putting the x back in xmas

Over the past number of years, I’ve encountered more than a few Christians who take offense at the use of the shortened form ‘Xmas.’ In some cases, I’ve even heard well-meaning Christians attack that usage claiming that so-and-so is “trying to take the Christ out of Christmas.” Every December, it seems, I have to take some time and inform folks where that short-form comes from, that it was used by Christians, and is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I love it when secularists use it, because that gives me the opportunity to open up a dialogue about it! So, what’s with the “X” in “Xmas?” To understand its origins, you have to look at the original language of the New Testament: Greek. Here is 1 Corinthians 1:3 in its original language, with my own very rough, overly literal translation below…

Languages aren’t a “secret code” so you really can’t do a word for word translation as I did – it just doesn’t flow. I merely wanted to draw attention to certain key words, namely the Greek word for “Christ” which begins with the letter Chi (pronounced sort of like “key,” catching some good Scottish phlegm on the ‘ch’ bit). That letter was used synonymously of Christ frequently in history. Xmas, Xians, IX, XP, IXTHYS… there have been many phrases and symbols throughout the ages that made use of this Greek letter.

So don’t get all bent out of shape over the use of “Xmas.” In fact, use it as a conversation starter! Put the “X” back in “Xmas” this year! In a world that would rather worship Santa Clause and Wal-Mart, any opportunity to switch the subject back to Jesus Christ is an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed!

farewell virtual svendsen

Eric Svendsen, founder and administrator of New Testament Research Ministries is hanging up his virtual hat and shifting focus away from his online ministry, and concentrating on his local fellowship. In his own words:

After more than a decade of being involved in Internet apologetics, I am packing it in. I guess I could blame it on the fifty-plus hours of work that I am putting in weekly. But it’s much more than that. My absence from this forum over the past few months (with only occasional exceptions) has given me a renewed sense of appreciation for the importance of doing ministry in and through the local church. The comparison between a focus on that kind of edifying ministry and a focus on constantly correcting the incorrigible and vitriolic pooling of ignorance that comes from self-styled “apologists,” each promoting his own version of a false gospel, is staggering; and it is something that no longer holds a modicum of attraction for me. I have recently been commissioned by the elders of my church to revamp the church’s educational program, and I am eager to get started on it. All the spare time I would otherwise have dedicated to Internet activity will be devoted to that task. I have enjoyed getting to know many, many fine people through this venue over the past decade, and I wish them well. The website, discussion forum, and blog will remain open, and will continue as always. It’s just that I won’t be contributing to it as I once did. I do not anticipate returning to this kind of venue in the future, though there is always that possibility. I would ask the friends of NTRMin.org to pray for me as I refocus on those things that are truly and biblically relevant. (Read the original post here)

All I can say is, “Amen and amen!” This is what I’ve been mentioning in posts (such as here and here), that this constant responding to pseudo-apologists is just ridiculous. Most of this garbage bears no relevance in the real world, even stuff that I’ve mentioned. For example, I’ve not come across a single Presbyterian who’s disagreements with Baptist theology or ecclesiology comes even remotely close to the venomous acrimony of Dr. Paul Owen, internet apologist. I don’t even bother reading his stuff anymore because it just doesn’t serve me in any real world ministry.

I think this should be a wake up call to us all. Who are we serving? Who are we ministering to? Who is our audience? As I look at the current collection of online apologists (all of them) I see a lot of mutual back-patting, and not a lot of “giving an answer for the hope that we have” and often grossly lacking in “gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15) I include myself in that boat as well, since let’s just think for a second; Does smacking around Robert Sungenis or Gerry Matatics, who are both way, way outside of the mainstream in Catholic apologetics, better equip myself (or anybody) to witness to the Roman Catholic individual? I’m going to go with “no.”

Enough of the rapid-fire back and forth. Enough of the “look, there goes the heretic, at it again!” Enough of the meaningless, “I told you so” back-patting. Enough of the knee-jerk, reactionary “he said something bad, I need to correct him!” There’s lots of corrections Paul could of made regarding the various pagan heresies out there, but he didn’t. Jesus could have smacked around a lot of the Jewish errors out there, but he didn’t. They picked the important stuff, the relevant stuff, and let the rest of the dead weight just decompose.

And above all, don’t toss out the entire symphony for the one bad note. Too often we’re willing to ignore someone completely, no matter how orthodox their theology is, because of that one “bad position” on something relatively minor. R.C. Sproul and his view of Jesus being “bereft of the presence of God” while he was on the cross is just plain wacky, in my opinion, but Sproul has so many other ‘dead on’ things to say that I can rejoice in reading him.

Anyway, I’m proud of Dr. Svendsen, and even more proud that I can count myself as being privileged to have witnessed some of the high points of his online ministry (such as when he wasn’t dealing with Bob Sungenis).

more catholic unity

It was bound to happen sooner or later. It seems like only yesterday, lay Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis was merrily writing article after article supporting his comrade Gerry Matatics, another Catholic lay apologist. As Fleetwood Mac taught us, however, yesterday’s gone and a fascinating new day is upon us. Gerry and Bob are merrily smacking away at each other about sedevacantism. In case you’re not familiar with Roman Catholic terminology, this is the belief that the last few popes have been heretics and anti-popes, which means the papal seat has been vacant and that Catholic church without a valid pope. In an email sent to a sedevacantist group (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/), Gerry writes,

I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.

That, unfortunately, puts Mr. Matatics squarely on the shooting gallery, and Bob Sungenis opens fire with a response and condemnation of Gerry’s position. Thanks you guys. Once again you have clearly demonstrated that the so-called “unity” of the Roman Catholic church is nothing more than a vapour, a mirage that wavers in and out of perception. I believe both of these guys are walking in a straight line with Roman Catholic tradition, because I believe that tradition is about as solid as a bowl of runny stew. The deliciously insane part of such a debate is that, if the seat is vacant then there’s no one to offer an infallible judgement on the current pseudo-pope. If it’s not vacant, then no one outside of Benedict XVI can offer infallible judgement on his orthodoxy. The only one who can place the label of “heretic” on a pope is a subsequent pope (as Pope Agatho condemned Pope Honorius I – but that was back before ‘papal infallibility’ was a dogma), so as long as the line of alleged “anti-popes” continue, there is no way for the Roman Catholic individual to know with certainty whether they are being infallibly guided by Christ’s representative on earth, or a raving heretic trying to lead people astray.

Therefore, I advise my friends in the Roman Catholic tradition to not argue against Protestantism on the basis of “unity” or “infallibility” because it simply does not exist.

an apologetic for apologetics: intro

I’m going to start a little multi-part series of postings in offering “an apologetic for apologetics,” attempting deal with the purpose in offering a Christian apologetic, and considering the usefulness, or lack thereof, in giving a reasoned defence of the faith.

I was prompted by a comment made by Dr. Lee McDonald, as he was considering the evangelistic message in the post-modern world. While Dr. McDonald is clearly partial to academic pursuits, he expressed his impatience with Christian apologetics who would attempt to point to various evidential proofs as a reason for the hope we have. I offered a brief counterpoint at the end of class, saying something like, “In defense of Christian apologetics, I know I tend towards a presuppositional approach allowing both parties the ability to lay their own assumptions down on the table, and proceed with at least an open recognition of them.” For example, if someone utterly rejects any reliability of the New Testament, it’s going to be difficult to offer a biblical defence of the deity of Christ to that person.

Dr. McDonald posed a question: “Ah, but what assumptions?” implying, perhaps, that either side may have assumptions that they’re not even aware of. Lee barely knows me, and certainly doesn’t know anything of my theological perspectives, so it’s a very valid question to ask. Therefor, in considering the matter further, I thought it might be a neat idea to wrestle through a few of the issues in a series of posts on the matter.

I’ll say this, and I think Dr. Lee would agree with me: It is impossible to offer a meaningful reason for your faith without discussing your own experience with Christ, and the “personalness” of one’s relationship with God. I also think it’s important to toss out the fact that I’m teaching an introduction to Christian apologetics as an adult elective Sunday school this year, so my motives may have a self-serving bias. I’ll admit that, but I’ll also admit that I would very much like to talk out some of the issues so that I can serve my students to the very best of my ability. If that means more “experience” and less “information” I’ll go there. Look for part I later in the week!

i’d rather be ____ than baptist

He is the “Assistant Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies” at Montreat College in North Carolina, a proponent of New Perspectivism, a defender of “Reformed Catholicism,” and most certainly not my favorite theologian on the block. It takes every ounce of my patience to read his writings, because when he’s writing solo, he seems like a pretty nice fellow. Unfortunately, once he begins responding to anyone he disagrees with, we the viewing audience, are forced to play duck-and-cover through the vituperative assaults that ensue as Dr. Owen clearly demonstrates the utter ignorance, stupidity, and ungodly motivations of every person who would dare find dispute his learned opinions.

When Kevin Johnson wrote the following on ReformedCatholicism.com this past April…

For hundreds of years, the Christian Church has seen some value in silence and meditation. Things are no different today.

ReformedCatholicism.com is going offline for the foreseeable future.

…it appeared as though there was going to be a time of… well… silence and meditation? I think that myself and the Reformed Catholic trio (Paul Owen, Tim Enloe and Kevin Johnson) really have a different understanding of what ‘going offline’ and ‘foreseeable future’ mean. Taking down blogs, and then opening new ones covering the exact same subject matter isn’t really my understanding of those concepts. (On a side note, I must say that I find it more than a little amusing that the up-again/down-again SocietasChristiana @ blogspot.com has been taken over by a blog-spammer. I guess, for once, it finally reopened with entirely different subject matter!) Kevin announced the demise of ReformedCatholicism.com on April 19th. Eight whole days later, they opened Communio Sanctorum, subtitled “A Reformational Contribution to Catholicity.” Reformed Catholicism is again the subject in question, with the same folks posting – as far as I can tell, the only difference is that they’ve disabled the comments, and instead have agreed to post emails. Now that, my friends, is funny, mainly because I know another blog has come under a substantial amount of fire from some of our more vocal Roman Catholic friends for not having a comment system enabled. Here’s a recent dig:

With all due respect to Mr White, I think this is disingenuous. White does not want to allow comments on his blog because he doesn’t want to give people who disagree with him a forum for deconstructing his rhetoric on the fly for all his readers to see. The claim that he thinks Catholics don’t read his blog is the opposite of the truth: He knows Catholics would flood his comment page with rebuttals and counter-arguments… and perhaps some of his faithful fan-readers would find some of their comments troubling. Posted by “jake” on jimmyakin.org

Anyway, that just gave me a giggle. It really isn’t relevant to this post, as I only recall one off-the-cuff comment by one of the posters at ReformedCatholicism.com, so I don’t want to give you the idea that they are hypocrites on this issue. For this post, I just wanted to take a second to discuss Dr. Owen’s recent post to Communio Sanctorum entitled “Some Thoughts on Baptists.” He introduces his thoughts with the following paragraph:

Over the last year or so, I have made numerous comments about “Baptists” in the midst of sometimes heated discussions about theology which I feel I should qualify. I believe I once stated that I would rather attend a Roman Catholic church than a Baptist church. And, on several occasions I have made it clear that I believe Baptist ecclesiology and sacramentology are inconsistent with the Reformation, and Catholic Christian theology. I would like to offer a few qualifications here as to what I do and do not mean by such comments.

As a Baptist, I can quickly identify that this first paragraph places me not only outside Catholicism, but outside of the Protestant Reformation as well. However, he says is going to qualify his statement. Phew. Let’s read the qualification…

Let me begin by offering an apology. If I have offended any of my Baptist brethren in any of the comments I have made, I offer my sincere apology. It has never been my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings on a personal level. I am a convinced Presbyterian. I affirm covenant theology, five-point Calvinism, and the doctrinal system articulated in the Westminster Standards, including of course infant baptism. I am a practicing member of a congregation in the Presbyterian Church of America.

Okay, well I’m okay with that. Apology accepted. I know lots of convinced Presbyterians (whom I affectionately call my ‘Presby Brothers’), and while we don’t agree on that seemingly small matter, we still happily worship together. If I were to ever to pick a “runner-up” to my Baptist convictions, it would likely be Presbyterianism. Let’s allow Dr. Owen to continue…

Now allow me to engage in a bit of imagination. If I were to leave Presbyterianism for some other denominational fellowship, I have no doubt that I would turn to Anglicanism. Frankly, that would require of me very little doctrinal adjustment. If that option were closed to me, I would opt for Lutheranism. Were that option to be closed, I would turn to Methodism. If that option were closed to me, yes, I would convert to Roman Catholicism. If that option were closed, I would return to my Classical Pentecostal roots. And if that option were closed, yes, I would become a Baptist. I say this not at all to be insulting to Baptists, but to lay my cards out on the table as to where I stand.

About that accepted apology earlier… Apparently Dr. Owen places one’s view of the church, and one’s view of the sacraments well above one’s view on salvation, the nature of grace, the nature of man, and even the very nature of God. There’s a big difference between the current debate as to where Roman Catholics and Protestants stand in relation to one and other in the family of God, and saying I’d rather give up my position on grace, free will, the nature of justification than be counted among Baptists. Why? Why would Dr. Owen take this seemingly drastic position? He continues…

Having said all of that, make no mistake about it–I greatly appreciate the contributions which Baptists have made to the body of Christ. John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and John Armstrong are tremendously gifted pastoral theologians whom God has given to the Church, each of whom I GREATLY admire. I consider John MacArthur to be one of the greatest theological influences upon my life. And on a more academic level, I have been tremendously blessed by the ministries of such men as John Sailhamer, Walter Kaiser, Wayne Grudem, D.A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, Timothy George, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, George Eldon Ladd, and numerous other scholars of Baptist or Bible Church type of convictions. I have also been greatly influenced and impacted by the academic ministries of baptistic scholars within the Pentecostal and charismatic churches. Here I think of Howard Ervin, Gordon Fee, Clark Pinnock and Craig Keener especially. My own colleague and partner in crime, Dr. Carl Mosser, who has been the closest of friends to me over the years, also rejects infant baptism and is not convinced of Presbyterianism or covenant theology in every respect (I’m still working on him!). That does not prevent me from working side by side with him in our writing projects.

Okay. So you’ll still share a byline with us. We’re not looking at “Baptist only” water fountains or anything. That’s good. I haven’t been sent to the back of the bus yet. That’s good too. Now that Dr. Owen has thoroughly documented the fact that he’s not ‘anti-Baptist’ and he has Baptist friends, let’s actually get to the meat of the matter. Why does Dr. Owen place Baptists at the bottom of his “Christians I’d Be Counted Among” list?

That being said, I do believe that the rejection of infant baptism undermines a truly biblical vision of the present manifestation of the kingdom of God in the Church, which is Christ’s ecclesial family–a family which includes believers and their children (Acts 16:15, 33; Eph. 1:1 cf. 6:1), to whom God’s promise is directed and sealed in baptism (Acts 2:38-39). The eschatological gift of the Spirit is poured out upon all Israel, including the children (Joel 2:28), bringing the knowledge of God to the least and to the greatest, and that certainly includes the little children within Israel ( “the least”: Jer. 31:34). This is why the kingdom of God belongs to the children whose parents bring them to Jesus (Mark 10:13-14).

Infant baptism. It’s all about infant baptism? Huh?! Well that must be clear in the passages Dr. Owen cited. I mean, if he would choose Roman Catholicism over Baptists based on his view of baptism, surely the verses he cited will be clear and unambiguous, in the same way Paul’s expression of the relationship between faith and works in unambiguous. Let’s quickly look at them:

Acts 16:15 1And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Oddly enough, no mention of infant baptism. Oh, I know the argument – Lydia’s ‘household’ included children too. Sorry folks, there’s no indication of infants in that verse. It’s certainly not unequivocal anyway. How about verse 33?

Acts 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Same deal as verse 15. This time, it’s the jailor’s household that necessarily must have included infants. Again, yes, it’s an interesting argument but there’s no direct mention of the baptism of infants. Dr. Owen then basically cites Ephesians, specifically the relationship between children and parents, implying that children of faithful parents themselves will honour their parents through… er… infant baptism? How does a one month old honour his/her mother and father, other than manufacturing lots of icky diaper presents, thus ensuring the parent is never bored?

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus… Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

Sorry folks. I still don’t see how that applies to infant baptism. My church baptizes children who confess faith in Christ, and who obviously earnestly desire to honor thier parents – in perfect harmony with Paul’s letter. Obviously Paul’s command was directed in the second person, and assumes that either the child can read Greek, or can understand the language of the person reading to them. Infants don’t really fall into either category. Surely these are simply “supporting texts” and not the source of Owen’s position. Ah, here we are. He tells us that the promise is actually directed to the children of believers, and is sealed in baptism. Let’s look at Acts 2:38-39…

Acts 2:38-39: Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

What are Peter’s audience to do? Step one: Repent. Step two: be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The result? You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Can an infant repent? Ah, but the promise is for “you,” meaning Peter’s audience, and for their children. Not only them, however, but for all who are far off. But, please note carefully the relationship between these three things: Repentance, baptism and the gift of the Spirit. Is it Dr. Owen’s assertion that all who are baptized receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? I doubt even he would take that position. If I snatch a person from tribal village in South America, drag him to the local river, and dunk him in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, even though he doesn’t have the foggiest clue what I’m doing or what I’m saying, does that person then receive the Holy Spirit of God, and manifest the fruit of that Spirit? Does that Spirit testify of Jesus the Christ? I’m thinking that not even Dr. Owen believes that. So, what “promise” is made to the children and those far off? Is it the promise of repentance? Of baptism? Or, is it the promise that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Seems to me that the last option seems the most viable, and the text happily bears the weight of that interpretation.

Owen then goes on to assert that the eschatological gift of the Spirit is poured on on both adults and children, as evidenced by Joel 2:28 :

Joel 2:28 It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.

Clearly the Baptists are in grave error! You see, at the time Joel was granted this prophesy, the sons and daughters of Israel were all children, and they remained so at the time that the Spirit… oh… wait… Am I not a son of Israel in the spiritual sense? (Romans 9:6,7) Hang on. That would mean that the sons and daughters of Israel are not necessarily infants. The next verse, I’m not even going to bother with. The idea that “the least” must necessarily refer to infants is somewhat silly. That would mean that both Jeremiah 6:3 and 8:10 are referring to adults and infants being “greedy for gain.” I suppose, one could make the argument that my daughter was greedy for her formula and 2 months of age. She certainly vocalized her ‘greed’ well. I have the grey hairs to prove it.

So, I’m sorry. If this is all the evidence offered to support infant baptism, I don’t see how Christ’s blessing of the children applies to infants. I always loved how some of my Presby brethren (some, not all) draw an instant connecting-line between “children” and “infant,” between the Greek ‘paidion’ and ‘nepios,’ that the must inherently mean the same thing. I see no need to go there. Apparently my position has dire consequences. Owen continues…

The rejection of infant baptism has drastic ecclesiological consequences, for it essentially invalidates the vast majority of the baptisms which were performed within the Church in the pre-Reformation era. To reject infant baptism is to cut oneself off from the historic Catholic Church–something which Reformers like Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin and Luther simply were not willing to do. They saw their roots in the Catholic Church of the preceding centuries, not in some esoteric remnant of believers whose lineage could be narrowly traced backwards in time to the New Testament. This is why the Reformers understood the radical implications of the rejection of infant baptism. It was a rejection of Catholic Christianity itself, in favor of a supposedly pure, NT form of the Church, purged of the worldliness, failure, scandal, messiness, embarrassments, as well as the blessings, triumphs, and privileges which belong to any real family–Christ’s family included. The Reformers understood that any attempt to enforce a structure upon the Church which attempted to weed out the tares from the wheat before the harvest was simply inconsistent with the NT vision (Matt. 13:30). The Church, both in its OT and NT forms, is an earthly, messy, historically incarnated institution, which will only be completely sanctified at the eschaton (Eph. 5:27).

I never understood this leap in logic. Of course Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin and Luther all recognized their Catholic roots… they were all former Roman Catholics! Of course they didn’t believe they had been heretics for years and then suddenly became Christians once they began reforming. I’m so tired of reading how the original reformers weren’t as distant from Rome as many in evangelicalism are today. That is just such a silly, brutally obvious statement – I just don’t understand how that is to be, in any way, compelling. That’s like saying, “Constantine had a better relationship with the pagans of his day than most Christians do now.” It’s reverse anachronism that bears little or no weight. Modern evangelicalism isn’t attempting to “weed out the tares from the wheat.” Or, at least, I’m not. What I do is determine where the fertilizer (and if you take advantage of that potential pun, I’ll have to slap ya) and water is yet required, and get to the gardening. My Roman Catholic friend may have an idea of who Christ is, but just like you feel your Baptist colleague still needs you to be “working on him” – so I too feel compelled to feed, water, and offer correction to a Roman Catholic who I am in sharp disagreement with.

Dr. Owen offers the following conclusion…

So when I raise criticisms against Baptist ecclesiology and sacramentology, please take it for its real intent. I simply believe it to be inconsistent with biblical teaching and with Reformational Christianity insofar as it negates the work of the institutional Church through the vast sweep of pre-Reformational history. This is by no means to deny the wonderful contributions to the Church which have been offered by individual Christians of Baptist or baptistic persuasion.

Sir, you are not simply ‘raising criticisms’ with such comments. The compassion that I’ve witnessed you extending over and over again to the Roman Catholic, and the condemnation that you heap upon those who may be less compassionate is most certainly not the same compassion extended to your “Baptist brethren” with such comments. If it were, you would understand what an affront such statements are to us. Considering what I’ve read of your work over the past number of years, I must say that I am very content to be at the uttermost depths of your denomination-preference list. Thankfully, the vast majority of my Presbyterian brothers and sisters are not your students. Your condemnation of my position bears little or no Biblical weight, and the reverse-anachronism consistently applied to modern evangelicalism with regard to the Reformation view on certain issues bears even less historical weight.

In reading statements like Dr. Owen’s – I’ve never been more proud to be a Baptist.

benedict xvi

I’m home sick again, even though I went into work to see how it went. After nearly passing out a few times, I asked my brother in Christ, Chris to give me a drive home. On the way home, we heard on the radio that white smoke was eminating from the Vatican – the traditional announcement that a new pope had been elected. I tuned on the TV when I got home to find out the details.

I’ve often said, “You know… all it would take to open up real discussions between Protestants and Catholics that could result in some form of common ground, is a liberal Pope to come along and say, ‘You know what? Turns out that I’m not infallible after all.‘” Once we got that presupposition out of the way, there could be genuine discussion with a potential hope in sight.

Well, we can pretty much guarentee that’s not going to happen during this potificate. I never would have guessed they’d elect Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger is one of the most conservative members of the upper eschalon of the Roman Catholic Church, having been the leader of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” That’s the new name of that organization, anyway. It’s original name was simply ‘The Inquisition.’ I can only assume that the choice of Joseph Ratzinger is meant to heal the highly un-public (it’s not private, by any stretch) schism that threatens the RC church these days. Traditionalists and liberals have been firing shots at each other fast and furious since Vatican II, and John Paul II did little to heal the wounds between them, being one of the most liberal pontiff in the history of that seat.

Unfortunately, I’m too ill to sit here and discuss this issue at length. Watch carefully, folks. There is no question in my mind that Pope Benedict XVI will make for an interesting pontificate. I suppose the one upside is that, if he is true to his actions during his cardinalship, it should become easier to demonstrate the gaps between Protestant and Catholic theology.

Watching the news though… it amazes me how ignorant even Catholics are of thier own history and tradition. Hopefully Benedict XVI will correct that, allowing opportunities for discussion.

ring around the rosary

Last month I was taken out to breakfast in Halifax by my favorite redhead and her daughters. While in the city, I took them to Blessings Christian Marketplace so they could have a look around. I’m not the biggest fan of Blessings only because of the wide range of theological positions it represents, with the majority of the focus being on “pop” theology. Ah, a glow-in-the-dark crucifix… what home would be without one? At the same time, I do appreciate their selection, and have snagged a few good buys on some quality books there. I mean, they had a copy of Dr. White’s Scripture Alone on the shelf. How bad can they be?

About a week later, I found out that one of the girls had been admiring some really nice necklaces, and wanted to get one. Fortunately, her mom stopped her, identifying immediately that they were rosaries. ‘What’s a rosary?’ she asked sometime later. While I really didn’t have the opportunity to give her a complete answer at that time, I thought I’d take a few minutes to answer it now…

A rosary is a collection of 5 groups of 10 beads, each group separated by a larger bead. At the center of the rosary is generally an image of Mary, and three more beads which connect a crucifix to the ‘necklace.’ The rosary serves as a type of ‘prayer guide’ as you pray certain predetermined prayers, as one contemplates the ‘mysteries of the faith.’ These mysteries are separated into four groups, identified as the mysteries of joy, light, sorrow, and glory. ‘Praying the rosary’ is primarily a Marian devotion, since the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer is the repeated 53 times. For those of you unfamiliar with the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer…

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Beginning with the crucifix, one recites the apostle’s creed. There are different versions of rosary prayers, but the normative manner is to pray the Lord’s prayer, followed by either ‘Glory be to the Father’ or the Fatima prayer on each of the larger beads, and a ‘Hail Mary’ on each of the smaller beads. Here’s a cute little rosary designed especially for children. Click on it for a larger view, and you’ll note that each of the ‘Hail Mary’ beads is actually a ladybug.

Now, of course the reason that most protestants find the rosary so offensive is twofold. Firstly, 53 prayers said to Mary. We pray to God, and God alone. We do not require her mediation with God, because, as Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5). Secondly, repeating the same prayer over and over again is in direct contrast to Jesus’ instructions to his disciples, “when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Matthew 6:7)

Even though I’ve mentioned it in past posts, allow me to say once again that I am not ‘anti-Mary.’ On the contrary! I feel Mary doesn’t get enough credit in our evangelical churches, mainly for fear that they’ll sound too Catholic. I’d love to hear a good “faithful servant” sermon about Mary. I’ve heard about 100 of them about Samuel, why not Mary? Protestants often have an irrational fear of Mary, when what they really fear is the exaltation of Mary. When communicating with a Catholic friend, remember that sensitivity is the key. Keep your eyes fixed squarely on the goal. Just as you won’t get very far with a Mormon if you decide to unnecessarily bash on Joseph Smith, you won’t get very far with your Catholic friend if you decide to instigate the conversation by bashing on Mary. The Catholic view of Mary has a whole bunch of emotional strings attached, so be wary as you pluck them.

This ends today’s lesson. Next week, maybe I’ll talk about why I don’t like crucifixes. Particularly glow-in-the dark ones.

the big dip

Baptism has been coming up a lot in my discussion circles for some reason lately. In my Sunday School class we started the Swiss Reformation, and I touched on the Anabaptist movement, and the reactions to it. We talked Felix Mantz receiving his “third baptism,” having suffered drowning for his rejection of infant-baptism. What makes his death so frustrating is that he was a member of a small group with Ulrich Zwingli, who fiercely clung to the concept of Sola Scriptura. Because there was no New Testament example of musical instruments in worship, he banned their use from the churches in Zurich. Had he been consistent, and not subject to political influence, he would have applied that same logic to the topic of infant baptism.

In addition to that little reminder, I am a member of a “Baptist” church. Now, I personally can’t stand that nickname for my denomination, chiefly because I’ve spoken to numerous people outside of the faith who completely misunderstand what it means. Denomination names are really designed for Christians to identify their favorites – not as welcome messages to the lost. I’d like to see the denomination names retired to small-print, or just a side-note, something like:

I am a young Christian, but I am also an “intentional Baptist.” That is to say, when I was offered church membership, I didn’t jump at the invitation. No, I wanted to be sure I was willing to stand and be counted with this particular body of believers. I had been a Christian for less than a year, and still desperately struggling with many theological and moral issues. I needed to be sure of where I stood. I can happily say now that I am a Baptist, that I am in agreement with the key distinctives of that denomination.

However, I have the ability to look at my own fellowship with a critical eye, and recognize faults there, as well. No, we’re not as charismatic as some groups, and I’m okay with that. We have one too many pictures of Viking Jesus around, especially in the children’s center. I never understood why this Palestinian Jew was always depicted as a smiling Norseman. But those, in my mind, are very tiny little things. I could care less how the seats are arranged, whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in the Supper. There is, however, on thing that I do take issue with.

Historically, the Baptist movement was about the faith of the one getting baptized. We adhere to a “believer’s baptism” – baptizing an individual who has confessed faith in Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That baptism is a public profession of faith, and an act of obedience to Christ. It’s a way of publicly saying, “I’m broken. I cannot fix myself. But now I have been crucified with Christ Jesus, and I have faith that He’s going to fix me, and make me more like him.”

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 specifies 4 key points on the matter of baptism:

1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4)

2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8)

3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38)

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. (Matthew 3:16; John 3:23)

Please note that the subject of the mode of baptism comes last, and is almost mentioned as a side-issue. You’ll have a hard time using the two scripture references to really boost a case for immersion to someone of another tradition though. Let’s look at them both. First, Matthew 3:16:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

I suppose the argument could be made that the phrase, “went up out of the water” means that he was completely submerged, and then came up out of complete submersion. A hard row to hoe with someone who doesn’t already share your tradition in that matter, though. How about John 3:23?

Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

It’s an even harder case to make from this passage. We’re saying that it MUST have been baptism by full immersion because the reason this particular place was chosen was because there was plenty of water. That’s it? Well, of course that’s not it. The very word “baptize” means “to dip.” In the case of a person, then, you are obviously dipping a person. So yes, correctly applied baptism should be by immersing a believer in water. The Didache (literally “The Teaching,” referring to apostolic teachings) one of the earliest texts of the church after the New Testament, speaks much on the subject of baptism, and reaffirms that the mode is to be by full immersion. But read what else it says…

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Sounds to me like they’re saying, “Here’s the way you should do it. But if you can’t do it that way, find some other way, just get it done!” Of course, the Didache isn’t inspired or authoritative. Don’t get me wrong. I am not in any way attempting to say that baptism should not be performed by full immersion. It absolutely should be! However, we get into a difficult position when someone outside of the Baptist tradition comes to accept the beliefs and distinctive of that denomination. I believe that, due to traditions in the church, and the adoption of nearly sacramental habits, our denomination has placed an unbalanced focus on the mode of baptism, even above the spiritual position of the baptism subject. The primary question posed in regard to potential new members is, “Have they been baptized by immersion?” Nobody even asks, “Are they Trinitarian?” or even “Are they Christian?” Now, of course, new members always have a meeting with a couple of deacons who then make the recommendation for membership, so I don’t want to give the impression that we’re ignorant of doctrinal issues.

That being said, what about someone from another tradition who we would consider completely orthodox, and has been the recipient of a believer’s baptism, but NOT by full immersion… what then do we do? In my particular church, those individuals are asked to get baptized by full immersion. We ask them to essentially nullify their previous baptism, as though they have not yet acted in obedience to the Lord. What that does to the heart of that individual! Given the previous definition of what baptism represents, are we saying the individual who’s had, say, water poured over their head has not properly indicated their fellowship with Christ? Has not partaken of His death and resurrection. Has not taken to abiding in Him? Has not received remission of their sins? Has not given up to God, through Christ, to live and walk in newness of life? Are we seriously saying that the person who has not been fully submerged has not done and experienced these things?

I’m a full believer in the fact that heretical baptism is not a true baptism. Someone who is baptized in obedience to Michael the archangel (Jehovah’s Witness), or the spirit-brother of Satan (Mormon) has not been baptized in obedience to Jesus the Christ, God and Savior. Those are spiritual, theological matters. Those are matters of faith and orthodoxy. How much surface area of your body was covered with water is another matter entirely. Therefore, I question whether it is right to deny an individual membership on the basis of the mode of baptism they experienced. As long as that individual agrees in principle that baptism is best performed by immersion, then I don’t see a problem. Anyway, there’s my rant on that matter. Please leave comments if you would.

Now, onto non-ranting, very exciting stuff. There is so much in my life worthy of praise, but this past year has been absolutely amazing in many respects, despite my personal struggles with depression. Those who read the blog regularly know that people I thought I’d lost forever have come back into my life. You’ve read about Tieren, Katelynn and Shelby, and the joy they’ve been to my family and I. You’ve also read about their spiritual journey, how the girls attended a Christian camp this past summer. How they’ve all be deeply touched by God, and experienced amazing new life in Christ. What you haven’t read about is the countless hours spent talking with them about God, and Scripture, and the reasons for what we believe – the sharing of my personal experiences – the denial of the “blindness” of faith – the questions about moral issues. I couldn’t possibly document all that, nor would I want to. Those are treasures I keep in my heart, and will cherish for all time.

As if next weekend weren’t going to be amazing enough, being the holiest time in the Christian calendar, a time of remembering what God has accomplished through Christ. A time to contemplate the richness of God’s mercy, and the unfathomable undeserved grace he extends to us. At this time, on Easter Sunday, Tieren, Katelynn and Shelby are all being baptized in obedience to Christ. They are publicly demonstrating that they are not the same people they were before. They are saying to a watching world, “Jesus lives, and He’s changed me forever.” Praise His holy name!

Oh yeah… and they’re going all the way under.

so THAT’S where acid rain comes from

One of the most anti-theistic comedy programs on the air is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, but you know what? I still think it’s pretty funny, mainly because he’s at least unbiased when it comes to mocking theistic worldview in its entirety. He’s not just picking on Christian theism, but Judaism, Islam as well as the major humanistic and polytheistic religions. I also enjoy the fact that he spends most of his time picking on Americans… which is a favorite pastime of mine.

However, I heard comedienne Janeane Garofalo on there, and while I recognize that she’s a comic, and not a social analyst, I think she said some things that represent an enormous chunk of liberal western thinking. Here�s a sound clip from the interview, and you can actually watch the whole interview online by clicking here. Basically, she�s shocked that the USA currently has a so-called �fundamentalist� president. What is the deal with this word?! Why does it carry with it all this excess baggage that indicates the subject is a cave-man, anxious to bash potential mates over the head and drag them back to the old hole in the ground.

For Ms. Garofalo, anyone who believes that the universe was intentional is apparently suffering from some sort of delusion. It simply amazes me that these people cannot carry their world-views through to their logical conclusion and see that, if you believe that our existence is an impersonal, unintentional combination of time and random environmental factors, then there is absolutely no reason to attach any value to human life, or the world around us. What reason could she possibly, logically propose to offer any foundation to a condemnation of murder? She can�t, not logically. Naturalistic humanists are forced to inconsistently borrow from the theistic system in order to define standards of right and wrong, and attach value to existence. However, I don�t think she really had too much interest in maintaining a logical train of thought, since she feels George W. Bush�s environmental policy is a direct result of his eschatology.

Don�t get me wrong though� I�m not a Bush supporter. However, I can�t think back on a single U.S. president I would, in good conscience, support. Guess that�s the Canadian in me, though. Anyway, please leave some comments on Ms. Garofalo�s statements, and share your personal experiences with similar discussions�

a quick aside

In my attempt to avoid finger-pointing, I guess I left too much open to the possibility of erroneous interpretation with my post yesterday. Allow me to just address few things quickly. Firstly, this is a personal perspective. I’m not everybody else, and I have my own life experiences that colour everything I see. That’s why I brought up my old IRC experience, and how that could be effecting my current mood.

Secondly, I’m Pete. My wife will tell you what that means. It means that, once you’ve earned my love & respect, I’m sorry, but you’re stuck with it. Know what else that means? It means I’m emotionally effected when I see people bashing my friends! It makes me grumpy. And when I’m grumpy, I rant.

Thirdly, no I don’t think anyone in this ongoing drama is entirely faultless. People lose thier tempers, get flustered, take things personally. It happens. Welcome to humanity. I include myself in that, as demonstrated by my previous entry.

Therefor, I apologize to anyone who may have been hurt by my previous entry. I don’t regret expressing myself, because the bottom line remains the same. I do regret, however, causing anyone to doubt my intentions.