Monday, January 31, 2011

Question 9: How Has the Bible Been Interpreted Throughout Church History?

In this chapter, Plummer gives a brief survey of nearly 2,000 years of interpretive history.  Understanding how Christians throughout history have interpreted the Scriptures is quite important as there is much to learn from their methods as well as their missteps.  This survey describes the methodology of five interpretive eras.

The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament (A.D. 45-90).  The first place we see Christians interpreting the Scriptures is in the citations of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors.  The citations of such texts have a number of characteristics.

First, NT authors cite the OT Scriptures as reliable accounts of God's prior interventions and communications (e.g., Matt 12:40-41; Rom 4:1-25).  Second, the NT authors respected the contexts of the passages they cited - that is, they were not haphazard in their citations.  Third, the NT authors employed the OT in a typological and messianic way.  Plummer adds, "This means they saw God's prior revelation as anticipatory, reaching its climactic fulfillment in the coming of Messiah Jesus."  Finally, the NT authors did not use the OT in allegorical ways - that is, they did not assign meanings to details of the OT texts that the original authors would not have countenanced.

On typology, Plummer warns, "any typological use of the OT not explicitly sanctioned in the NT should be entertained with great caution."

The Rise of Allegorical Interpretation (A.D. 100-500).  Many of the early church fathers employed this method of interpretation by assigning symbolic significance to textual details.  I agree with Plummer when he says, "If allegory is not intended by the author...then a dangerous misrepresentation of the author's meaning can result [if allegory is used]."  Allegory is not a bad thing, Jesus and Paul used them. It is the illegitimate importation of it that is the problem.  This practice could very well have been adopted from the Greco-Roman world as it employed allegorical methodology in an effort to interpret difficult religious texts.

Allegory's tendency to distance the reader from the literal meaning of the text eventually gave rise to creeds and summaries, like the "rule of faith".  An objective, orthodox interpretation had to be put forward as protection against unorthodoxy and heresy.  Plummer states that it was this repetition of church tradition and the summarization of orthodox doctrine that functionally replaced the primacy of the Bible.

The Fourfold Meaning of Scripture (A.D. 500-1500).  During the medieval period we find the assertion that every biblical text has four levels of meaning: the literal, moral, spiritual (allegorical), and heavenly (eschatological or anagogical).  A good example of this can be found in the fourfold interpretation of Jerusalem: the literal plot of ground in Palestine; the moral nature the human soul; the spiritual Church; and the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem.

This practice became widespread and assumed.  Much of the biblical scholarship during this time was not really exegesis of the text; but the cataloging of church father's interpretations of various passages (for more on this era see my post Getting the Reformation Wrong (A Review)).  While the majority of the church's work was given to this sort of scholasticism, there were many who called for a return to the priority of the literal meaning of the text.

The Return to a More Faithful Interpretive Method (A.D. 1500-Present).  While I agree with the title of this section, I do think it tip-toes on the line of using euphemism (that this interpretive method is the "more faithful" one) to further a point that he does not explicitly address.  Anyway - back to the point.

The Reformation's cry was "back to the sources".  While the reformers sought to give primacy to the Scriptures, they also heavily scrutinized the fourfold method.  Calvin writes, "We ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning."  This interpretive method ultimately seeks to understand the Bible by gaining the sense of the author's actual words according to the norms of language and grammar.  Plummer continues, "For evangelicals, the conscious intent of the human author (whether the original author or a later biblical author in canonical reflection) is the touchstone of interpretation."

I would also add that the "analogy of faith" is the reformational interpretive standard - that Scripture interprets Scripture.

For more reading on this important subject Plummer (and I) recommend:
Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church
A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible
A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient World

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Putting Porn to Death (Part 2 of 3)

I believe C.S. Lewis wrote that the enemy will gladly take your cold to give you cancer.  In this post, part 2 of Putting Porn to Death, I talk about how many of us put the idol of porn down only to pick up another.

See the article here on HolyCulture.net

Friday, January 28, 2011

Reading C.S. Lewis with Joy and Caution

I, like many people, began my life of Christian reading with Lewis's Mere Christianity.  I remember how my mind was challenged, as I struggled through these deep, but understandable, ideas.  I began to see the world differently, and God more clearly.  I was encouraged with clear, reasonable arguments for my newly found faith.

Soon my shelf was full of Lewis as I spent every extra dime on The Problem of Pain, and Surprised by JoyReflections on the Psalms and others.  I loved Lewis and I still do.  I too was "surprised by joy" as I read this legendary communicator.

There was a time, however, when some things began to concern me.  After I became more reformed in my thinking, I remember reading arguments from Lewis as to why the doctrine of Total Depravity was wrong.  There came a point in time when the arguments from Scripture and other theologians pried my fingers away from ole Clive Staples Lewis.

But then I rested and started thumbing through his writings again.  I remember how he would often begin his books with some statement like, "I am not a theologian and don't pretend to be."  Though I would agree with his comment, there are ways in which he is not giving himself enough credit - but there are also ways in which he is spot on.

I won't go into the ways in which Lewis was off a little bit (even though I already mentioned how I disagree with his view on the depravity of man).  Kevin DeYoung has done that for us in a great post that I'd suggest you read if you are a fan of Lewis (or are becoming one!).

You can read his post here.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Daddy on the Trinity

I remember when Dr. Derek Thomas, while teaching us Systematic Theology, said something to the effect of, "If you want to know how well you know the doctrine of the Trinity, just wait until your child asks you to explain it."  I remember giving bit of a smirk as we moved on to the next point.  I must say I haven't thought much of Dr. Thomas's comment until today.

This morning, after our daily devotions in The Jesus Storybook Bible, Emma looks at me and says, "Daddy, I don't understand how Jesus is God and how God is God at the same time...can you explain it to me?"  As I looked her in the eyes, I tried to act cool.  I gave a nonchalant grin and a random correction to Jude (who was doing nothing wrong) while my mind raced for an answer.  Of all the questions that I have been asked this year, again, my little girl stumps me.

So, I went where every good PCA minster goes - YES!  Catechism to the rescue!!!  "Emma," I said.  "Yes Daddy?" she replied.  "Are there more Gods than one?" I asked.  She answered, "Uhh...no?"  I said, "That's right Emma.  There is only One God, in three persons!"  Done.  Question answered!  Yeah right.  Catechism not to the rescue.

Her look said it all.  She didn't say a word, but "Huh?" was written all over her face.  I couldn't just leave her there. While my breathing got a bit heavier, I thought, "Okay...keep cool...plan B."

I tried desperately to think of an analogy.  Ah HAH!  I had it!  I asked her, "Emma...How many shoes are in one pair of shoes?"  She said, "Two."  I said, "See?  You can have more than one shoe in one pair of shoes.  Do you get it?"  She nodded side to side.  CRAP!!!!  Ok...think Scott, think!

AH HAH!  How many people are mommy and daddy?  She showed two fingers.  Then I asked, "How many marriages is that?"  She showed two fingers.  DANGIT!!!!!

So, hanging my head a bit, I said, "Its complicated Emma. Just trust me that there is One God in three persons.  Here...eat your pancakes."

While I have to give DT props for teaching a very thorough, informative and God-honoring course, I must say, after going back over that day in my mind, I don't recall his instruction on how to actually explain the Trinity to our kids!  So, I'm passing this one off on my main man Derek Thomas.  If you read this big guy, I'm gonna need a little help.  In the mean time, I'll take a failing grade for the day for being a knucklehead.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Pain of Predestination

I remember when I hated the doctrine of predestination.  I would go around saying, "Predestination?  I don't believe in that."  I could not bring myself to accept the fact that God decided, before the world and its inhabitants existed, the final destiny of individual sinners (definition loosely taken from Packer's Concise Theology)?  My intense hatred for this doctrine caused me to ignore its obvious usage throughout the New Testament as well as its clear meaning in those contexts.

I won't lie, predestination still doesn't sit well with me sometimes.   I read passages like Romans 9:22-23, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory..." and I can't help but have mixed emotions - emotions of great sorrow mingled with those of sober joy.

Therefore, when people come and ask me about predestination, I have learned to approach the topic with great care and understanding.  I am approached often, and more times than not, the questions are negative in nature.  Like me, many have a hard time realizing that this doctrine is in their Bible.  They come asking how they are supposed to understand it and deal with it.  My answer is a simple one.  It takes all of about three minutes.

First, I explain to them what the doctrine actually means.  Then I ask them what their chief problem is with it.  Without fail, it is that God predestines people to hell - that He decided beforehand that wrath should be poured out on particular people.

I take this opportunity to read Acts 4:27-28, "...for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."  These verses, along with others like Acts 2:23, tell us that God predestined the death of His Son by the hands of lawless men.  In short, at the Cross, God predestined the innocent Son to die for the sins of others.

At this time, I ask, as I have asked my self over a hundred times, "Have you ever struggled with the fact that God the Father predestined God the Son to take the wrath of hell for sinners?"  "Do you struggle more with the fact that guilty sinners were predestined to hell than you do with the truth that the innocent Son was predestined to take your hell?"

Finally, I propose that our primary struggle should be with the fact that God predestined the Cross.  And until we feel the weight of that truth, then we can hardly proceed to struggle rightly with the fact that God predestines the destinies of individual sinners.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Putting Porn to Death (Part 1 of 3)

Over the next three weeks, I will be writing a series of articles entitled Putting Porn to Death.  These articles will be posted on the site www.holyculture.net.  As many of you know, I have long advocated the rising wave of Christian Hip-Hop.  Artists like Lecrae, Trip Lee and Flame have made quite an impact on the industry - even at the secular level.

But there are other artists out there risking it all.  They are bringing a life-changing, gospel-centered message to a culture that desperately needs it.  You may think I'm talking about the "desperate" urban community only, but I'm not.  I'm talking about the white suburban communities as well.  It turns out that these men and women are changing everybody - preaching, as it were, the gospel through an avenue that many well-to-do-white-folk would call nothing less than foolish.

Take Mark Arthur's new album for example "The Obligation."  I was taken back by the honesty and transparency of struggle coupled with the relevance of the gospel.  Death happens and many never get over it.  The truth is, we don't have to.  Death make us uneasy here, while the body of Christ makes that uneasiness bearable and meaningful.

If you've never been to Holy Culture, I would highly recommend visiting the site and having a look around.  Read some of the articles.  Listen to some of the artists.  More than that though, enter a culture where Christ is obviously moving!


Sweet Symphony "Mark Arthur feat. Michelle Bonilla" from Rocksoul on Vimeo.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

My Most Humbling Experience To Date As a Parent

The morning started off wonderfully.  I looked to my side at my beautiful wife - and she was just that - stunning.  Then, as always, the kids, one by one, bombarded us with their cheerful shouts and demands for juice, the potty, and a snack.  We played for a while.

Then we moved to the kitchen table for breakfast.  Everything was going really well there too.  It was a great morning.  Then it happened.  Out of nowhere, one little comment was thrown out.  It led to a deeper one, which led to a deeper one.  Before I knew it an argument began.  This one dug deep.  I stood up and I lost it.

When I acted up as a kid, I got a whoopen.

When I acted up in grade school, I got a "white slip."  Then when I got home, I got a whoopen (or the disciplinary equivalent).

When I acted up in college, I'm not really sure what I got.  But it was something.

When I acted up in the first years of marriage, I got the disciplinary equivalent of a whoopen!

Now, as a dad, when I act up, I get this:


In case you didn't get it, Emma wrote: "I love you dad.  You don't have to slam the refrigerator and drop your coffee mug and slam the door.  From Emma."

Simply put, I'm all jacked up.  I spent the next hour wrestling heavily with my sin.  Then we had a family meeting where I repented to everyone of my wicked pride.  As my wife and little girl forgave me, the heavens opened.  I haven't cried like that in a long time.

This was a difficult post to write.  But I think its important that you know who you are reading.  In all the books I have read, I have never read something that humbled me more than what my five-year-old wrote that day - the day that Christ brought this pastor to his knees with the clumsy words of a child.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Read. Weep. Repent. And Respond. 50 Million Babies...Gone.

I have a deadness in my stomach after reading the headline story yesterday about Kermit Gosnell (I cannot bring myself to call him doctor), a man who made millions of dollars over 30 years, murdering late term babies.  How did he kill them?  He would induce labor and proceed to cut through the baby's spinal cord with scissors.  The injustice represented here is none other than horrific, wicked, and worthy of Divine vindication.


The news just grows dimmer when we understand that Mr. Gosnell represents only a small segment of the abortion industry.  I do not accept the premise that killing late-term delivered babies is worthy of charges, while killing early-term undelivered babies is not.  We must resist the tendency, even amongst pro-lifer's, to presuppose an ontological difference between the two.  Six inches down the birth canal does not change the ontological status of a person.  Stanek furthers this point when he poses the question, "Does where you are define who you are?"  The answer is a moral and obvious "No."

It is also worthy of bringing to light the fact that these horrible acts are legalized in our nation - but unjustly so.  Cal Thomas, in his post Thirty-Eight Years and Fifty Million helps us to understand how this practice became permissible by law:

On January 22, the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, think of it this way: 50 million branches of family trees cut off; 50 million regrets over what might have been; 50 million babies who could have brought joy out of sadness and a future that might have contributed substantially to the human race, snuffed out at the beginning of their lives.  


It is precisely because of the 7-2 Supreme Court majority vote in 1973 read something into the Constitution that isn't there, to wit, that a "right to privacy" means the right to ill an unborn child - even when it is capable of living outside of the womb - that Congress must restore the original intent of the Framers, which includes the "endowed by their Creator" clause in the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution cannot be separated from the Declaration, its philosophical and moral foundation.


For more current reading about abortion and what we, as Christians, can and should do to confront it, I suggest the following:


Al Mohler's What About the Twins? The Deadly Logic of Abortion
Abort73.com

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Problems with the Unbeliever's Faith in Science

Over the past year, I have encountered a number of atheists.  Whether in conversation, or in their publications, the atheistic message seems to be that science has disproven religion.  The evidence, they say, proves the Bible untrue.  Or, I have been given no [scientific] proof of God, therefore, I cannot be expected to believe.  A few of these guys, I have a genuine love for.  And I must confess, in our conversations, they have shown more love and respect for me than I have for them.

In this post, it is my goal to point out some of the fundamental problems with what is commonly called, naturalistic atheism (or, materialism).  For the atheist, nature is all there is, and [scientific] evidence is the key to understanding the nature of reality.  To state the worldview negatively (which is the most common way it is promulgated): nature is best defined by what it is not, namely, a universe beholden to a personal Creator God who sustains it and 'interferes' with 'the laws of nature' in answering prayers and performing miracles.

Due to time constraints, this post will deal only with the naturalistic atheist's appeal to evidence for the basis of knowledge.  Some of my points are but a regurgitation of apologetical responses that I have read and adopted, while others are my personal responses to propositions that I have encountered.  So, here we go.

First, I think it is important that the Christian resist the temptation to concede the atheist's naturalistic worldview from the start.  We tend to do this without knowing it by immediately coming up with a list of evidences for proving the existence of God.  Not only is this philosophically flawed, in that it is logically impossible to reach supernatural conclusions from naturalistic premises; but it is also biblically forbidden (1 Peter 3:15; Proverbs 26:4).  We must honor Christ both in our conclusions and our methodology for reaching our conclusions.

Second,  we must show the atheist that his most fundamental commitments are not to evidence at all.  In doing this we must look past his conclusions to the premises that support them.  The logic goes something like this:  If God is real, there would be evidence for his existence.  There is no evidence for his existence.  Therefore, God is not real.  We must point out that his premises have broken his own scientific rules.

Appealing to evidence as the fundamental proof for the existence of God, is itself, a supernatural claim. It is impossible, due to the limits of human experience and knowledge, to prove the negative claim that supernatural reality (viz., God) does not exist.  In short, a person cannot say that evidence for God does not exist unless they themselves affirm that they have surveyed all of reality - unless, they themselves have supernatural knowledge!

I believe a quote from Van Til sums this up nicely: "In seeking to know anything, the unbeliever must seek to know everything."  This makes knowledge, based solely on evidence, impossible.  This proves the point, that in saying there is no evidence for God, the atheist must embrace this claim by faith, not evidence.

Third, we have to show how empiricism (that we gain knowledge only through sense experience) fails its own test.  Simply put, the claim that "Only that is true which can be verified by science, or empiricism," cannot itself be verified empirically.  We have no evidence that proves that only evidence provides any truth.

Fourth, we must identify the double standard.  I find that many atheists, who claim that scientific evidence provides the basis for their belief, do not hold to evidence at all, but to the testimony of scientists.  In my conversations I have heard things like, "The evidence tells us this or that." or "Science has proven this to be true."  But when I press them on the issue, I have yet to encounter a single person who has actually gone to the science lab or field to see the actual evidence themselves.

Their belief, therefore, is based on the written testimony of scientists or philosophers (who themselves quote the testimonies of scientists!).  In short, they condemn Christians for basing their belief in the written Scriptures, while they base their belief in the written works of others.

The last point provides the basis for my final point (more to come later!).  The worldview that is based solely on evidence is not only ridden with philosophical flaws (as shown above); but it ignores many other things; that our senses often deceive us, that science involves a great deal of untestable theory and theory-laden instrumentation in its application, that science includes interpretation, evaluation, and other fallible human input (even downright lying in some [documented] cases), that human experience is affected and limited by cultural, personal, temporal, and societal expectations and other factors, and that therefore scientists often miss facts that contradict their theories (See McDurmon's book called Biblical Logic - which I highly recommend).

In short, to base one's belief solely on the written findings of science, is highly suspect and fallible.  It is not solid ground.

Finally, we must never forget that a man needs more than evidence to believe.  He needs more than some sign.  And as shown above, we can see that this is indeed true.  In his unbelief, man's deepest commitments are not to evidence at all, but to a deeper commitment; namely, that man is autonomous.  In short, by saying that evidence will convince him, he is not being rational at all, but rebellious (John 3; Luke 16:29-31).  We all need more than science.  We need a Savior.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Pajamas, Parenting and Sanctification

Okay, so this is not the normal post, but I thought I'd share one of the most frustrating things in parenting.  When I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God why in the world He gave babies certain reflexes.  To you who are parents, you know exactly what I'm talking about...

How about the reflex that tells the baby, "Hey!  Baby!  When your daddy is trying to put your arm in the arm hole of your pajamas...Yeah...at that moment, try and put your hand in your mouth.  That'll make Daddy really excited about your development!

Then show him how strong you really are!  Flex really hard so that when he pulls your arm away from your mouth, your whole body comes off of the changing table!  He might look a bit frustrated, but he's really not.  Keep doing it.  He'll love you more as you show him how you can do it with the other hand as well!"

And what about the other reflex (or whatever it is) that tells the baby, "Hey!  Baby!  When your daddy is trying to button those hundreds of buttons on the legs of your pajamas...Yeah...Kick as fast as you can - back and forth, back and forth...really fast.  Show him how you are gonna be a soccer player when you get older.  He will love that!

Then slow down until he gets the last button almost snapped...wait...wait...he's almost got it...NOW!  Kick, kick, kick, kick baby kick!  Yeah!  Good job!  See how happy daddy is!  Look at his face - that frustrated look is no frustration at all.  He is really saying to kick some more!

Okay - that was my vent.  Out!

Question 8: Why is Biblical Interpretation Important?

With Question 8, Plummer begins a new series of questions related to the discipline of interpretation.  If questions 1-7 (part 1) addressed the nature of the biblical text, questions 8-20 (part 2) address the interpretation of the biblical text.

Because different groups come to different conclusions, all appealing to the same Bible, proper interpretation is essential.  Not only does the discipline help us to understand how Christians differ from other cultic sects (i.e., Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses); it also helps us understand how passages of the Bible relate to one another, to the community of believers, and to the everyday life of the ordinary Christian.

Plummer begins with defining interpretation.  He writes, "To interpret a document is to express its meaning through speaking or writing.  To engage in interpretation assumes that there is, in fact, a proper and improper meaning of a text and that care must be taken to not misrepresent the meaning.  When dealing with the Scriptures, to properly interret a text is to faithfully convey the inspired human author's meaning of the text, while not neglecting divine intent (See Question 3).

The Scriptures Show the Need for Biblical Interpretation.  In this section Plummer lists and comments on numerous passages that clearly demonstrate that there is both a correct and incorrect way to understand the Scriptures.  I will cite one bellow, while others include Psalm 119:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Ephesians 4:11-13; and 2 Timothy 4:2-3.

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:15, He writes, "In this verse, Paul exhorts Timothy to "correctly handle," or "rightly interpret" (orthotomounta), the word of truth, that is, the Scriptures.  Such a warning implies that the Scriptures might be wrongly handled or wrongly interpreted."

Language and Culture Show the Need for Biblical Interpretation.  If all people had was the Biblical text in the original language (in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic), most would immediately recognize their need for a translation of the text.  Plummer adds that "translation is the most fundamental form of interpretation...Yet, the translation of a text is not like the repetition of mathematical rules simply with different symbols.  All languages have cultural elements and assumed historical backgrounds that cannot be expressed with the same number of words or exactly parallel grammatical constructions.  Thus there is the need for additional study, explanation, and interpretation of a text."

I like the example that he provides from Matthew 1:19.  In this text, Joseph ponders ending his engagement to Mary.  The text calls this "divorce," which is an awkward word to describe the action.  But when one understands the cultural context - that ancient Jewish customs necessitated a divorce to break a betrothal (or, engagement) - he/she finds the "Scripture knot" is untied quite easily.

Plummer continues, "If we are familiar with the different time periods, genres, and anticipations/fulfillments of Scripture, we are better able to confidently approach any individual part of the Bible.  Assuming the unified nature of the Bible, as well as the progressive unfolding of God's plans (Heb 1:1-3), it is clear that a person with an established understanding of God's overarching purposes will be better equipped to understand individual pieces of the story.  Of course, time and study are acquired to attain such greater familiarity with the text."

He ends this chapter by explaining, what is commonly called, the analogy of faith - that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.  He says, "This means that the broader biblical context will help one properly understand any individual passage."

Certain verses in particular books of the Bible are difficult to understand unless the context of that book is first understood.  Plummer gives 1 Jn 5:6 as an example.  One can understand what is meant by "water" and "blood" when the broader context of the letter (and of the NT) is grasped.  This verse is affirming the divine-human nature of Christ, seen both in his baptism (water) and death/resurrection (blood).  This interpretation takes into consideration the unity and message of the New Testament, the purpose of the letter itself, and the cultural background of incipient Gnosticism.

Plummer's last point is also worthy of quotation: "Careful interpretation is important because assumed theological presuppositions often can drive interpretations...Through careful biblical interpretation, the student of Scripture can become aware of others' biases, as wel as coming to acknowledge and assess the student's own hermeneutical predilections."

This chapter (and consequently this post) was/is not intended to provide an exhaustive study on the history, discipline, or difficulties of interpretation.  Many questions that this chapter raises will be answered in later chapters.  For those that are left unanswered, I would recommend the following books on Biblical interpretation - or, hermeneutics.

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Goldsworthy

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Jesus with Porn on His Laptop

Did the title make you uneasy?  That was the point.  Its a point that is meant to work its way into our nice-and-neat little lives, where we do all the right things, and where even the bad things we do make us look okay.

This title makes us cringe because it reeks of blasphemy.  If Jesus ever had a laptop, he certainly would not be using it for such ends!  Sinners do things like that, not Jesus!

We don't like the title because it is an indictment.  In it, we can hardly bring ourselves to read the two words on the same line.  Jesus...porn.  Jesus and porn do not go together - especially in a relational manner.

Here is the truth.  The horror we feel when we consider this title is precisely the horror we should feel when we say things like, "Jesus died for my sins."  But I confess, the horror isn't in here like it should be.  The reason is simple.  Because my sins aren't bad enough (as I see them) to bring the horror thundering into my chest when I think of them being placed on the spotless Lamb of God.

This profound truth isn't mine.  This isn't an insight that came to me while in deep study.  It didn't even come from one of my professor's lectures in seminary. This life-changing, gospel-centered, eye-opening insight came crashing into my life a few years ago as I listened to Shai Linne's song The Cross.  And as I continue to listen, I continue to weep.

The Atonement
This album changed my life
Here are the lyrics that have been changing me for the last few years:

We’re now in the realm of the sublime and profound

With God at the helm it’s about to go down
The Father’s wrath precise will blast and slice the priceless Master Christ as a sacrifice
Willingly, He’s under the curse
To be treated as if the Son was the worst scum of the earth
The scene is the craziest
Jesus being treated as if He is the shadiest atheist
How is it the Messiah is in the fiery pit
As if He was a wicked liar with twisted desires?
The One who’s sinless and just
Punished as if He was promiscuous and mischievous with vicious lust
The source of all godly pleasure
Tormented as if He was a foul investor or child molester
How could He be bruised like He was a goodie two-shoes who doesn’t think that she needs the good news?
He’s perfect in love and wisdom
But He’s suffering as if He constructed the corrupt justice system
We should mourn at the backdrop
Jesus torn like He’s on the corner with crack rock with porn on His laptop
What is this, kid? His gifts are infinite
But He’s hit with licks for religious hypocrites
He’s the Light, but being treated like
He’s the seedy type who likes to beat His wife

He’s treated like a rapist, treated like a slanderer
Treated like a racist or maybe a philanderer
Jesus being penalized like He had sin inside
Filled with inner pride while committing genocide
I could write for a billion years and still can’t name
All of the sins placed on the Lamb slain
But know this: the main thing the cross demonstrated
The glory and the holiness of God vindicated

If you have never heard this song - or this album for that matter, I would strongly suggest getting it.  These guys are forsaking all for the sake of the Gospel.  We must continue to support them in prayer, as we are encouraged by their work.


Monday, January 10, 2011

Question 7: Which is the Best English Bible Translation?

There are a few questions that come my way on a regular basis.  The most common (by far) is, "Wow!  How tall are you?" to which I answer, "One inch taller than the average doorway."  The second question that typically follows is, "Did you play basketball?" to which I answer, "Haven't you seen me play for the Mav's?"  After the answer, "REALLY!" I say, "No.  Not really!"  Okay...back to the point.

Given my vocation, the third most common question I get is, "Which translation of the Bible do you recommend?"  I was not surprised to read that Plummer is asked the same question as well.  He writes, "During the birth of my oldest daughter, the attending physician even asked me this question in the midst of my wife's labor!"

The Original Languages of the Bible.  Plummer begins with a brief history of Biblical translation.  The Bible was originally written in three different languages over a period of nearly 1500 years (1400 B.C. - A.D. 90).  As we have stated before, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few portions written in Aramaic.  The New Testament was written in Greek.

While sections of the OT were translated into a few other languages (mainly Greek), as soon as the gospel began to spread into other cultures, the entire Bible was translated into many other languages - Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, etc.

History of the English Bible.  This section was perhaps my favorite of the chapter.  Plummer writes about the dawn of the reformation in the 14th century: "In 1382, the famous reforming church leader John Wycliffe (1330-1384) translated the entire Bible into the English of his day (Middle English; from Latin)...Followers of Wycliffe continued to call for reform of the church and the monarchy based on the biblical truth they were reading (for more on this era see my post Getting the Reformation Wrong). Very quickly, church officials and the king judged the availability of the Bible in English as a threat to the status quo.  In 1414, reading the Bible in English became a capital offense (that is, punishable by death).  In 1428, Wycliffe's body was exhumed and symbolically burned at the stake."

Following in Wycliffe's footsteps was William Tyndale (1494-1536), who published the first printed English New Testament; translated from the Greek original.  The first complete printed English Bible appeared in 1535, called the Coverdale Bible (Coverdale was Tyndale's assistant).  In 1536, however, Tyndale was captured by followers of King Henry VIII, and was strangled and burned at the stake.

Plummer continues, "As he was dying, Tyndale reportedly prayed, 'Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.'  Only one year later, Tyndale's request was granted, as the king officially licensed the distribution of an English translation of the Bible...During the next hundred years, a spate of English Bible translations were produced, most of them heavily dependent on Tyndale's seminal work."

Approaches to Translation.  Unlike those who have preceded us, we have the privilege of choosing between many different Modern English translations.  Rather than asking which translation is "best", Plummer says we should recognize that all translations have strengths and weaknesses (exceptions would include those translations produced by cultic/sectarian groups like Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT and others).

On the spectrum of translations most fall within the spectrum of two extremes.  On one side is the functionally equivalent translation, which seeks to accurately convey the same meaning in a new language.  The New Living Translation (NLT) is a good example of this type of translation.

On the other side is the formally equivalent translation, which is concerned to preserve, as much as possible, the number of words and grammatical constructions from the original.  These translations are almost inevitably written in a stilted English style.  The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV) are examples of formally equivalent translations.

Plummer adds, "For reading larger portions of Scripture (reading through the Bible in one year, for example), a person might choose a functionally equivalent translation.  For careful verse-by-verse study, one might prefer a more formally equivalent translation."  There is another class of Bible that Plummer talks about called the paraphrase, which is not really a translation but an "attempt to freely word the meaning of the Biblical text."

In my personal study and reading, I use the ESV (English Standard Version).  I tend to like the formally equivalent translations.  While the ESV preserves the number of words and grammatical constructions [as much as possible], it communicates in a style that resembles functionally equivalent translations.  In short, I find in the ESV the best of both worlds.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Problem of Unbelief - No Basis for Knowledge at All.

The greatest proof of Christianity is that without it, one can prove nothing at all.  Statements like this have lead me to love and embrace the presuppositional apologetic of Cornelius Van Til.  Though others have communicated the method more clearly (i.e. Bahnsen, Frame and others), I have found reading Van Til himself very beneficial.

I just finished his Christian Theory of Knowledge.  I must say that while I learned a ton, there were parts that left me scratching my head.  Allow me to share with you a comment that he made concerning the unbeliever's epistemology - that is, the theory of knowledge that answers questions like, "What is knowledge?",  "How is knowledge acquired?" and "How do we know what we know?"  Van Til writes:

If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point.  Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality.  Then he will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all.  Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing.  This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology...The only way by which this dilemma can be indicated clearly is by making plain that the final reference point in predication is God as the self-sufficient One.


This quote deserves much reflection both in its meaning, consequences, and outworking.  It simply states that in order for an unbeliever to know anything, he/she must know everything.  Everything is impossible to know, therefore they have no basis for knowing anything at all.  Another Van Til statement that I come back to often goes something like this, "without God there is no basis for predication whatsoever."

These things may sound a bit academic.  I would propose otherwise.  Embracing and understanding the presuppositional apologetic has given so much to my faith as well as fueling the evangelical flame in my heart.  While commonly accused of being unbelievingly narrow; it has only served to broaden my love for God and others.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Free Kindle Book - Our God by Octavius Winslow

Here is a free book offered by Monergism.com.  The book title is "Our God" by Octavius Winslow.  I have not read this book but have put it on my reading list due to Beeke's endorsement:

"Do you yearn to know God better?  Read this book thoughtfully and prayerfully.  "Out God" may well be Octavius Winslow's very best book, for what better subject can a believer desire to meditate on than the character of the triune God whom he loves, worships and fears?  And who is better suited to expound the grandeur and to stammer about the infinity of such a subject than this author who always seems to write profoundly and winsomely about the most sacred themes with remarkable reverence and a commanding flow of language?  This warmly experimental treatment of the attributes of God engages the mind and heart as no other that I have read on this glorious subject.  Here is angel's food."  - Joel R. Beeke


Enjoy the free book.  Here is another link for other ebook formats.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Getting the Reformation Wrong (A Review)

I just finished James R Payton's book, Getting the Reformation Wrong.  Being an historian, Payton offers a condensed, but thorough summary of Medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation history.  Some of the writing is a bit difficult to follow and must be approached in an "Inception-like" way - that is, there are a lot of facts given that provide a necessary basis for understanding the facts that follow.

In the first chapter, "The Medieval Call for Reform," Payton shows how this period set the stage for Reformation.  In short, these were grim times that stripped everything from the people.  Instead of getting answers and aid from the Church, they stood waiting, receiving little to no help at all.  

Payton comments, "The devastating problems...regarding weather, agricultural productivity and disease - all compounded by wars, peasant rebellions and the uncertainties involved in the emergence of national states in Western Europe - were not "secular" concerns, unrelated to the church...people expected that the teaching and practice of Christianity should provide solutions...[but] The Church's inability or failure to do this only exacerbated the frustration people felt toward the church and its leaders and prepared the way for other Christian leaders, in the sixteenth century, to receive a welcome hearing."

While the government of the church was marked by schism, corruption, and immorality (during the Avignon Papacy), the teaching of the church, following Aristotelian methodology, entered the age of scholasticism.  This section is for those who love both history and philosophy.  We learn here about Aquinas, who was a Dominican scholastic, and those who apposed his believe in the primacy of reason - namely, the Franciscans (primacy of will) and followers of Occham (primacy of [blind] faith).

Because of this rise of scholasticism, writings tended to focus on answering theological questions like, religious authority, justification, sacraments, divine predestination, and so on.  This, you see, was quite frustrating to the people.  The lay person was unable to follow the complex arguments of most of the scholastic writing.  Payton adds, "And the common people wanted and needed an approach to Christian truth that would make clear what the Christian faith taught and bring it to bear on the lives they lived."

Another chapter I really enjoyed was "Renaissance: Friend or Foe?"  In summary, Payton attempts to show that the history of history is fairly young.  Before the Renaissance history was recorded rather achronistically, as it focused less on the horizontal movements and more on the vertical.  History up to this point was recorded and assessed on a scale of moral rectitude - an unchanging standard applicable in all times and places.  History, in other words, was more concerned with moral teaching than recording chronological events from an unbiased perspective.

This lead to the rise of humanism (which is not the same as modern humanism as we understand it).  The humanists were not concerned with promoting a philosophical agenda; but more on grammar, poetry, rhetoric and history.  Because of the corruption of the medieval period, the Renaissance looked back to the ancients of Greece and Rome for guidance.  They studied the Scriptures and early church fathers with diligence and with the intent on preparing students for full lives spent in service of their communities.

An understanding of humanists and their agenda is critical for not getting the Reformation wrong.  Luther was a scholastic; but by the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, all but one of the more than thirty Protestant religious leaders in the Lutheran camp had been trained in northern Christian humanism.

This goal of this review is simply to give you a taste of the chapters that follow.  Chapters like, "What the Reformers Meant by Sola Fide" and "What the Reformers Meant by Sola Scriptura."  These chapters  serve to disarm many misunderstandings.

Sola Scriptura, according to Payton, did not mean that Scripture was the only authority, but that it was the only unquestionable authority.  The Reformers were well learned in patristics, treated them in high regard, and were hesitant to stray from their teachings.  The key point to understand, however, is that they were fallible and thus questionable, whereas the Scriptures were not.

Sola Fide, according to Payon and as understood/taught by the Reformers, is well represented in the following "creedal" statement: Faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone.

I would suggest this book to anyone looking to gain a deeper understanding of the history, teaching, teachers, opposition and aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.  It was a good read.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Deep Breath We Don't Take When Hearing, "God So Loved..."

John 3:16 has become the verse everyone knows.  For most, it is probably the first verse they memorized as a child, or new believer.  While this is a great thing, it can also be a not so good thing.  Common things in life often become invisible things.  We have built into our human anatomy an "inhibitory response" that makes us forget common things.  Take the shirt you have on right now for example.  You forgot about it didn't you.  Give thanks to the inhibitory response for that.  Otherwise, the cloth hitting your skin every second would drive you crazy.

This is what has happened with John 3:16.  A statement that should cause us all to take the deep breath of astonishment, does little more than remind us of a WWF wrestler, or something that Tim Tebow advertised on the little black strip under his eye.

The reality is, however, this verse is scandalous.   It is exactly what we need to hear in our day.  The "inhibitory response" that has dragged this verse into our mental cobwebs, has also dragged us into a lifestyle of moralistic selfishness.  Because this verse doesn't carry a punch anymore, neither do we.

I now have a mental picture in my head of a medic trying to revive a person who is in cardiac arrest.  Conventional CPR just isn't working.  The medic has now resorted to violently pounding the person's chest to get their heart beating again.  This is what we need.  And this is also what we need to be doing for others.

This is what Jesus did as he was speaking to Nicodemus in John chapter 3.  Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews.  He was a religious guy who had it all together.  He came to Jesus one night and spoke with him.  In short, the conversation goes back and forth about the nature of salvation.  Nicodemus is convinced that his own reasoning abilities have shown him and his buddies that Jesus is a teacher from God.  Jesus responds by saying, "Your reasoning abilities are squat.  You need more than a sign.  You need to be born again or else you cannot even see the Kingdom of God."

Nicodemus thought his religious knowledge would provide him acceptance before the Almighty.  After all, he was very different from sinful Gentiles.  He followed the rules.  He did everything right.  Jesus showed him otherwise.

Jesus takes the next few moments to lump Nicodemus into a category he would have never lumped himself into.  It is a category called the "world."  This word in this context does not mean "every single human being on the planet."  It carries with it the categorical connotation of "the world" - both Jews and Gentiles.  But I would take it even further to mean "the world" - the sinful, jacked up, rebellious, dark "world" (cf. 1:5, 9-11; 3:19).  While Nicodemus thought the problem with the "world" was Gentile sinners; Jesus told him the problem with the world was Nicodemus himself!

If we are not careful, we too, will exclude ourselves from the "world." To guard ourselves from this we must define the word properly.  Allow me to give a 21st century definition:

World [wurld] -noun
1.  the guy you look up on the sex offender website to make sure he does not live in your neighborhood
2.  the kid who punches your kid in the mouth, that you now detest to the point you want him expelled
3.  the lady who killed her children by drowning each of them in the bathtub
4.  the guys wearing hoods, standing behind an innocent missionary, who then proceed to decapitate the missionary, along with his family, with a steak knife
5.  the lazy guy, who has no job, lives off of the government, and rides around town in a $40,000 car
6.  the girl at school who is known for her "history" with just about every guy in town
7.  the people who own the porn shops next to my church
8.  the 70-year-old guy who was trying to get into one of the porn shops one Sunday morning at 9am
9.  the doctor that considers it his life's mission to abort little babies
10.  the person who's picture is on your license
11.  the guy who posted this blog

That's the world God loved so much that Jesus, the Son of God bled.  When we look down upon people because they are so "lost", we must understand that those are the ones He came to save. If we do not consider ourselves as part of the categorical "world" in the Jn 3:16 sense of the term; if we do not consider ourselves "lost", then we must conclude that Jesus didn't come for us (Luke 19:10).

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Why are We Burning Babies?

I will never forget the first time I read about the horrible things that happened during the reign of Manasseh.  The text hit me as disturbingly descriptive, "And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom..." (2 Chronicles 33:6).  This man killed his children.  But all the while, he was conducting all of his practices as a worshiper of God.

In our nation today, the reality of abortion - the killing of babies - is unmistakable and, without argument, one of the most wicked practices our world has ever seen.  The practice is wrong.  It is irrational.  It is also an occasion for us, as Christians, to pray for the justice of God to prevail in our day.

While our efforts to have the practice abolished are both necessary and justified, if they remain targeted simply at the practice, they are doomed to fail.  We may succeed in stopping abortion, but I fear that we will fail at killing its cause.  There is a root to the wickedness.  If we merely prune the shoot, it may grow back as a tree.  Pruning abortion will only result in strengthening what succeeds it.

As Christians, the best way to get to the root is to ask the question, "Why?"  This is the question that distinguishes us from all other moral societies.  By merely addressing the "what" (namely, abortion), we are one with the Muslim and other religious cultures.  However, by addressing the "why," we are one with Christ alone.

As we read the text of 2 Chronicles 33, the answer to the "Why?" is clear.  Manasseh burned his sons "as an offering" (v.6).  He erected altars to the Baals, and made Asherahs, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them (v.4).  Manasseh was an idolator (v.7).  He was following the commandments of another.

We must understand that when we see sinful behavior, it is not enough to say, "I can't believe he/she is doing that!" Or, "You better stop doing that!"  Rather, we have to stop and ask why they are doing it.  I have written about this before, but I feel that I must say it again.

When you see the commandments of God being broken, what you are really seeing is the commandments of another (namely, an idol) being followed.  (For example: when your child snatches a toy away from another child, he/she is loving the toy more than the child).

As Christians, who bear the Sword of the Spirit, we trace the "Why?" back to the idol, and we apply the death blow there.  With our Sword, we cut its throat.  If we simply say, "Stop snatching that toy!" we may succeed at stoping the behavior; but we fail at stopping the idolatry.

Killing idols is a bloody practice.  This is also dangerous territory where we might get cut ourselves.  Thats why our tendency is to sit back and avoid asking "Why?".  We like to make judgments about what is right and wrong.  We even like to preach, teach, and write about it in our blogs.  But answering the question "Why?" demands that we enter into the "octagon", as it were, to fight.  Idols don't play nice.  And they often won't go down until the last round.

We'd rather not see the idol - for, in seeing, we know our duty is to have it out.  The only way is redemption - deliverance at a price.  We don't want know why b/c our conscience will drive us crazy.  So, in our moralistic activity, we walk by rather ugly homes saying, "Man! I wish they would clean the outside of their house!  It's making our neighborhood look bad!"

So, we walk by (quickly) and retreat back to our tidy homes.  All the while, the people inside remain dead.  Our Lord, however, demands that we knock, or perhaps even break the door down.  He demands that we bring the light of the Gospel in to confront the darkness.  This might require spending the night there.  We might even need to bring the inhabitants home with us.

Why did the girl on MTV decide to have an abortion?  Why did she change her mind about the nature of her baby - finally calling her aborted child "nothing but a little ball of cells"?  And how could she justify this by saying it was ultimately for the benefit of the child?  The answer is certain. Idolatry.

This young lady is forsaking the Sovereign Lord and following the commandment of another.  What was that commandment?  Thou shalt be comfortable at all costs.  Her actual statement was, "I chose this path and I think about how stressing things would have been if I haven't made the one I made."  She murdered a child so that she wouldn't have to stress.

This girl needs the gospel.  She needs to know that God is the giver and sustainer of all of life.  She needs to know that, by placing her faith in Christ, she would lack no essential thing.  He alone is faithful to provide.  He never lies like idols do!

She needs to understand that the idol that promised to give her a life without stress, has given her a life without her baby.  In promising her comfort, it gave her distress - and unless repentance comes quickly, she will be forced to embrace the wrath of the Lamb, who will vindicate the life she took.

We must bring the gospel to the world.  We must share the news of forgiveness - the penalty deserved is paid by Another.  This is the gospel of Christ Jesus the Lord.

Let us join in our efforts to have abortion abolished.  But let us also join in a deeper, more significant task; namely, taking the gospel (that is, your life and message in Christ) to the millions of girls (and women), who watched that episode of 16 and Pregnant, and, who are now seriously considering whether or not it is right to view an unborn child as merely "a little ball of cells."

Monday, January 3, 2011

Question 6: Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?

We are continuing our overview of Plummer's 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible.  It is my intention to get through this book in 2011, with hopes of writing, at least, every week.  One of my resolutions is to finish what I begin - so here goes.

This week's question is "Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?"  Most people take the Bible for granted, giving little thought, study and reflection about the process of how the Book became our "only authoritative rule [canon] of faith and practice."

Plummer approaches the subject from a Protestant point of view.  It is a view that I too, presuppose and value greatly.  From the Protestant perspective, it is important to understand that the canon is not an authorized collection of writings (in that the church conferred its authority or approval upon a list of books).  Rather, the canon is a collection of authoritative writings.  Plummer adds, "The biblical writings have an inherent authority as works uniquely inspired by God.  Canonization is the process of recognizing that inherent authority, not bestowing it from an outside source."

It is often not until one is confronted with a differing view (like that of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox canon), that certain questions are asked.  Who determined that 39 books would be in the Old Testament, and that 27 would be in the New?  Why did they choose these books and not others?  What am I supposed to do about certain "gospels" that I hear about on the Discovery Channel? Is the canon closed?

Old Testament Canon.  To summarize the canonization of the OT, Plummer quotes Kaiser: [There was a] progressive recognition of certain books as being canonical right from their inception by readers and listeners who were contemporaries with the writers and who are thereby in the best position to determine the claims of the writers."  Plummer continues, "It seems clear that by the time of Jesus, most Jews were in agreement as to their own canon - a list that matches our current OT in content."

New Testament Canon.  About the New Testament, Plummer writes, "Compared to the OT canon, we know much more about the formal recognition of the books of the New Testament."  He then lists the criterion by which the early church recognized the New Testament books.  They had to be: 1) Apostolic.  That is, they had to be written by or tied closely to an apostle (an authorized eyewitness of Jesus); 2) Catholic, in that they were widely, if not universally (hence the term "catholic"), recognized by the churches; and 3) Orthodox, or, not in contradiction to any recognized apostolic book or doctrine.

The first 27-book list that matches what we have today, is the list by Athanasius in his Easter letter (letter 39) of A.D. 367.  Further, there were two early church councils (Hippo Regius, A.D. 393, and Carthage, A.D. 397) that confirmed the 27-book list.

Though much more can be said about the formation and recognition of the NT canon, I will cite two quotations that I found very helpful.  First, on the process of recognition.  T.C. Hammond describes the historical process in four points: 1) The NT books were written during the period A.D. 45-100; 2) They were collected and read in the churches A.D. 100-200; 3) They were carefully examined and compared with spurious writings A.D. 200-300; and 4) Complete agreement was obtained A.D. 300-400.

Second, on the agreement of recognition.  Barker, Lane and Michaels observe: "The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same 27 books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived.  All that thee several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character.  When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essential of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the NT serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level."

To learn more about the Apocrypha, I would suggest reading getting a copy of the book and reading.  I would also recommend Carson's work on the subject titled, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: An Evangelical View.

Is the Canon Closed?  Plummer ends the chapter by answering this very significant question.  He writes, "According to the early church's categories for canonicity (apostolic, catholic, orthodox), it would be impossible to have any additions to the canon.  For example, even if a genuine and orthodox letter of the apostle Paul were discovered, that letter would not have had widespread usage in the early church (that is, it could never claim catholicity).  The canon of Scripture is closed."

This chapter does a great job of informing us on a very large and significant subject.  This is a great introduction for any Christian who desires to know their Bible better.  And it serves as a good beginning to any student for further study.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

How Do I Parent My Children Through Christmas?

We didn't have a lot growing up.  Getting something nice was reserved for special times of the year, like Christmas or our birthday.  In many ways giving was sacrificial.  It was special.  There was a surprise factor involved because, even though we asked for things, we were not completely certain we would get them.  All of this made Christmas a day that my year revolved around.  I anticipated it.  I longed for it.

But I don't anymore.

Things have changed in our day.  With prosperity, credit cards and overwhelming availability, gifts have become commonplace.  Buying a toy here and a toy there is no big deal.  When our kids say they want something, we just go get it.  Its that simple.

I don't especially like waiting either.  My Kindle is a perfect example.  I ordered it in October as an "early Christmas present".  As a child I had to wait.  These days, however, rather than adding what I want to my Christmas list, I add them to my Amazon Cart.  Instead of checking the days off on the calendar, I click the "Order Now" button (with the express shipping option, of course!).  I used to wait months, now I can barely wait 2 days.

I will get to the point.  The way my children experience Christmas and the way I did are very different.  As a kid, Christmas was all about presents.  Why?  Because presents were very rare.  I only got them two days a year.  But what happens when presents become commonplace?  Christmas looses its luster.  It becomes, for all practical purposes, just another day.

How do we rescue Christmas?  Well, the answer is obvious.  We make Christmas less about presents and more about Christ.  But how do we do this when our kids are getting, literally, dozens of presents!  And I'm not sure that Christ is the center when the presents supposedly come from Santa (that's another post altogether!).  And I just haven't figured out how to keep my little one's from the danger of idolatry when they are literally overwhelmed with barbies and cameras and cars and whatever else they got.

This year I am hoping to lead in a way that makes next year's Christmas (Lord willing) more special.  I know I personally did not set my eyes on Christ like I should have.  I'd like to share some of my ideas.  I would also love to hear yours.

First, I'd like to get rid of "early Christmas presents."  Too many presents throughout the year rob Christmas of its joy.  I think there is something good about waiting.  There is something godly about anticipating a future "Day."  I also think there is something ungodly about trying to drag that "Day" closer.  Early Christmas presents (being a prime example) are one way to have Christmas gifts in our own time.  But Christ came "at the right time" (Rom 5).  Also, when we wait, we realize better that we are not in control.  Time is often a great teacher of God's sovereignty.  Time is also necessary component for understanding true biblical hope.

Second, I'd like to think hard about the presents we give.  Do I want my family to have a ton of superficial "things"; or, do I want them to have a few meaningful gifts.  I have no idea how to do this; but I think that a true gift is one that promotes gratitude, community, and Christ-centered worship.  I'd like to take this year, with Katie, and prepare a gift for our kids that will "keep them from idolatry" (1Jn 5:21) and that will lead them to Christ.  There has to be a gift that, when given, will help them receive Christ better - one that will teach us all about true biblical faith.

Third, I'd like to get the whole family involved in giving gifts to others.  If it is truly better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), then why do we, the parents (and grandparents), get to have all the fun on Christmas?!  Could it be that we don't really believe that it's better to give?  I cannot help but think that if we give in such a way that promotes faith (receiving the greatest Gift) and hope (an understanding that we now have that Gift, but anticipate it's full consummation), then we will all overflow with a true biblical love - we will long for others to have the same Gift we have.

Finally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can make Christmas better.   I am writing this post as a flawed (and new) father.  My oldest is 5 now.  I am also writing as a new pastor who is trying to help keep my family and flock in "the race".  I am concerned that Christmas may be more of a hinderance to that than a help.  I covet your comments, concerns, corrections and advice.

Peace to you all and a happy new year!