendom would state that denominations are a positive thing, since they allow unity amongst diversity (viz. thanks to denominations, we can disagree, but since we are separate, we can do that without struggle). Aren't they therefore also denying the absolutes?

Philosophy and Ecclesiology

Tonight, during my philosophy class, my professor stated that one problem with today's culture is that things are often defined by what they do and not by their essence: particulars are used to define things, not universals.

This got me to thinking ... if this is a Christian complaint about the culture, then why do most Christian ecclesiology books commit the same fallacy when defining the church? Why is the church so often defined by function instead of by essence?

Is it that people do not understand the essence of the church? Is it that looking at essence would result in a different ecclesiology? What do y'all think?

Turabian in MS Word 2003

Tired of having one document for your title page and another for the rest of your document? Tired of pulling out your hair while inserting footnotes? Well, you don't have to. Below you will find some simple instructions to help you format your term paper all in one file and to save money on those hair transplants.

You will cover 5+1 lessons:
Lesson 1 - Seeing is believing: how to show your formatting marks
Lesson 2 - First impressions: creating the Title page a la SEBTS / SECWF
Lesson 3 - And the rest of the story: formatting the rest of the pages
Lesson 4 - 1, 2, 3 ... let's number all our pages
Lesson 5 - Footnotes, footnotes ... lots of footnotes
Lesson Misc. - How does she expect me to do that? A list of more tips ...

So ... ready to start? Well, open a New document in MSWord.

To understand what is going on and to better know what you are doing in MS Word, let's get in the habit of showing your formatting marks. To do this click on the paragraph mark symbol on the standard toolbar: Now you will be able to see all your formatting marks (marks which by the way, will not print). Formatting Feature PRESS Formatting Mark space SPACE BAR line break SHIFT + ENTER paragraph break ENTER tab mark TAB page break section breaks

Page breaks are yesterday's tool for separating two pages. Meet your new best friend: section breaks! Section breaks are at the heart of this method of pagination for a term paper. They will not only allow you to easily adjust your margins, but, in combination with headers and footers, will allow you to insert page numbers a la Kate. So let's get right to it ... Go to the menu bar and press Insert, and then Break. In the Break dialog window under Section break types press Next page and then click on OK. Your first page will look as follows: So what have we done so far ... well, you have divided your document into two sections. That means that your document now is actually two documents in one. The first section can be formatted anyway you want it without affecting the other sections. Your title page, that is section one, needs a 3" top margin so go ahead, set the margins ... First of all position your cursor before (to the left of) the Section Break marker on the first page. Now, go to the menu bar and press File, and then Page Setup. In the dialog window under Margins set the Top margin to 3" and the Bottom margin to 1.6". Now you might be asking yourself why should I set the bottom margin to 1.6" when the bottom line of my title page should be at 2". What happens when you set the bottom margin at 2", your bottom line will be at 2.3" from the bottom; setting it at 1.6" allows you to have a bottom line 1.9" from the bottom, which is a lot closer to the required 2". Now finish off your title page by putting all the information required on it. I suggest that you set this page to be double spaced. To do this go to the menu bar and press Format, and then Paragraph. In the dialog window under Spacing set the Line Spacing to Double. Now insert all the required information remembering that the A Paper line needs to be at the center of the page: that is theoretically at 5.5", but practically at 5.6". Congratulations you are now finished with your Title Page!

Now that the Title page has been created it is time to find out how we format the rest of the document. Now ... position your cursor on page two. You will remember that according to 14.10 in the Turabian manual, the first page of your paper, which is considered a new major section will have a 2" top margin, while the rest of the paper according to 14.2 will have a 1" top margin. You could get around the setting margin issue by adding several paragraph breaks, but, as we will see in Lesson 4, that would not help you with page numbers. So, since the first page is different from the other pages, it has to be a different section. Go to the menu bar and press Insert, and then Break. In the dialog window under Section break types press Continuous and then OK. What you have done is make the current page (the first page of your paper, but in reality page two) a section by itself, that is section two. The rest of the document is now section three. The trick here is to realize that everything you do before this section break affects only section two, and everything you do after this section break affects section three. Position your cursor before the section break Go to the menu bar and press File, and then Page Setup. In the dialog window under Margins set the Top margin to 1.9" (because of the section break taking up space a 2" setting will result in a 2.1" top margin), the Bottom margin to 1", and also make sure that the Left and Right margins are set to 1". Click OK. Position your cursor after the section break Go to the menu bar and press File, and then Page Setup. In the dialog window under Margins set the Top margin to 1", the Bottom margin to 1", and also make sure that the Left and Right margins are set to 1". Click OK. Now that you are done formatting the Page, we need to format your paragraphs. Go to the menu bar and press Format, and then Paragraph. In the dialog window under Indentation set the Special to First Line and the By to 0.25" (this will indent the first line of every paragraph by about 5 spaces, see 14.4 in Turabian). Also in the dialog window, under Spacing set the Line Spacing to Double. Click OK. Except for page numbers, which will be discussed in Lesson 4, you are done formatting your document. Do remember that any other chapter or sections (such as a Bibliography, for example) needs to follow the 14.10 Turabian rule. Thus when you are done writing your paper insert a next page section break, and then repeat what you have just done above.

What I am about to show you will NOT work if you have not set up your paper into separate sections, so if you did not read Lessons 1-3, go back and read them now. Never ever ever use Page Numbers from the Insert menu again. To insert page numbers we will now work directly with our headers and footers. Thus the first thing we need to do is to show our headers and footers. Go to the menu bar and press View, and then Header and Footer. This not only will show you your header and your footers, but will automatically position your cursor in the header of the page you are currently working on. Also, you should now see the Header and Footer toolbar: You might have notices that one button on the Header and Footer toolbar is shaded. This button allows you to control how the header (or footer) of each section links to the header (or footer) of the previous section. When it is shaded, you will see the words Same as Previous, at the top right hand corner of your header (or footer). This means that the header (or footer) for this section will be like the header (or footer) of the section before it. Since this is NOT what you want, click on the button. Now the button is no longer shaded and the words Same as Previous no longer appear at the top right hand corner of your header (or footer). You must perform the same action with all the headers and footers in your paper. Word has three buttons that will facilitate your movement: Switch Between Header and Footer for a given section Show Previous takes you to the previous section Show Next takes you to the next section BEFORE YOU DO THAT, if you have not yet written any of the text of your paper (which is probably the case if you have been following this tutorial from the beginning), be forewarned that right now you will not be able to see Section 3. So either wait until you have written some text to insert the page numbers, OR insert a page and a half of paragraph marks in the body of your paper. This will allow you to see Section 3 so that you can insert the page numbers correctly (steps 5-8 below). Once done inserting the page numbers (after step 8), you can safely erase the paragraph marks without loosing the formatting you just did. Once all your header and footers are disconnected, it is time to insert your page numbers. I suggest that you start by positioning yourself on the first text page, that is the page after your title page, to insert your first page number. Thus position yourself in the correct location, that is that is the Footer of Section 2, and press the Insert Page Number button. You will most likely find out that the number that has just been inserted is a 2. Now you really want a 1 on this page, so to change this you will have to format your page numbers by pressing the Format Page Number button. This will open a dialog window where, under Page numbering you can set Start at to 1 and then click on OK. Now you will notice that your page number changed from a 2 to a 1, just what you wanted! Make sure this number is centered according to Turabian 14.9, and you are done with section 2. Now position yourself in the Header of Section 3, and inset a page number by pressing the Insert Page Number button (you only insert it once for the whole section). Don't forget that since section three is the rest of your paper (excluding bibliography or appendices), the page numbers need to right justified according to Turabian 14.9. You have now successfully inserted page numbers. Double check that there are no page numbers anywhere on the title page, or at ten top right corner of the first page, or at the bottom of the succeeding pages. If that is the case: CONGRATULATIONS!

Now that the whole paper is formatter, your last challenge is inserting footnotes and formatting them, and since by now you have become a MS Word expert, let me introduce you to some neat features of MS Word. To insert footnotes, position your cursor where you want to insert your footnote and then go to the menu bar and press Insert, then choose Reference, and then Footnote... . This will open a dialog window. In this dialog window under Location, set Footnotes to Bottom of Page. This will allow you to match rule 14.15 in Turabian. Then press Insert. Rule 14.13 in Turabian specifies the rest of the formatting for footnotes. Here you have a choice, either you format every single note, one at a time as you insert them, or you learn about Styles and Formatting. I will assume that you would rather learn than incessantly format footnotes over and over, so let's do it! The trick to doing this only once is to get it set up from the start, so right after step 2. above, before you type in any text, do the following: go to the menu bar and press Format and then Styles and Formatting.... This displays the Styles and Formatting Task Pane. Here you will see, in the Formatting of selected text window, Footnote Text, right click on it and choose Modify... This will open a dialog window. At the bottom left hand corner of the window click on Format, and choose Paragraph... This will open another dialog window. Under Indentation set Special to First line and By to 0.25" (this indents the beginning of the footnote about 5 spaces). Also under Spacing make sure Line spacing is set for Single and set After to 10pt (this automatically puts a blank line following the footnote). Click on OK. Before you close the Modify Style window, make sure you know whether your professor wants the footnotes in 12pt font or 10 pt font. As a general rule, the college requires 12pt and the seminary 10pt, but this varies from professor to professor. Currently the font is probably set to 10pt, if this is what you want, then go to step 9. below, if it isn't, at the bottom left hand corner of the Modify Style window click on Format, and choose Font.... This will open the Font dialog window in which you can pick the font size you desire. When you are done click OK. Finally click OK on the Modify Style dialog window and you are done. To insert any other footnote all you have to do are steps 1. and 2. above. In the next lesson I answer some frequently asked questions, which might interest you, so go take a look!

How do I ... Bibliography The first thing you should remember is that the Bibliography is a new chapter, and thus needs to be formatted as so (see step 13 in Lesson 3). The secret to formatting the rest of the Bibliography correctly is in the Format, Paragraph option of MSWord. Here are some simple instructions on what to do: Before you press return after your first source, go to the menu bar and press Format, and then Paragraph. This will open a now familiar dialog window. In Indentation set the Special to Hanging and the By to 0.25" (this makes the first line flush and the rest indented 5 spaces to follow rule 9.8 in Turabian). Also under Spacing set the Line Spacing to Single, and After to 12pt (this will make your entries single spaced and automatically place a blank line after each entry to follow rule 9.8 in Turabian). When done click on OK. That's all folks! Block Quotes The secret to formatting a block quote is in the Format, Paragraph option of MSWord. Here are some simple instructions on what to do: Make sure that your cursor is in the paragraph you want to format. Go to the menu bar and press Format, and then Paragraph. This will open a now familiar dialog window. In the dialog window under Indentation set the Left to 0.25" (this will indent the whole paragraph by about 4 spaces, see 5.30 in Turabian). Also in Indentation, depending on what 5.32 in Turabian prescribes, you might have to set the Special to First Line and the By to 0.25". Finally don't forget to set this paragraph to single spacing: under Spacing set the Line Spacing to Single. When done click on OK. That's all folks!

CIS 1100 B workout

I wanted my students to practice.

Students remember:
<b>boldface</b>is for boldface
<i>italics</i>is for italics
<a href="http://www.sebts.edu">links</a> is for links, in this case to www.sebts.edu

CIS 1100 A workout

I wanted my students to practice.

Students remember:
<b>boldface</b>is for boldface
<i>italics</i>is for italics
<a href="http://www.sebts.edu">links</a> is for links, in this case to www.sebts.edu

Meekness is not a weakness - 9Marks Trends

Well, we have come to the last trend that I noticed from A Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on Selecting Elders, a 9Marks article given to me by a brother in Christ. Previous posts in this series have included:

• Intro
• Giftedness is paramount
• Pastor/elders should be selected from within the body

As was seen in the last post in this series, one of the main benefits of selecting pastor/elders from within the body is the opportunity to observe their lives (on a related note, check out this post on Advantages of non-hired, local leaders ). This allows the body really to get to know someone and know if the person has some temper or humility issues. Consider the following quotes:

“One of the lessons I’ve learned and re-learned in more than one church is the danger of selecting a man to serve as elder who has a history of protracted, repeated, and/or unresolved conflict. … This may demonstrate itself in a lack of gentleness, a propensity to taking rigid positions when none are required, an inability to lose graciously, or simply an over-love of debate. Whatever the form it takes, quarrelsomeness is a serious impediment to effect service as an elder; unchecked it is a clear disqualification (1 Tim 3:3). … Meekness is not a weakness.” - Michael Lawrence

“Be careful about recognizing an elder who has an unhealthy interest in theological disputes.” – Ed Roberts

“Quieter men, quiet hearts, are worth their weight in gold and may astonish us by their wisdom.” – Sinclair B. Ferguson

Well said gentlemen! The church is in need of much meekness and humility. Too often believers so believe that they are right, that they do not care who gets run over as long as their ideas get recognized as right. This usually results in strife and division in the body of Christ and a bad witness to the world around it.

Thanks, Dennis, for the article. I have been encouraged by it, and I hope all of you readers have been too.