The Dutch Reformed Guy In Presbyterian Exile

I hope it will not get me defrocked by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery, but I am at long last willing to come out and say "I prefer the Heidelberg Catechism to the Westminster Catechisms!" Whew. What a relief. Let the chips fall where they may.

Why do I prefer Heidelberg? Well, firstly, because it wasn't written by committee. Shakespeare could not have been written by committee, nor could Psalm 103. They would have had lots of provisos and wherefores. The Heidelberg was written primarily by one man --a pastor scholar. Westminster was written by committee.

Now, thankfully, there are some beautiful and affecting passages in Westminster, on adoption and (surprisingly) the power of sin.

But, mostly I like Heidelberg because it is personal and subjective. Among many other struggles we have in the Reformed community is the struggle between the subjective and the objective. It is quite possible to err on either side. But, I do fear that many who claim the name of Reformed Christian are afraid of anything subjective --over-reacting against the subjectivism of the age, and the evangelical church at large.

Heidelberg is subjective in all the right ways. It is subjective in that it begins with "What is your only comfort in life and in death?" and answers it, "That I am not my own, but belong body and soul, both in life and in death to my faithful savior, Jesus Christ..." It is beautifully subjective in its definition of saving faith --that is without peer. "not only certain knowledge but also a hearty trust not only unto others, but to me also forgiveness of sins...given freely by God, merely of grace, and only for the sake of Christ's merits.

What do I see missing in so many places and people? Just the "not only to others, but to me also" part of faith. We can own a lot of truth, and fall short of Jesus. Not only certain knowledge, but also hearty trust, not only to others, but to me also, merely of grace.

Repellent Sins

Reservations for Doug and Wendy Whiner!!!

There can be no question that there are attractive sins, probably what the author of Hebrews had in mind when he talked about Moses forsaking "the pleasures of sin for a season." No need to list what these are!

But, there is another class of sin about which it is difficult to see the attraction, because misery seems to be at their very core, and, instead of attracting others, they repel them.

A bitter spirit. A lying tongue. Self-pity. Complaining and whining. Discontent.

Now, no doubt, these have their own twisted pleasure, but it is twisted indeed. Being the unfortunate inheritor of a very melancholy disposition, I see myself as particularly prone to the last three, and wrestle against them daily. I am not without significant sin in this regard.

In the church, there are often people who have a list of complaints. A lot of times, these complaints have some basis in fact. But, usually they are about matters of no consequence. Satisfy the complaints of such people, and they simply tack more on to the bottom of their list.

I have dealt with embittered people too --those who have been hurt or wronged, and lock themselves in the sarcastic prison-house of their own sense of having been greatly wronged. They are actually tortured and imprisoned by themselves, and take a perverse pleasure in having been wronged --as if their harbor of resentment against those who wronged them is somehow wreaking vengeance upon their tormentor. In truth, these are just sad folks, and end up repelling all around them.

What other sins are inherently repelling? And what can we do about them?

I've lost my muse

Some have wondered why my blog has gone dark. The truth is, my muse has gone missing.

If anyone has seen him, tell him to get back to work. I want to write again!

But, alas. He comes and goes as he pleases. I only hope he's not dead!!

The High Cost of Doing Nothing

I stumbled across an incredibly moving program on CNN Saturday Night. Christiane Amanpour was hosting a show entitled "Genocide" -- a survey of the mass ethnic slaughters that have taken place since the term was invented in the mid-twentieth century. Although I missed the first half, I take it she began with Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia --about which I know very little.

Then she surveyed: the Iraqi Kurds, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur, and interviewed those brave individuals who tried to intervene and help, by "crying bloody murder." Several did this at great personal cost. And, as so often is the case, the failure of other powers to intervene led to the wholesale slaughter of not just men, but women, children, infants, and unborn children. The scenes are gut-wrenching in the extreme, but important.

The most affecting scene was the head of UN "forces" in Rwanda, a Canadian. Before the slaughter of the Tutsi broke out, this man had asked for 4,500 troops. He was granted 2,600, and a very limited mandate. As the slaughter began to unfold, his troop force was cut to 260. It became impossible even to rescue women and children from the long knives of the Hutu, and entire families were slaughtered, something on the order of 300,000 souls in a matter of a few weeks. The UN ordered the general to decamp --and he refused. The order, he said, was legal, but immoral. He was bowing to a higher law --the law of all that is just and good and right, no matter how hopeless the cause. He had gone to Rwanda with high hopes, and returned a crushed, bitter and broken spirit --not just because of the carnage he saw, but because the nations of the world had turned a blind eye to the mass slaughter.

The most moving story was of a Tutsi woman. When the carnage broke out, Hutus in her village with whom she had lived her entire life, turned on her family and killed her husband and 5 of her children. When Amanpour asked her how she could cope with such brutality, she said "I am a Christian, and I pray a lot." Then, it showed how she welcomed the murderer of her husband into her house, forgave him, and broke bread with him. She had started a business enterprise with the wife of her family's murderer. The murderer spent time in jail, and came back, and pled for forgiveness for his crimes, and she forgave him. Grace at work.

All of this carnage brought home to me in a new way just how desperate and dark the world is. We hide from it in the western world, where only occasional bad things happen. We might be the victim of a random crime, but even the events of 9-11 pale in comparison with the horror of these genocides. Some Christians would have us turn in and away from the horrors of the world --the church's kingdom is "spiritual," and it has nothing whatever to say about injustice and evil in the world. I think such a position is craven and cowardly in the extreme, cloaked as it may be under the cover of orthodoxy and spirituality.

That Christians may disagree on what is an appropriate response (military, humanitarian, or some mingling of the two), the wrong response is to do what so many of the Orthodox German Lutherans did at the rise of Hitlerism, which is to fold their hands, pray, and do nothing, or, worse, to support unthinkingly the powers that be.

Love the world, pray for the world, and plead the cause of the helpless, pester leaders to do the right thing, rabble rouse for those who cannot take up for themselves, be they the unborn here, or the children of Darfur.

Jean Cauvin on Preachers Who Fuss and those Who Fuss at Them about Fussing

That's Calvin to you Anglo-philes. Of course that's not Calvin in the photo --there were no cameras in the 1500's! Duh. That's J. Gresham Machen, a personal hero, and a preacher who was wont to fuss.

HT: Tim Bayly

Indeed it is appropriate to repeat here once again what I mentioned before, that fault must not always be found with the servants of Christ, if they are driven with violent force against professed enemies of sound doctrine, unless one is perhaps disposed to accuse the Holy Spirit of lack of moderation. ... the vehemence of holy zeal and of the Holy Spirit in the prophets was like that, and if soft, effeminate men think it stormy, they do not consider how dear and precious God's truth is to Him. (Calvin on Acts 13:10)

Church Hoppers --Quit Dating the Church!

If you want to have the kind of a church
Like the kind of a church you like,
You needn't slip your clothes in a grip
And start on a long, long hike.
You'll only find what you left behind,
For there's nothing really new.
It's a knock at yourself when you knock your church;
It isn't the church--it's you.

When everything seems to be going wrong,
And trouble seems everywhere brewing;
Just take a look at yourself and say,
"What's the use of being blue?"
Are you doing your "bit" to make things "hit"?
It isn't the church--it's you.

It's really strange sometimes, don't you know,
That things go as well as they do,
When we think of the little--the very small mite--
We add to the work of the few.
We sit, and stand round, and complain of what's done,
And do very little but fuss.
Are we bearing our share of the burdens to bear?
It isn't the church--it's us.

So, if you want to have the kind of church
Like the kind of a church you like,
Put off your guile, and put on your best smile,
And hike, my brother, just hike,
To the work in hand that has to be done--
The work of saving a few.
It isn't the church that is wrong, my boy;
It isn't the church--it's you.

Legalist Preachers

I do not like this one so well, all he does is yell yell yell. I will not have this one about --when he comes in I put him out!!!

It seems there is afoot in the land a rash of people being rough on preachers.

Nothing new there. But the front is an interesting one: the advance is coming from seminary profs and presidents.

From both the left and the right.

From the right, the disciples of the late MG Kline (who I am sure would be appalled). The tar is that to preach imperatives is to be a legalist who doesn't preach grace or Christ. These men have done good work, particularly against the overly objective, outward and quantifiable crowd (FV to those "in the know").

From the left, the "Christ centered" crowd. Good folk, and I am grateful for them, generally. They don't return the favor, however, I guess. Again, to preach imperatives or cultural mandate is to be tarred a legalist.

Surprising victims include Edwards and Lloyd-Jones.

My own view is that we ought to have apostolic balance: indicative drives imperative. But, imperative cannot be lacking.

I thought we all agreed on that. Apparently, I am wrong. And I am very sorry to be wrong.