Paternity Test

Why Blogging is not a Sacrament

Catechism Buzz: The Effective Reveal

So the main advantage man has is his nature and God's work in creation, but it turns out that this is also our first place in which to find idols -- that is, in ourselves, and in the one place where God actually did put His image for our sake.

And as I said last time, everybody is willing to assume "God" as long as God doesn't say something specific to us -- but He has said something specific to us, and it puts our opinions about this image of Himself in us to shame.



The Larger Catechism does a fine job of working out the meaning of God's word, but here is the one thing all of us miss -- especially us "Calvinists": the only place God effectively reveals himself so that our errors can be overcome is in His word, and by the power of His Spirit. That means our arguments with people are not very likely to change their minds; our nice activities which may clothe and feed them are not the way God reveals himself to people; our books and conferences aren't going to reform us or anyone else in the world; and may God forbid that our politics, of all things, save even a single soul.

The way by which God effectively reveals himself so that men may be saved is through His word, and by the power of His Spirit. Think on that as you worship Him this weekend.

Catechism Buzz: Plainly Declared, but Badly Interpreted (2)

It's funny that our error here is that we sense something greater than ourselves in our very nature, and in the work of Creation, but that rather than seek it (that is: Him) out to see what he has to say for himself, we turn to ourselves as if we were a sufficient means to understanding that Creator.

That, in spite of our miserable track record. In the recent past, we thought thalidomide was a great sedative for pregnant women; we thought the United Nations would solve the problem of war; we think we can accidentally change the earth's climate to "deadly", but we're worried that we will not be able to turn it around on purpose.

There's something inside us which we can feel and believe in even when it fails us, and we're ore likely to turn to that than to seek out what it really is and why it calls out to us. We are on the one hand utterly willing to believe this:

The heavens declare the glory of God; 
   the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 
Day after day they pour forth speech; 
   night after night they reveal knowledge. 
They have no speech, they use no words; 
   no sound is heard from them. 
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, 
   their words to the ends of the world.

and then completely reject this:

The law of the LORD is perfect, 
   refreshing the soul. 
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, 
   making wise the simple. 
The precepts of the LORD are right, 
   giving joy to the heart. 
The commands of the LORD are radiant, 
   giving light to the eyes. 
The fear of the LORD is pure, 
   enduring forever. 
The decrees of the LORD are firm, 
   and all of them are righteous.
They are more precious than gold, 
   than much pure gold; 
they are sweeter than honey, 
   than honey from the honeycomb. 
By them your servant is warned; 
   in keeping them there is great reward. 
But who can discern their own errors? 

We're willing to buy into the idea that God can somehow tell us something without words which means we get to fill in our own words, but when we get to the part where God may have also said something brilliant by which we can actually grasp the purpose behind all things, we balk. We retreat from it because that means we don't get to dictate the terms of our lives.

But the Psalmist warns us plainly: who can discern their own errors? We need something to set us right for our own sake, and for the sake of the one who created a universe that sings His praises without one word or one note.

Catechism Buzz: Plainly Declared, but Badly Interpreted

After discussing the chief end of man, the Westminster Larger Catechism plunges head-long into the question which seems to be the problem for most people today: God? What do you mean "God"? And by "most people", I mean most people -- most English-speaking people have a problem with the fact that there is a God.

Most English-speaking people actually want there to be some idea they have which is kind to them, and wants nice things for them, and thinks that Middle-Class life is really a great idea. They want Him to look like their boss, only less demanding and really: less rewarding. They don't really want God to set goals for them but they instead want God to tell them their goals are great and good.

It's the problem that the catechism actually uncovers here: "the very light of nature in man" tells him that there is something prior to himself, and something more in the universe than paying bills and shopping for groceries -- but it doesn't tell him sufficiently what to think of this idea, this urge, this broad idea.

I mean: how does Oprah get away with saying something like this --

So the evolving of consciousness is really what I’m about but I’m not telling people that’s what it is. All of us are here to become more of who we are, of who you really were born to be. Every single one of us in this room has that. That is how we are all equal, because I was born to be who the creator intended, whether you believe in the creator or not. Whatever you believe put you here, you were born to perform the highest expression of that coming. That is my goal as my personal self and it is also my goal to help other people see that in themselves. I fully understand that this platform that I have been given is a gift.”

And of course the reason Pat Robertson can say this:

Here goes and take it for what you feel, this is what I'm writing and this is what I'm saying the Lord said: your country is in grave peril. Your leaders have harkened to the demands of interest groups and have lead your nation into bankruptcy. In two years will come a time of reckoning. … I will protect my people, but warn them now about what is coming. Tell them to get out of debt and restrict purchases. Now. … In the midst of that, CBN will prosper, Regent will prosper, and the ACLU will be needed as never before. … what'd I say? ooh, no! The American Center for Law and Justice will be needed as never before, and God's going to give us extraordinary miracles, it's going to be another good year for CBN, but it's going to be tough for the world.

Both really without anyone pointing a finger and just laughing incredulously. Because we all know it: there's something out there. It's where meaning resides. And we want to be people who can somehow be associated with greater meaning.

We just want it to be the one that we think looks most like ourselves.

Gadfly Paraphrase: 1 Cor 1:2

It’s weird that Paul should give the name of a Church of God to a mob like the people in Corinth, who were mostly out of control, so much so that you might think Satan was in charge there and not God. For sure: Paul wasn’t trying to butter them up – because he’s speaking to them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is not in the habit of buttering people up. But if they were such a mess, how can he say that he saw “the Church” at all? Here’s what I think: the Lord said to Paul, "Fear not: I have many people in this place." (Acts 18:9-10) Keeping that promise in mind, Paul thought it was right to honor the Godly few as a church in spite of all the ungodly trash. Also, in spite of the moral junk yard and the practical and theological unsightliness, there were still signs of the church among these people. And you should think very carefully about this, in order that you will not require of the Church, which is in the world (but not of it), that it shouldn’t have any gravy stains collecting above its paunchy belly or any wrinkles on its polyester pants; we shouldn’t say every community where everything isn't everything it’s cracked up to be, or at least that we think it ought to be, isn't a church. It’s tempting and a little dangerous to think that there’s no church where there’s not a perfect collection of election, and here’s why: someone who is locked up in this notion must necessarily end up isolated from all people in his own tiny self-appointment as the only saint in the world, and he’ll set up a sect which is a posse of fellow hypocrites.

So let’s think about how Paul could recognize the church at Corinth. He looked for and saw that they had the Gospel (because he gave it to them), and they had baptism (because they were baptizing), and they had the Lord’s Supper (even if it was broken). These are the signs that there’s a church there, and how we ought to look for it. Seriously: even though some had doubts about the resurrection, they didn’t all have doubts. Some people being wrong doesn’t make the whole flock into a goat herd. They had faults in administering the Supper, and they didn’t exercise church discipline, and their good manners in general were on the decline. Some of them marched around like they deserves a parade or some kind of celebration because they were in charge – and because of it, their ministry caused cliques to form and opposing parties to stand up.But here’s the thing: as much as they retrained the fundamental doctrine that God was adored among themand Christ was their only savior, the only one they could call upon to be saved, the ministry and family association with the household of God was not lost or wrecked. It was in this way that they were still a Church. In exactly the same way, wherever God is worshipped and not somehow covered up by the stuff we make up or use to dress Him up, and as long as that key matter of Doctrine is not missing, we must without hesitation conclude – as Paul did – that there’s a church in there.