Jonathan Edwards

There has been a variety of responses to my short post and long quotation from Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the dangers of philosophy. If I may be so bold as to characterize my opponents, I view them as falling into three camps.

First, there is the view well expressed by John who asks whether I'm opposing all intellectual discourse and arguing for a dichotomized view of religious versus secular truth. John suggests that the works of Jonathan Edwards or Augustine might not have been written if Martyn Lloyd-Jones' (and my own) views of the danger of scholarship held sway in their days. John also suggests that several of the philosophers mentioned in my original post have been champions of orthodoxy.

I disagree little with John's overall thrust. However, at several points I would diverge from him. To begin with, Edwards and Augustine may be viewed as philosophers by some but their approach was fundamentally theological. They began with Scripture and argued from there. They did not start with philosophical theory. They did not try to force Scripture through constructs of the human mind.

Trace back the history of Princeton Seminary, the mother of all colleges founded to train pastors in America, and one finds two schools gave her birth: The College of New Jersey in the town of Princeton; and earlier, a little building in Neshaminy, PA, a town about twenty miles north of Philadelphia where Rev. William Tennent Sr. was the pastor of two small Presbyterian churches and put up an outbuilding to house a few apprentices in pastoral ministry. In these United States, this was the first Presbyterian educational work beyond the level of common schools.

Like the derogatory terms 'methodist' and 'puritan,' people expressed disdain for Pastor Tennent's humble effort, calling it the "Log College."

Only one person living at the time thought Tennent's work significant enough to leave a written record of its existence, but this was none other than the mighty preacher of the Great Awakening, George Whitefield. Through Whitefield we know the Log College was twenty feet by twenty feet and just a few steps away from Pastor Tennent's home. A rough building constructed of logs taken out of the surrounding woods, the college was built to house only five to ten young apprentices. Speaking of people's "contempt" for Tennent's work, Whitefield wrote:

(The Log College) seemed to resemble the school of the old prophets, for (both) habitations were mean (humble); and that they sought not great things for themselves is plain from those passages of Scripture wherein we are told that each of them took them a beam to build them a house (2Kings 6); and that at the feast of the sons of the prophets, one of them put on the pot, whilst the others went to fetch some herbs out of the field (2Kings 4:38-44). All that we can say of most of our universities is, they are glorious without. (But) from this despised place (the Log College) seven or eight worthy ministers of Jesus have lately been sent forth, more are almost ready to be sent, and the foundation is now laying for the instruction of many others. (It's interesting to note that Whitefield's journal, from which this excerpt was taken, was printed in Philadelphia in 1739 by Benjamin Franklin.)

When J. Gresham Machen left the faculty of Princeton Seminary two centuries later (in 1929), Princeton had built a reputation for training shepherds faithful to Scripture, men who guarded the good deposit handed down to them from the Apostles. By then, the list of fathers in the faith associated with the leadership of Princeton or her two mother-institutions included not only Tennent, but also Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Miller, Charles Hodge, J. A. Alexander, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. What a heritage!

Often, though, Princeton's history is compressed, focusing on her academic achievements while neglecting the pastoral vision of those who gave her birth (and their students). The Log College was not known primarily for the academic training the men enrolled received, but rather for refusing to send out pastors who were indifferent to true religion—this was the reason Tennent founded the Log College and his apprentices were known for their piety and unflinching courage in leading their flock to examine themselves to see if they were in the faith.

Log College students encouraged heart religion. They preached for reform and revival, and were not content simply to maintain the status quo within the churches they served. They were unwilling to settle for an intellectual assent to the truths of Scripture without a believing faith evidenced by an experience of regeneration--what our Lord called being "born again." They had a deep conviction that a personal experience and testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit was an absolute prerequisite to church membership, and that without such living faith men ought not to be allowed to partake of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper by which God makes a distinction between His Own Covenant People and those who do not belong to Him.

Now, almost a century after Machen's departure signaled the end of Princeton's faithfulness to Scripture's God, the elders of Christ the Word and Church of the Good Shepherd have founded a new log college...

Several weeks ago Tim and I were asked to contribute to another WORLD magazine web site called Zeitgeist, intended to be a Christian version of National Review Online's The Corner, a group-authored conservative blog.

Our tenure at Zeitgeist has not been easy. There have been numerous run-ins with other authors on the site and the disparate backgrounds and views of the site's authors have produced a general sense of malaise on the site--not at all helped by an apparent lack of readers.

Interestingly, debate has been strongest and sharpest in discussions between Tim and myself and several other Reformed writers on the site.

I don't know if the site will ultimately last, or if we will continue to write for it, but I just posted this entry there in an attempt to lend a degree of clarity and perspective to what may appear to be Tim's and my cantankerous refusal to get with the cultural engagement of the other writers. I post it here because it underlines, I think, the reason Tim and I and many like us in our churches and elsewhere in the backwaters of American Protestant Christianity do not easily fit within the current Evangelical and Reformed worlds, why we are willing to focus on the negative when others see only the positive, why we persist in holding to the idea that faithful ministry declares God's "No" along with His "Yes."

If God is a God of wrath...

Arise, O Lord! Let not man prevail; let the nations be judged before you! Put them in fear, O Lord! Let the nations know that they are but men! Selah (Ps 9:19-20)

I've been thinking about the divide that seems to have arisen between brothers on this site recently, and it seems from my perspective that the deepest point of division is not Roman Catholic vs. Reformed Protestant vs. Casual Evangelical vs. Orthodox, but of mindsets.

My mind is spiritually fixed on God as a God of wrath and judgment as well as grace. Though not the foreground of the picture, the wrath of God for me is the entire backdrop. The play of grace is performed against a tableau of dying, ruined men.

The Spring 2004 issue of Trinity Magazine had an interview of Jonathan Edwards scholar Doug Sweeney who, prior to taking a faculty post at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, served as an editor of the Yale edition of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. In the interview, Sweeney pointed out two things he believes the church needs to learn from Edwards, the second of which follows:

Edwards teaches us that theology can and should be done primarily in the church, for the promotion of Christian wisdom among God's people. In Edwards's day, America did not yet have any modern, post-baccalaureate seminaries. Pastors were our nation's most important theologians, and parishioners understood better how much our lives depend on God's Word. Today, many pastors have abdicated their responsibilities as theologians. And many theologians do their work in a way that is lost on the people of God. I want to be realistic in making this point. A certain amount of specialization is inevitable in modern, market-driven economies. And the specialization of roles within God's kingdom often enhances our Christian ministries. But when pastors spend the bulk of their time on organizational concerns, and professors spend most of their time on intramural, academic concerns, no one is left to do the work that Edwards knew is most important: the hard work of opening the Scriptures in ways that deepen the faith, hope, and love of the church.

(Interview of Edwards scholar and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School faculty member, Doug Sweeney, concerning his new book on Edwards, Rev. Jonathan Edwards: at Home and Abroad. The interview was by Steve Farish and it appeared in the Spring 2004 edition of Trinity Magazine, pp. 18-21.)

Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. (Hebrews 13:12-14)

Saturday, I wrote about my gratitude for the unity and peace of our own congregation, Church of the Good Shepherd. Since then, I've been thinking about how our unity came to be and I realize how central the battles a number of us went through in another prior congregation were for the development of this unity. In our prior congregation, the central issue was the refusal of a small group of influential leaders to allow any exercise of correction or rebuke by the congregation's elders. They considered anathema even the most private forms of church discipline.

It was a painful ordeal, but the Holy Spirit used it to produce the unity and peace of Church of the Good Shepherd we presently enjoy--including, now, ten years of loving and peaceful congregational meetings.

This comes to mind as I read of attacks other pastors are suffering, particularly our dear brother, Pastor Doug Wilson. David and I are not surprised Doug is under attack. He's a strong leader with biblical convictions, and he's at his greatest precision and boldness in preaching those convictions where the Evil One has focused his attack and there's a breach in the wall. But instead of other church officers giving thanks to God for raising up such a warrior, Pastor Wilson is the object of much envy and resentment. Like all of us, Pastor Wilson is a sinner in both his conduct and doctrine and we are confident he appreciates the licks he takes for his sin.

But taking his licks from fellow presbyters, his children, or his wife is a far cry from having any Tom, Dick, or Harry set himself up as a judge over every word of his pastoral conversations and session meetings extending years into the past and posting those judgments on this gabfest and gossip-pool known as the internet. Need I point out that Doug Wilson is not the only one suffering such persecution?

In both the church and secular world, leaders have lost the manly traits and pander to their constituency. Church officers are given to mollycoddling, equivocation, and self-doubt. One of my favorite cartoons shows a consultant meeting with a pastor in his office. The wall holds a graph of the congregation's attendance trends and they're down, down, down. Pointing to the graph the consultant says, "I'm no expert in these things, but I think it might help if you didn't end every sermon with, 'But then again what do I know, anyhow?'"

Pastor Wilson preaches, teaches, and leads as if he has received the good deposit and intends, come hell or high water, to pass it on to reliable men...

As I mentioned before, we're studying Jonathan Edward's life in the Reformed Evangelical Pastors College right now, using Iain Murray's biography. (Last month the men read Edwards' Charity and Its Fruits with my brother, David.)

On pages 35-37, Murray deals with Edwards' conversion quoting a fair amount of the text below, but leaving out (I'm sure for the sake of brevity) much of the best stuff--particularly the beginning paragraphs explaining how central for his conversion was the resolution of his questions and doubts concerning predestination as he came finally to love God's sovereignty. So here is the section almost in its entirety. It's the most memorable Edwards I've ever read, even though Edwards never meant for it to be published.

Speaking of publishing, Cumberland Valley Bible Bookstore is offering the two-volume set of Edwards' works right now for the lowest price I've ever seen, $40. Why not pick up a copy today for each of your children so when they graduate from high school you'll have a set on hand for each of them?

From Jonathan Edwards' Personal Narrative:

From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God's sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life; and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me...

Books and Culture is part of the stable of publications put out by Christianity Today Incorporated which include Christianity Today, Marriage Partnership, Christian History and Biography, Your Church, Campus Life, Christian Parenting, Leadership Journal, Today's Christian, and so on. Evangelical Christianity is big--very big--business and CTi is a corporate monument to evangelicalism's coming of age. Just up the street from my father-in-law's Tyndale House Publishers, the ties between CTi, Wheaton College, and my wife's and my home church, College Church in Wheaton, are endless.

Within CTi, the publication aimed at intellectuals is Books and Culture. Someone gave me a copy of the September/October 2005 issue and in it I found this piece on Jonathan Edwards, to which I responded with this letter just sent to Books and Culture's editor:

To the editor,

Teaching a class on Edwards at the Reformed Evangelical Pastors College recently, I've been reading the biographies of Edwards by Philip Gura, George Marsden, and Iain Murray. Gura has been particularly helpful in tracing the history of the conflicts Edwards faced in his work of shepherding so I was curious to read Allen Guelzo's review of Gura's work, "Unpalatable to Modern Sensibilities: Which Jonathan Edwards?" that appeared in the September/October issue of Books and Culture. Sadly, Guelzo's piece is not scholarship but a combination of posturing and prejudice...

(Note from Tim Bayly: Here are excerpts from one of the final comments under my post, "Bishop N. T. Wright as it were." The comments are indented and my responses are not.)

* * *

This post of yours is incredibly misguided.

Since it's rhetoric that's the subject of my original post, let me point out that this criticism is almost always made by members of the academy. This particular occasion, it's worth noting that Mr. Owen has an E-mail address at montreat.edu. And note that the opening statement does not accuse me of misguiding my readers, but of being misguided myself--incredibly so. So who's the villain, I wonder--who's the man who misguided me?

Well, at least I can blame my stupidity on someone else.

1. You apparently are not even capable of looking at ethical questions from Wright's Anglican frame of reference.

Most people wouldn't balk at the use of the word 'ethics' here, but we ought to. There's a world of difference between sodomy being a matter of "ethics" and it being in direct opposition to the order of Creation and an abomination to God. The minute Christians allow the discussion of sodomy to be labelled a matter of "ethics," the battle's largely lost since today speaking of "ethics" carries a relativistic connotation. We debate "ethics" but obey commandments...

Pentecostals are celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of their founding at the 1906 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles. An article from the Christian Science Monitor lists some of the defining marks of Pentecostalism. (Thanks, Chris.) Here's a list of ten, followed by my own response to each:

1. A focus on New Testament "gifts of the Spirit" such as healing, prophecy, and tongues.

2. Spontaneity due to the moving of the Holy Spirit during worship, including prayer for physical healing and deliverance, prophecy, tongues, and a change in the order of worship.

3. Expecting God to make His presence known during worship.

4. A focus on praise leading to lively, upbeat, and jubilant music.

5. Expressive worship, including the lifting of hands, tears, clapping, etc.

6. A belief in the imminence of Christ's return.

7. A belief that after becoming a Christian one should have a second experience called "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" by which the believer receives the real power that makes him able to live with "an extra zeal that is miraculous--(that's) like a turbocharged faith."

8. A belief that this second experience is normally proven to have happened by the individual speaking in tongues.

9. A denial of the need for its pastors to be trained: if God calls you, get up and preach--that's it.

10. Finally, "Pentecostalism has the ability to translate itself into the language and culture of the people being reached, drawing on local music."

His watchmen are blind, All of them know nothing. All of them are mute dogs unable to bark, Dreamers lying down, who love to slumber; And the dogs are greedy, they are not satisfied. And they are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, Each one to his unjust gain, to the last one.

"Come," they say, "let us get wine, and let us drink heavily of strong drink; And tomorrow will be like today, only more so." (Isaiah 56:10-12)

One of the most discouraging aspects of the church today is the refusal of shepherds to say God's "no" as well as His "yes," and to say it in person as well as from the pulpit. We are mute dogs unable to bark.

The Holy Spirit commands us to "Let judgment begin...in the House of God," but we are very careful to make sure judgment is kept outside God's House. We save our prophetic words for pagans: "Hear this, you wicked people of San Francisco and Madison and Las Vegas!" Yet the Apostle Paul commands us not to judge the world, but instead to judge those who call themselves "brothers":

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

Shamelessly, we do the opposite of what he commands. We castigate those who make no claim to Christian faith, but we observe a strict hands-off policy toward flagrant sinners within the church. And if an elder or pastor tries to obey the Apostle Paul, and to judge someone who claims to be a Christian but lives a life of rebellion against God, we reserve our most intense condemnation for him.

"But he's on our side!" we exclaim. "He's a Christian and you're treating him like an unbeliever! Jesus said, 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' So why are you judging your brother? Who made you judge over him, anyhow? How do you know he's not a Christian?"

We talk and act as if the Apostle Paul had commanded us to judge those outside the church, but never those inside the church; as if Paul had commanded us to disassociate ourselves from the greedy and sexually immoral who make no claim to faith, but never to cut ourselves off from the greedy or sexually immoral who do claim to be Christians; as if God's people are to hide themselves from sin in the church, seeing, naming, and condemning only the sin of those outside the Household of Faith.

No wonder our churches are filled with hypocrisy. We have no way of dealing with sin because correction, rebuke, and discipline are only for unbelievers...

Here's a warm encouragment for those dear souls struggling with sickness, persecution, doubt, or despair:

Christ (had to endure) a very great trial in the time of His agony; so God is wont to exercise His people with great trials. Christ met with great opposition in that work that He had to do; so believers are likely to meet with great opposition in running the race that is set before them. Christ, as man, had a feeble nature that was in itself very insufficient to sustain such a conflict, or to support such a load as was coming upon Him. So the saints have the same weak human nature, and beside that, great sinful infirmities that Christ (didn't have) which (puts) them under great disadvantages, and greatly enhance(s) the difficulty of their work. Those great tribulations and difficulties that were before Christ, were the way in which He was to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; so His followers must expect, "through much tribulation to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." The cross was to Christ the way to the crown of glory, and so it is to His disciples.

-Jonathan Edwards in his sermon, Christ's Agony

Over and besides those qualifications that should be in all Christians--they that rule the church of God, should be men of counsel and understanding. ...Remember what was said of old, (Malachi 2:7) "the priest's lips should preserve knowledge: and the people should seek the law at his mouth."  But when this is wanting, the people will be stumbling and departing from God and one another. Therefore God complains, (Hosea 4:6) that his people were destroyed for want of knowledge; that is, for want of knowing guides. For if the light that is in them that teach be darkness, how great is that darkness! and if the blind lead the blind, no marvel both fall into the ditch. (John Bunyan, Exhortation to Unity and Peace, pp. 29,30.)

In a screed for peace posted by Prof. Reggie Kidd of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) a week ago today, Dr. Kidd proved himself an able controversialist, but of the modern sort. A jab, a parry, and a thrust; he lopped off the heads of his opponents sending them rolling into the ditches at the side of the road, but all was well—Dr. Kidd never posed the slightest threat to the feminized discourse characteristic of our modern defenders of the faith who claim for themselves Calvin’s, Luther’s, or Machen’s mantle. Said the good Dr. Kidd while sheathing his bloody blade,  “It should be obvious to all that I am a man of peace.” And so he titled his post, “Mutual defenestration means self annihilation.” Not surprisingly, the one-hundred plus comments his post garnered are permeated with admirers congratulating him on his irenic spirit.

Bosh.

Apparently it takes a pastor with many session meetings under his belt to see who’s kidding whom. One could go on at length demonstrating the exact perimeter of the swaths cut by Dr. Kidd’s sword, but there’s one stellar example. Keeping in mind that Dr. Kidd possesses the terminal degree and his life’s work is within the Academy, could there be a more fatal thrust to the bodies of his intended victims than to call the Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies adopted by the PCA General Assembly this summer “a tendentiously and carelessly written paper?”

No, this short piece by Dr. Kidd is no blow for peace. It’s too bad the guys commending him can’t see it, but the rest of us shouldn’t allow ourselves to be bamboozled. To focus our thoughts, let’s line up Dr. Kidd’s good guys and bad guys. In fact, to purge the pomo spirit from among us this Monday morning, all at once let’s do every one of those hateful things that go directly against the spirit of our age: let’s delineate, distinguish, and divide.

First, who are Dr. Kidd’s friends?

(Tim: a dear Christian brother writes:) I'm currently reading through Charity and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards and, in his Lecture VII, "The Spirit of Charity is an Humble Spirit," he mentions two things that I hope will be an encouragement...

[h]umility disposes men to be of a yielding spirit to others, ready, for the sake of peace, and to gratify others, to comply in many things with their inclinations, and to yield to their judgments wherein they are not inconsistent with truth and holiness. A truly humble man is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and Master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible, because God and conscience require it. But in things of lesser moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others.

I feel that many evangelicals have no way of connecting the dots between humility and inflexibility in "the cause of truth and virtue." Not to draw too fine a point, but I think it is also worth noting that Edwards maintains this inflexiblity not only for God's sake, but also for conscience's sake. Conscience is constrained by the Word of God. I fear that there are far too few whose conscience is pricked by or who would blush at an easy departure from the inconveniences of Holy Scripture.

(Tim, w/thanks to Dave M.) Here's a good explanation why "modern readers" will find Jonathan Edwards' sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, "a difficult text." The explanation is from the most recent E-mail newsletter produced by The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University:

Jonathan Edwards' (in)famous (sic) sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," is among the most anthologized pieces of American literature. It is taught in most American literature survey courses in high school and college as the classic example of a Puritan sermon. As a result, it forms the only impression that most people have of Jonathan Edwards.

In spite of the obvious benefits to the legacy of Jonathan Edwards from this wide anthologizing, "Sinners" is a difficult text to engage, understand, and teach. The language is relentless and challenging. Its form and content is unfamiliar to most modern readers. Most of all, the text itself is specifically designed to provoke fear and discomfort in its hearers. All of these factors contribute to making "Sinners" a difficult text to read in 2008.

But difficult texts are often important texts that careful study. While "Sinners" is not representative of the full orb of Jonathan Edwards' thought, it is Edwards' most famous text and will no doubt continue to be studied and taught for many years to come.

Pastors and elders, would the souls under your care understand Edwards' sermon, or would they also find it "difficult?"

(Tim) Here's a response to this comment left by a reader: "It seems that many in the complementarian community spend almost all their energy on the negative side of the equation."

Feminism is toxic and its relentless attack on Scripture and the Church doesn't give faithful shepherds a lot of opportunity to take their preaching and teaching somewhere else, avoiding this breach. We must focus our defensive work where the good deposit is under attack. In response to people complaining of the frequency of his preaching against fornication, Spurgeon said once that he'd stop preaching against it when people stopped doing it.

Pastors today aren't preaching or teaching against this heresy. And when we do, we do it half-heartedly making it clear to our flock and other shepherds that we wish the need for battle would go away because we're men of peace and love and grace, and we really don't enjoy beating up on women.

Now I may not have captured our critic's sentiments, personally, but from many years experience I know I've hit the mainstream. So think where we'd be if Calvin or Luther or Knox of any of hundreds of other shepherds had tried the positive approach in the darkness of Rome's shadow across the Middle Ages? What if Calvin had written his Institutes without the central thrust of opposing and exposing Rome? Would anyone read them?

The real issue isn't that many within the complementarian camp spend almost all our energy on the negative side of this equation, but that we live in an evil day much like the day of the Apostle Paul and Athanasius and Peter Waldo and John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and John Newton and J. Gresham Machen and Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Francis Schaeffer, and that our work must follow theirs in being faithful with God's "yes" and His "no." And if our only "no" is said in opposing those who don't say "yes" often enough to suit our tastes, we're not really saying "no," are we?

"For from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is greedy for gain, And from the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely. They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace. Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time that I punish them, They shall be cast down," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 6:13-15)

(Tim) A few years after Yale was founded, a student spoke critically of one of Yale's tutors saying, "He has no more grace than this chair." Yale's response was swift: The student was expelled and, despite his apology (contra Wikipedia), Yale refused to reinstate him. Centuries later, Yale named one of her Divinity School buildings for this student. It's the only building ever named for a student who was expelled.

One of this student's contemporaries also attended Yale a few years earlier when Yale was just being chartered. At that time, Jonathan Edwards himself was caught up in the discipline of Yale's tutors. Their infraction?

They were promoting Arminian theology. Yale had been founded because of Harvard's betrayal of Christian doctrine, so no one involved in Yale's founding was about to let it happen again.

What does Yale discipline today?

This past year, a Yale art student regularly impregnated herself (artificially, with a syringe), then killed the babies she never knew by taking oral abortifacients--all of which she carefully documented with a video camera for display at a Yale art exhibition. Yale's administration was quite embarrassed and released a statement...

God has ordained the Sacraments to divide men...

(Tim) From The Huffington Post, here's some commentary on the congregational applause that greeted Senator McCain's statement at the Rick Warren pow-wow, that life begins at conception:

These are church people. What they say and what they do often doesn't match.... As loudly as they may have applauded McCain's straight talk about abortion, a lot of women in that audience have had abortions. A lot of their mothers, their sisters and their daughters have too.

How do I know?

I know because evangelicals who've studied each other have shown again and again that evangelical behavior differs very little from that of the rest of the country.

The writer is correct to say the church is filled with women who have murdered their babies. Even if you don't believe the pollsters, do the simple math and you'll see that the over two-thirds of Americans who claim to be Christians have to account for the murder of millions of the babies murdered since 1973's Roe v. Wade. And although the writer doesn't mention it, the church is also filled with the men who fathered those children and demanded or acceded to their murder.

Acknowledging this, we need to keep some things in mind.

First, regardless of how they identify themselves spiritually or theologically here on earth (membership in the PCA, for instance), like unrepentant adulterers and thieves, murderers who refuse to confess their blood-guilt and ask for God's mercy will not be in heaven. As the Apostle Paul puts it so bluntly:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Corinthians 6:9,10)

Second, as a minister of the Word and Sacrament, the essence of Pastor Warren's calling is to be as constant and explicit in making this dogmatic pronouncement as the Apostle Paul in the Word of God. He cannot fail to discipline those who, while murdering their unborn children, attend his church and take the Lord's Supper there.

(Tim, w/thanks to Jake) For a number of years, Yale's been hard at it putting the works of Jonathan Edwards online, freely available for hoi polloi who can no longer afford the critical edition now running around $110 per volume . It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good, though, and I suspect the high price of the hard copies is part of the reason all of us are now able to search the volumes online. So I'm happy.

Don't allow anyone else to give your Edwards to you. When I was at seminary in New England, I took a course in Edwards' works under Richard Lovelace. One night (it was a small evening seminar), I well remember coming to the session with great anticipation, having read a good portion of Edward's harder truths that week. But then, Dr. Lovelace started the class with a statement to the effect that "Here, Edwards goes a little bit off the deep edge, engaging in his well-known penchant for negativity."

Yes, yes; that's the problem with Edwards. He's so negative you get an ulcer reading him. What we need today is something positive that people can relate to; something that will give people hope and not lead them into despair.

Well, if you've read Edwards, you know that there are few men in the history of the Church who are more...

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”

But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?” (Matthew 22:15-18)

(Tim: this is first in a series, with the second, here) A few years ago, I was speaking with a friend who taught theology at a respected evangelical seminary. We were discussing the response of some Christian leaders to being confronted over their abuse of Scripture. I expressed my conviction that the leaders’ commitment to turn from their sin was only pragmatic, and that in time they would proceed to do the very thing they had just promised not to do.

My friend was astounded that I could think these men capable of deception. He went on to tell me why he thought I was susceptible to such uncharitable thoughts: “Your problem, Tim, is that you spent too many years in the mainline denomination with other pastors who weren’t even Christians. But now, you’re back in the evangelical world and these men we’re working with are believers. You should never accuse another believer of lying.”

Really? Never?

And it will be, like people, like priest... (Hosea 4:9b)

"A feminized Christianity may work to attract a certain type of man, but he’s probably not the man you want around when the local Imam starts practicing taqiyya on your congregation."

(Tim, w/thanks to Tim R.) Here's an article about the effeminacy of the Christian church, today. The piece approaches the crisis by noting the attractiveness of Islam to real men, making the point that a re-masculinized Christianity is necessary to hold off the forces of Islamic jihad. But if faith in Jesus is for this life only, we are of all men most foolish. We love, worship, and trust Jesus, not because it's useful, but because we fear the Holy God and know our sin, we dread Hell's worms and fire, and we ache for Heaven's joy and peace in the presence of the Lord. And yet...

Reformed men and women need to understand how focused the PCA is on gussying herself up for this effeminate age. As a denomination, we are all about perfect pitch rather than men making music to our God Who is a consuming fire. No Delta blues for us; it's all Julliard, violins, pianos, and maybe the occasional acoustic guitar or mandolin just to keep the audience off-balance. As with music, so with preaching: we allow no danger and take no risk. After all, women don't like danger. It could hurt their child.

But men? Real men don't wake up until they see why they're needed. And that need usually has something to do with danger--bullets, grenades, bombs, sexual predators, heresy, the wrath of God, death, and Hell.

But what have we done to Hell? We've turned it into the Narcissists' heaven. It's man getting himself forever, and what's not to like about that? No scared children. No women having hissy-fits over spiders hanging over the crackling fire. No worms eating a carcass. Just me, myself, and I forever...

Under the post, Repenting of parachurch, Baptist childhoods..., one comment elicited this response from your scribe. I posted it as a comment, there, but also put it here for the benefit of those who don't keep track of comments. (TB)

Brothers, allow me a few responses, although they must be hopelessly brief considering the weight of these matters.

>>Be careful when you sling around words like apostasy, idolatry (Per Calvin we're all "fabricum idolarum") and heresy.

We are careful. That is, careful--very careful--to keep them alive. The proper word to use concerning Roman Catholicism is 'heresy'. Read Joe Brown's Heresies. Reformed pastors and elders use this word following our Reforming fathers's example because Roman Catholicism is a system of doctrine that leads souls to Hell. Systematically.

The center of Rome's system is the merchandising of salvation through...