June 2007

Among many others, John Piper and Mark Driscoll have added to their church numbers by employing a video image of themselves preaching their Sunday morning sermon in the mother church as the cornerstone of other virtual worship services held on other church "campuses." And now, for something completely similar, Life Together offers small group pastors who are virtual, also...

PS: Responding to the comments below, I've now made a second post on this subject. So after reading this one, please read the second post, Video sermons and the marks of the church.... There you will find the discussion continuing...

The road behind my house, US Rt. 24, is one of the busiest arteries into and out of Toledo. It runs roughly along the Maumee River from Toledo to Ft. Wayne with the first third of the trip quite beautiful because the road runs right along the river through that bit.

Some years ago the Ohio Turnpike doubled its tolls, doubling truck traffic on secondary east-west roads overnight. Even before the toll hike Rt. 24 was heavily traveled by trucks heading through Toledo to Indianapolis. After the hike it became a nonstop river of semis.

Today various state and federal bodies are in the process of re-routing 24 and converting it to a four-lane limited-access interstate. This will remove one of two rivers bisecting Waterville--the Maumee will stay but the river of trucks on Rt. 24 running through the center of town will go, and we will be the happier for it.

But though the truckers won't miss our town (and we won't miss them), I suspect the truckers will miss the Waterville Pig....

One of the more visible houses alongside Rt. 24 in our town has had a big concrete pig in its front yard the entire time I've lived here. Every few weeks the owners redecorate their pig. The pig has been sitting in a rowboat fishing in the river. It has driven a herd of reindeer while seated in a sleigh. It has hatched Easter eggs. It's a regional landmark, yet I've never heard anyone speak about it publicly. It's never been in the news. It's never been featured in a paper. So after fourteen years of enjoying the pig I think I'm going to start casually chronicling it here.

With the 4th of July approaching what will any self-respecting, patriotic pig be doing? Lighting off mortars and bombs, of course.

I have a list of questions that have been occurring to me—primarily during my morning shower—that I’d like to ask serious proponents of Federal Vision theology. I have a similar, but shorter, list of questions I'd like to ask supporters of the Ad Interim Report on Federal Vision and New Perspective theology but I’ll ignore them for now since they need time to germinate in my mind.

Let me add that I’m asking these questions in all seriousness. They’re important questions, answers to which would help me (and perhaps others) understand the Federal Vision trajectory more clearly.

1. When I read Federal Vision (FV) writers—especially the younger sort who seem to populate the blog world—they routinely accuse their non-FV foes of being “Baptist” or “baptistic.” Now it occurs to me that since the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), the ecclesiastical center of FV thought, accepts churches and elders which subscribe to the London Baptist Confession, that instead of a pejorative, this may actually be a term of endearment. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but I truly mean the question: is “baptistic” the powerfully pejorative term it appears to be in the FV world?
2. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, which would you prefer to be: an average North American Baptist or an average North American Roman Catholic? Only concise, unqualified answers to this question, please….
3. If you did not quickly and unqualifiedly answer “Baptist” to question number 2, do you complain bitterly when FV foes say FV advocates are on their way to Rome? Why? At the very least wouldn’t you agree that it’s hypocritical to complain about being called an incipient Roman Catholic when you accuse others of being “Baptist” and you view being Baptist as negatively as being Roman Catholic?
4. As a supporter of the Ad Interim Report I’ve criticized strategy, tone and at times even the arguments of FV foes within the PCA. I can’t recall ever hearing serious self-criticism within the FV camp. Are there people within the FV movement whose tone you repudiate? Are there those who have taken their theological arguments too far? Or is the FV movement ultimately defined, as it sometimes seems to me, by the most radical of its young turks? Does anyone ride herd on the FV movement?
5. Please understand that this is a genuine question… I understand, I think, the FV desire to emphasize works. To a certain degree I even agree with it. BUT, it increasingly seems to me that the FV movement, though arguing for a final judgment on the basis of works, ultimately tends to limit those justifying works to the sacraments. Do you understand why I would say this? Is there any truth to my perception?
6. Again, please remember that I’m at least somewhat your friend when I ask this…. I’ve noticed a tone of condescension—at times snideness—among FV advocates when the subject of piety comes up. And while pietism is, I suppose, a sufficiently defined form of legalism to warrant condemnation, piety itself is condoned and even commanded by Scripture. Why, brothers, do many FVers permit (if not condone) the mocking of piety? Can you understand my saying that at times it seems FVers delight in contradicting others’ expectations of holiness? Is this wise?
7. Finally, perhaps my most important question. But first a prelude…. I see danger in FV statements of baptismal efficacy. I think the FV view of baptism could (at the very least) lead FV proponents and churches into the camp of presumptive regeneration, a view I’m convinced is dangerous to our children’s spiritual health. You may not agree with me about that danger. That’s fine. But here’s my question: what advantage do your children obtain from your view? What is the benefit to your children of your view of baptism? How does it spiritually bless them? If both your infants and mine are actually baptized, where does the benefit of your view reside? In baptism itself, or in your view of baptism? If the power is in baptism itself and not the view of baptism, why do you so strenuously advocate your view? And IF you agree that there are at least potential dangers in the direction you are pushing us, what benefits are my baptized children deprived of by my view that your children receive in baptism that make the risks of your view worth taking?

This is a superb piece on the difference between the warrior theologians of Scripture and academic theologians of our day. I'm increasingly inclined to think that the bloodiness of OT history must be felt and understood in the bones if we are to honor God as He demands.

It's the work of a man I really disagree with most of the time, but then sometimes he's spot on as here.

Thanks, Tim Varner.

I was sobered to find this new blog via our referral page several days ago. The author, a military officer and PCA ruling elder, served on the PCA's Ad Interim Committee which produced the report on Federal Vision thology adopted two weeks ago at General Assembly.

The blog's first post struck me as unwise--akin to a juror's post-trial analysis of the defense--but subsequent posts have truly troubled me. It's one thing to keep Federal Vision proponents off the Ad Interim Report commiittee, it's another thing altogether for the committee to contain men who seem to have approached their work with full-fledged antipathy toward principals in the Federal Vision movement.

As one who largely agrees with the committee's report I find evidence of such bias on the committee both lamentable and almost incredible. Why, Ad Interim Committee members, did you not feel personal antipathy to key leaders of the Federal Vision movement sufficient reason to reject the committee position initially or to recuse yourself from the committee's work subsequently? It's nearly impossible to conclude that this bias wasn't evident during the committee's work, and while no committee member should be expected to approach the work of the committee a blank slate, integrity would seem to demand an attempt at impartiality by committee members--or the conscious inclusion of differing opinions. I

t's unfortunate that the positive contribution of the committee should be clouded in this manner, and it makes me wonder whether other members of the committee were aware of such attitudes during the committee's work....