Book Note: W. Gary Crampton's "A Concise Theology of Karl Barth"

W. Gary Crampton, A Concise Theology of Karl Barth (Whitefield Media, 2012):  103 pp.

Karl Barth is considered by many to be the most important theologian of the twentieth century.  His massive, multi-volume Church Dogmatics continues to be read and studied.  Debate also continues as to whether Barth was a friend or foe for evangelicals and conservative Protestants.

Gary Crampton’s slim volume offers a concise summary, review, and analysis of the broad outlines of Barth’s thought.  He does so by reviewing Barth’s 1959 book Dogmatics in Outline, which offered a synopsis of his theology through an exposition of the Apostles' Creed.   In the end, Crampton offers the following conclusion:

Karl Barth was surely one of the twentieth century’s greatest thinkers.  Much of what he taught was in line with biblical Christianity. His theological views are very profound, and well worth studying.  As we have noted, however, Dr. Barth championed a neo-orthodox theology that, in some parts, is clearly antithetical to Reformed orthodox doctrine.  When one denies that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant God-breathed truth of the God of Bible, he denies the authority of God Himself who speaks in Holy Scripture, and, therefore, his conversion must be highly suspect.  Neo-orthodoxy is not biblical Christianity, and if followed to its logical conclusions it will lead one away from the true teaching of the Word of God into an abyss of logical paradox and teachings which are not in accord with the Word of God (p. 88).

Crampton’s book closes with an appendix titled “The Neo-Orthodoxy of Donald Bloesch” (pp. 90-103)  which analyzes Bloesch’s efforts to find a supposed “middle ground” between Barth’s neo-orthodoxy and evangelical orthodoxy in his two-volume Essentials of Evangelical Theology.  Crampton argues that the result is a view of Scripture that is “errant and dangerous” (p. 93).  It leaves him “without an epistemological foundation upon which to base his theology” (p. 90) and “mired in skepticism” (p. 103).

Crampton’s A Concise Theology of Karl Barth is commended to any who desire an accessible introduction to Barth’s theology from a traditional, Reformed perspective.  It also provides a caution and warning against the appropriation of Barth’s theology among those who would hold a high, confessional view of Scripture.

Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia.

The Vision (7/4/13): July 4: A Day for "solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty"

American founding Father John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776 regarding the adoption of The Declaration of Independence:

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Of course, at the time he wrote he thought the adoption of the declaration would be observed on July 2^nd rather than the 4^th, but his prediction of the manner of its celebration was still prophetic.  What is striking is that he thought the celebration should not only include “Bonfires and Illuminations” but also “solemn Acts of Devotion to God.”  Today we are thankful for our nation and the peculiar ways the Lord has blessed it.  As Paul admonished Timothy, we are to offer prayer for all men, including “kings, and all that are in authority” (1 Tim 2:1-2).  Today we honor that by praying for our nation and her leaders.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Independence Day Thoughts

Over a leisurely breakfast this morning before heading out to celebrate Independence Day this afternoon and evening, we read aloud The Declaration of Independence.  The part that gained the most interest was this statement:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing forms to which they are accustomed…..

This led to a discussion of current events in Egypt.  Were the people and military justified in overthrowing a President they had elected without allowing him to complete his term?  Can one really have a democracy in a nation that has not been culturally influenced by Judeo-Christian values?  If the majority of people in a nation want a totalitarian government that does not acknowledge and extend freedom of religion, liberty of conscience, basic human rights, etc. is it really “democratic”?  In other words, can the people want the wrong things?  Are decisions justified just because the majority approve or allow them?  What will be the future of our nation if the majority of our citizens are no longer influenced by the religious and cultural values held by the founders of the nation and the framers of its foundational governing documents?

An ancient letter on infanticide

Here’s another snippet from Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, which includes an oft-cited ancient letter from a husband (Hilarion) to his expecting wife (Alis):

For now, consider a letter written by one Hilarion to his pregnant wife Alis, which has been reported by many authors because of the quite extraordinary contrast between his deep concern for his wife and his hoped-for son, and his utter callousness toward a possible daughter:

Know that I am still in Alexandria.  I do not worry if they all come back and I remain in Alexandria.  I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I receive payment I shall send it up to you.  If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if it is a girl discard it.  You have sent me word, “Don’t forget me.”  How can I forget you.  I beg you not to worry…. (p. 98).

Another window into infanticide in the pre-Christian world

I started reading Anthony Everitt’s Augustus:  The Life of Rome’s First Emperor (Random House, 2006).  Given Stark’s discussion of infanticide in the pre-Christian world, I found interesting Everitt’s description of the birth of the great Emperor [here referred to as Gaius]:

By tradition, the paterfamilias held the power of life and death over his household, both his relatives and his slaves.  When a child was born, the midwife took the infant and placed it on the floor in front of the father.  Should the father wish to acknowledge his paternity, he would lift the baby into his arms if it was a boy; if a girl, he would simply instruct that she be fed.  Only after this ritual had taken place did the child receive his or her first nourishment.

Apparently Gaius was lucky to survive this procedure, for an astrologer had given him a bad prognosis and he narrowly escaped infanticide.  If Gaius had been rejected, he would have been abandoned in the open air and left to die; this was a fate to which illegitimate children and girls were especially liable, as were (one may surmise) sickly or disabled babies.  Rejected infants were left on dunghills, or near cisterns.  They were often picked up there by slave traders (although the family might reclaim the child later, if it so wished) or, more rarely, rescued by a kindly passerby.  Otherwise, they would starve, unless eaten by stray dogs (p. 9).

Thomas Vincent on the duties of wives and husbands flowing from the Fifth Commandment

Note:  I am continuing a Sunday afternoon series through the Baptist Catechism's exposition of the Ten Commandments.  Last Sunday's message reflected on the wider implications of the fifth commandment including the duties of wives and husbands to one another.  In so doing, I continued to lean heavily on Thomas Vincent's exposition of The Shorter Catechism.  Below is a summary of Vincent's listing of seven duties each for wives and husbands:

Seven Duties of wives to husbands:

First:  Love them above every other person in the world.  In Titus 2:4 Paul told the older women to teach the younger women “to love their husbands.”

Second:  Loyalty and faithfulness, in reference unto the bed and estate, and any secrets intrusted with them.  Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.”

Third:  Reverence and fear of offending them.  Ephesians 5:33:  “Le the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Fourth:  Subjection unto them in all things lawful under Christ.  Compare Ephesians 5:22, 24.

Fifth:  Care to please them, suiting themselves to their disposition, and all things to their liking.  Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:34:  “She that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”

Sixth:   Helping them to bear their burdens, and in making provision for their families.  The ideal wife in Proverbs 31:27 is described as one “who looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.”

Seventh:  Giving ear to, and complying with, the counsels of their husbands, if good, for their soul’s welfare; and endeavoring, with meekness and wisdom, with kindness and loving admonitions, and a chaste, sweet conversation, to win their husbands over to the ways of God, when they are wicked.  He cites Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:1-2.

Seven duties of husbands to wives:

First:  Most endeared love to them, like unto the love of Christ to his church.  Ephesians 5:25:  “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.”

Second:  Dwelling with them, and, according to knowledge, honoring them, and delighting in their company.  He cites Genesis 2:24 about a man leaving his parent’s household and cleaving to his wife.  Also, 1 Peter 3:7 which says, “Husbands dwell with them [wives] according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel.” And Proverbs 5:18 which enjoins husbands, “Rejoice with the wife of thy youth.”

Third:  Tenderness towards them, and careful provision of food and raiment, and all things necessary for them, as for their own bodies.  Ephesians 5:28-29:  “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.”

Fourth:  Fidelity to them in keeping the marriage covenant, so as to forbear the use of any other besides themselves.  He cites the prophet Hosea’s words to his wife:  “Thou shalt not be for another man; so will I be also for thee” (Hosea 3:3).

Fifth:  Protection of them from injuries, and covering their infirmities with the wings of love.  He cites David’s care for his family (1 Samuel 30:18) and Peter’s admonition that charity or love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8).

Sixth:  Care to please them in all things lawful and fit, and praise of them when they do well.  1 Corinthians 7:33:  “He that is married, careth for the things that are of the world, how he may pleaseth his wife.”

Seventh:  Prayer with them and for them, counsel and admonition of them, and every way helping them, especially in reference to their souls walking with them in the ways and ordinances of the Lord.  1 Peter 3:7:  “Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Stark, Infanticide, and Loving One's Neighbor

Note:  I preached Sunday on Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).  In the applications, I drew from Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Early Christianity to illustrate how early Christians followed the teaching of Jesus on loving their neighbors by rejecting infanticide.

“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:36-37).

 

Christians took care of the weakest and most vulnerable.  This included the fact that they would not practice abortion and infanticide.  They saw this as an integral part of loving one’s neighbor.

Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity (Harper One, 1996) is insightful on this subject.  He notes in particular how in the pre-Christian world infanticide was common among pagans:  “Seneca regarded the drowning of children at birth as both reasonable and commonplace” (this and other quotes below from p. 118).  The Roman historian Tacitus condemned the “Jewish” teaching that it was sinful to kill an unwanted child as but another of their “sinister and revolting” practices.

He notes that it was common for pagans to expose unwanted children out of doors where anyone who wanted could take the child and rear it or, if unwanted, the child would fall victim to the elements or to animals and birds.  This practice was justified by society including its leading philosophers:

Both Plato and Aristotle recommended infanticide as legitimate state policy.  The Twelve Tables—the earliest known legal code, written about 450 B. C. E.—permitted a father to expose any female infant and any deformed or weak male infant.

Stark describes a recent archaeological excavation in the ancient city of Ashkelon in which the researchers reported making “a gruesome discovery in the sewer that ran under the bathhouse…the sewer had been clogged with refuse sometime in the sixth century A. D.  When we excavated and dry-sieved the desiccated sewage, we found [the] bones … of nearly 100 little babies apparently murdered and thrown into the sewer.”

It is assumed that nearly all those little bodies were girls.

It was the Christian view of the sanctity of life but also their view of loving their weakest and most defenseless neighbors that led them to reject pagan practices and to influence the cultures in which they lived, likewise, to see such practices as vile and reprehensible.

JTR

The Cross and the Jukebox

 

 

While I was reading the article by Russell Moore on this week's Supreme Court decisions that I used in this week's Vision, I also ran across his weekly podcast "The Cross and the Jukebox" which discussed "cultural and religious themes in country music."

The Vision (6/27/13): Russell Moore: Your Church and the Same Sex Marriage Decisions

Note:  The following online article was posted on June 26, 2013 to the website of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC.  The author is the Commission President, Dr. Russell Moore.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the much-awaited decisions on same-sex marriage. How should your church respond? The first way is by recognizing that marriage is not merely a public good, and it’s certainly not simply a “culture war” political issue. Marriage is a gospel mystery, the Scripture tells us, an icon of Christ and the church embedded in the creation (Eph 5:32). When marriage falters, the gospel is eclipsed. On the other hand, the conversation about marriage gives the church the opportunity to point to a different word, the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4).

WHAT THE RULINGS SAY

1.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. It was determined to deprive persons equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.

2.  The Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act means that same-sex couples who are legally married will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law.

3.  The Supreme Court ruled that the defenders of California’s Proposition 8 did not have legal standing as private sponsors to appeal the federal decision to strike down the ballot.

4.  The Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 means that same-sex marriage may be allowed to resume in the state of California.

5.  These Supreme Court decisions mean that religious liberty challenges are soon to emerge in new and unprecedented ways.

 WHAT HASN’T CHANGED

1.  Jesus Christ is still alive, and ultimately will bend history toward his kingdom.

2.  God, as Creator and Judge, determines the goal of human sexuality and the boundaries of marriage. The United States government, or any human state, didn’t create marriage, and can’t redefine it. The state can only recognize, or fail to recognize, what already exists: the one-flesh union that is the foundation of the family and every human civilization.

3.  The Bible addresses all of us as sexual sinners (1 Cor 6:18). We do not stand in judgment over others, as though we were righteous and whole.

4.  Our consciences and our churches are answerable to “another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7) when it comes to matters of sexual morality and marital accountability. The First Amendment recognizes this free exercise of religion. Your congregation cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages, to provide premarital or marital counseling to persons whose marriages you don’t recognize as biblical, or to jettison your membership requirements.

WHAT SHOULD YOUR CHURCH DO?

1.  Teach your congregation to avoid anger, outrage, or despair. Jesus tells us marriage has existed as a male/female one-flesh union “from the beginning.” This means marriage is resilient, regardless of what cultures do to minimize it.

2.  Love your gay and lesbian neighbors. They aren’t part of an evil conspiracy. They are, like all of us apart from Christ, seeking a way that seems best to them. Be kind, and respect all persons as image-bearers of God.

3.  Preach and teach on the integrity of conjugal marriage. Don’t assume your people understand the gospel foundations of marriage. Take this opportunity to point to the formation of healthy, gospel-shaped marriage cultures within your congregation.

4.  Repent of the ways our congregational cultures have downgraded marriage. If your church hasn’t addressed divorce, cohabitation, or fornication through proclamation and discipline, now is the time to repent and rework.

5.  Make your marriage convictions clear in your confession of faith. If your church assumes a definition of marriage, your confession of faith is now irrelevant. Defend your religious liberty by making your congregational conviction clear in your statement of faith. Make your marriage convictions clear in your church by-laws. Address what repentance and gospel fidelity looks like for those seeking membership, for those in good standing with your church, and for those who wish to be married in your church building or by the officers of your church.

6.  Stop laissez-faire wedding policies. Your church building is not a public space and your church ministers aren’t justices of the peace. Make clear that you will marry, and host weddings, only for those who have accountability to the people of Christ and to the Word of God.

Ishmael's Mocking: Paul's application of Genesis 21:9 in Galatians 4:29

Note:  Here are some notes from my exposition of Galatians 4:29 in my sermon on Galatians 4:21-31.

 

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking (Genesis 21:9).

 

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now (Galatians 4:29).

 

I think Paul adds Galatians 4:29 as an encouragement to those who first received this letter and who were sympathetic to his cause, reminding them that just as Ishmael mocked Isaac, so the spiritual descendants of Isaac can expect to be mocked or persecuted by the spiritual descendants of Ishmael.

 

It is striking that all through this letter Paul never speaks of the dangers of persecution coming upon the church from the pagan Roman government, but he does describe persecution that comes from those who claim to be brethren.

 

Terry Johnson, pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Georgia,  in his recent commentary on Galatians (Christian Focus, 2012) notes:  “This mocking by Ishmael of Isaac corresponds to the persecution of believers by those ensnared in legalism” (p. 122).

 

 

He then adds from his own pastoral observations:

 

I can only think of one time in twenty years that our congregation has suffered persecution, either fierce or mild, from outside the organized, visible church.  But from within?  I can hardly think of anything good that hasn’t been resisted, often fiercely.  On a personal level, Christian people typically suffer more at the hands of fellow professing Christians than worldlings.  Remember Ishmael was a part of the visible church.  The longer I am in the ministry, the more I am astonished at how cruel Christian people can be to one another, all under the guise of righteousness as well.

 

He continues:

 

Think of your own wounds and the scars of recent years. Who has inflicted them?  Who has criticized your priorities?  Who has criticized your choices?  Who has discourages and defeated you?  Has not most of this come to you from within the visible church?....  Why?  Because the besetting sin of zealous Christians is a Pharisaic self-righteousness.  We all seem to have our lists of things to which everyone must conform.  I don’t mean biblical things like keeping the Ten Commandments, tithing, witnessing, loving one’s neighbor, and so on.  Of course we must all do those things.  I mean extra-biblical expectations regarding ways of doing things and saying things, and matters of judgment not principle, about taking the left fork and not the right fork.  We can become Pharisees about food and drink, about child-rearing and education, about fashion and finances.  Take care about what you say, when you say it, and how you say it!  Take care lest unwittingly you become a persecutor of the saints (p. 123).

John Brown on the trials of the ministry

Note:  Below is one of the points of application from my sermon on Galatians 4:12-20.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16) 

 

Application: This passage reminds ministers, and all those engaged in personal ministry as well, that the exercise of the ministry is very often painful and discouraging.
 

John Brown in his 1853 commentary on Galatians zeroes in on this application:

The Christian ministry, if entered on with appropriate sentiments, and prosecuted with conscientious fidelity, will be found replete with difficulties.  Its toils are arduous and unceasing—its trials numerous and severe.

The minister must submit,

to labors often ill-appreciated, sometimes unkindly requited, and with meeting trials and afflictions which are the more severe as coming  from a quarter from which nothing but support and encouragement has been expected.

Brown continues:

It is not an impossible, nor even an uncommon, thing for persons who seemed to be—who were—most tenderly attached to their ministers, and attached to him in consequence of having received from him spiritual advantage, to have their affections entirely alienated from him whom they so greatly esteemed and loved; and what is worse still, it is not impossible, nor very uncommon, to find this alienation of affection to their minister arising out of , or at any rate connected with, indifference about, or rejection of, those grand peculiarities of Christian truths….

He adds:

This is one of the severest trials which a Christian minister can meet with; and perhaps there are few situations in which he is so strongly tempted to indulge something like a resentful, almost a malignant feeling, as when thus situated, in reference to those designing men, whose selfish intrigues have been the means of injuring the best interests of his people, and robbing him of the dearest jewel of his heart.  It is comparatively an easy thing for a minister to be reproached, and ridiculed, and persecuted by an ungodly world; but he only knows who has felt it how bitter it is to see those whose conversion and spiritual improvement he flattered himself he had been the instrument, to guide whom to heaven he felt to be his most delightful work on earth, and to meet with whom in heaven who was not of the least delightful anticipations of eternity—to see them regard him with “hard unkindness, altered eye,” especially if, when they are turning their backs on him, they also seem in extreme hazard of making shipwreck of faith and of a good conscience.

In the end, Brown suggests that Paul in his interaction with the Galatians is a model of how the minister is to deal with such circumstances with discretion, patience, and affection.  Can we learn to do the same?

Thomas Vincent on the duties of children and parents flowing from the Fifth Commandment

In my Sunday afternoon exposition of Spurgeon's revision of the Baptist Catechism, I have been making frequent use of Thomas Vincent's "The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture" (1674; Banner of Truth ed., 1980).

 

Yesterday, we began to look at the fifth commandment (Exodus 20:12).  Here is an abbreviated list of Vincent's seven duties of children to parents and seven duties of parents to children (with his copious proof text references largely omitted):

The duties of children to parents:

1.      Inward honor, reverence, and estimation.

2.     Outward reverent carriage and behavior.

3.     Diligent hearkening to their instructions.

4.     Willing obedience to all lawful commands.

5.     Meek and patient bearing their reproofs and corrections, with amendment of the faults they are reproved and corrected for.

6.     Ready following their reasonable counsel, in reference to their calling, station, marriage, and any great affairs of their lives.

7.     Grateful kindness to them, in nourishing them, providing for them, and bearing with their infirmities when aged, and fallen into want and poverty.

The duties of parents to children:

1.      Tender love and care of them, especially when infants and helpless; particularly, mothers ought to give suck [nurse] their children, if they are able. 

 

2.     Training them up in the knowledge of the Scriptures, and principles of religion, and giving them good instructions in the laws and ways of the Lord, as soon as they are capable of receiving them.

3.     Prayer for them, and giving good examples of holiness, temperance, and righteousness unto them.

4.     Keeping them under subjection whilst young, yet requiring nothing of them but what is agreeable to the law of the Lord.  He adds, “As children must obey, so parents must command in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1, 4).

 

5.     Encouragement of them by kind looks and speeches, and rewards in well-doing, together with discountenance, reproof and loving and seasonable correction of them for evil doing (Proverbs 29:15, 17).

6.      Provision for them of what is needful for the present; as also laying up for them according to the proportion of what they have, for the future (1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Corinthians 12:14).

7.      Disposal of them to trades, callings, and in marriage, when grown up, as may be for their good; therein using no force, but consulting and considering their capacity and inclination.

The Vision (6/20/13): 2013 VBS Reflections: David and Jesus

 

Image:  Scene from singing time at VBS

We completed our 2013 CRBC “Puritan” Vacation Bible School today.  We had a great time of learning, singing, playing, making, eating, and fellowshipping.  For those not able to join us, here is an outline of what we studied this year from the life of David.

Monday:  David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17)

            Tuesday:  David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 20)

            Wednesday:  David and Absalom (2 Samuel 18-19)

            Thursday:  David and Jesus (2 Samuel 7:12-14)

Thanks to all the youth and adult workers who made it happen.  Thanks also to the children who came each day with enthusiasm and excitement to learn about God’s Word.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (6/13/13): Fathers, provoke not your children

One of the most timely and striking news stories that appeared in this week before Father’s Day was one from a Richmond, Virginia television station that reported on the rising number of single parent homes in our state capital.

An organization called “First Things First” reported that 60% of all families in Richmond are single parent families.  In the African-American community, that number spikes to an unbelievable 86 %.  Of course, most of these single parent homes are ones with a single mother who is raising children without the daily presence and support of a father.

The report also noted the toll that homes without fathers can have on children, citing Department of Health and Justice statistics which report that 63% of youth suicides, 71% of high school dropouts, and 70% of incarcerated juveniles come from fatherless homes.

When Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians, he offered a ‘’household code,” instructing Christians as to how to organize and interact in their extended families, addressing the relationship between wives and husbands, children and parents, servants and masters (see Eph 5:22—6:9).  When addressing the child-parent relationship, Paul specifically addressed fathers telling them, “provoke not your children to wrath” (6:4).  The NIV renders the phrase, “do not exasperate your children.”

No doubt, we Christian fathers will not always perform our duties as providers, leaders, and encouragers as we should.  We are always thankful that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8).  We know both intuitively and from the explicit counsel of God’s Word how we should be.  May the Lord raise up a vast number of Christian men in our generation who have taken up the call to be godly husbands and fathers to reverse the current slide and give salt and light to a dying culture.    

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (6/6/13): They will know we are Christians...

 

 

I’ve recently been reading a book titled The Rise of Christianity (Princeton University Press/HarperOne, 1996) by Rodney Stark.  The book is a series of sociological studies on early Christianity.  The book’s subtitle is:  How the Obscure Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.

In one chapter Stark contrasts how Christians and pagans responded during times of plague and how this difference affected the growth of the Christian movement.  Stark examines in particular a major epidemic that struck the Roman Empire in the year 260 AD.  At the plague’s height over 5,000 persons per day died in the city of Rome alone.

Once the plague passed, a Christian pastor in Alexandria, Egypt named Dionysius wrote a letter describing how the believers had cared for the sick and dying and how many had sacrificed their own lives in such service.  He wrote:

Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another.  Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains.  Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead….  The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters [elders], deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal of martyrdom.

In contrast, Dionysius also described how the pagans responded to the same crisis:

The heathen behaved in the very opposite way.  At the first onset of the disease, they pushed the sufferers away and fled from their dearest, throwing them into the roads before they were dead and treated unburied corpses as dirt, hoping thereby to avert the spread and contagion of the fatal disease; but do what they might, they found it difficult to escape.

Stark concludes that it was the compassionate response of Christians to the members of their own communities, as well as to strangers, that significantly contributed to the spread of the Christian movement during that time.

Reading the chapter I was reminded of the words of the old hymn, “They will know we are Christians by our love.”  As with the church of old, may the Lord gives to his church today a heart of compassion, self-sacrifice, and service that will become an effective witness to our community.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (5/30/13): An Affectionate Admonition: "For I stand in doubt of you."

Note:  Here are some notes from last Sunday’s sermon “An Enemy Because of the Truth” (Galatians 4:12-20) expositing the passage’s closing verses:

 “[19] My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [20] I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you” (Galatians 4:19-20).

Paul concludes in vv. 19-20 with a deeply personal and affectionate admonishment to the Galatians.  Galatians is sometimes called the harshest of Paul’s epistles because of its serious and polemical tone, but these verses make the argument that it is actually among the most affectionate of Paul’s letters.  He begins by calling the Galatians “My little children (techna mou).”  This is without parallel anywhere in the NT.  Paul then draws a vivid analogy.  His relationship to the Galatians is like a mother who is laboring to give birth to a child.  Terry Johnson notes the irony of this image:

He is their mother.  He calls them his ‘children.’ But because of their flirtations with apostasy he finds himself ‘again in labor until Christ is formed in you—‘  They had been through this before.  He had already been in labor with them.  ‘Labor’ indicates a painful process.  They had been converted.  They had died to self and been united to Christ.  But then they had reverted, making new birth necessary (Galatians, p. 118).

Paul is still there with them in the travails of labor “until Christ be formed (morpho-o) in you.”  Usually birth is an image of salvation (as in John 3), but here it is of sanctification.  If you are a Christian, Christ is being formed in you.  The Spirit of Christ indwells you.  You are being shaped into Christ-likeness.  In Ephesians 4:15 Paul can speak of growing up “into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.”

The intimate, personal nature of Paul’s ministry continues in v. 20:  “I desire to be present with you, and to change my voice.”  Paul knew there were some things that paper and pen could not communicate.  Today he’d add that email, text messages, Facebook, blogs, and tweets cannot replace face to face, person to person contact.  For one thing he wants them to hear the tone of his voice.  Perhaps he did not want them to hear it as scolding but as broken, hoarse, and tender.

The final word in v. 20 is perhaps Paul’s most solemn and subtle warning:  “for I stand in doubt of you.”  This is like what he said in v. 11 about his labor among them possibly having been in vain.  What did Paul mean by this?  I think, again, he considered the Galatians to be his “brethren” (see v. 12), but he wanted them to know the seriousness of his concern.  How can one abandon the pure gospel and still be considered a Christian?  It is a warning meant to call the Galatians toward serious self-examination, repentance, and restoration.

If one were objectively to examine our Christian lives, would he have reason to pronounce:  “I stand in doubt of you”?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (5/23/13): Lard or Ice Cream?

 

Note:  In preaching last Sunday on Galatians 4:8-11, I drew this analogy in the exposition of v. 9 on Paul’s frustration over Galatians brethren who were abandoning the true gospel for a false one.

“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” (Galatians 4:9).

 

Note how Paul marvels that the Galatians might want to turn from the pure gospel of Christ back to a false religion based on slavish devotion.   The verb Paul uses for “to turn again” is epistrepho, and it means to turn around or to turn back.  How, Paul asks, could you know the riches of Christ, the preciousness of Christ, the joy of Christ and want to go back to the spiritual enslavement under which you suffered before Christ?  How could you make such a 180 degree turn?  This is truly baffling to Paul.

Imagine a child is duped by some cruel guardians to believe that lard is ice cream.  They feed the child lard and tell her how wonderful and how tasty it is.  They explain how everyone else is eating and enjoying it.  Not knowing any better, she eats it too, and even says she likes it (but really doesn’t).  Then, one day someone shows up in town and gives the child a real bowl of ice cream. The moment she puts it in her mouth she knows this is different. How could anyone ever possibly prefer lard to ice cream?  But then, to make our analogy complete, imagine that after some time we return to look in on the child and find that she had changed her mind and now prefers to eat lard instead of ice cream.  In fact, she insists, against all evidence to the contrary, that lard is better and tastier and more satisfying that ice cream.  Would this not bewilder us?  Paul is as baffled over the Galatians as we would be over such a child.

If we have truly found Christ, why would we ever revert back to false religion we had before we were converted?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (5/16/13): An Heir of God Through Christ

Note:  Here are my sermon notes from the closing application of last Sunday morning’s sermon on Galatians 4:1-7:

“Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Galatians 4:7).

Paul lays out in Galatians 4:1-7 what we might well describe as God’s plan of salvation (order of salvation):

1.      He describes where we were outside of Christ and apart from Christ (vv. 1-3). We were immature slaves.

2.     He describes the glory of the incarnation, God moving toward us in Christ (v. 4).

3.     He describes the miracle of both redemption and adoption (v. 5).

4.     He describes the miracle of sanctification by the indwelling Spirit of God (v. 6).

5.     He describes the present reality of our new status as sons, which pushes us to the horizons of this life and to the final stage of glorification (v. 7).  We are the true heirs of God through Christ (dia Christou).  All his riches are available to us now, however clouded, and will be revealed to us fully, as he wills in the future.

In his book Heirs with Christ:  the Puritans on Adoption, Joel Beeke writes:

God’s child is like a poor peasant who has been taken out of the mire and raised in a position as prince of the realm.  The adopted prince lives in the palace, has free access to the king, and enjoys the king’s favor, love, and protection.  The prince tells the king that he cannot comprehend the greatness of the king’s love; it is unspeakably great to him.  The king responds:  “You have not begun to see the extent of it.  Your inheritance is still coming to you” (pp. 70-71).

Thomas Watson wrote that it would be much for God “to take a clod of dust and make it a star; it is more [however] for God to take a piece of clay and sin and adopt it for his heir” (in Heirs with Christ, pp. 41-42).

I attended the Commencement Service last Friday morning at the FWCC where 19 inmates received their Associate degrees.  One of the guest speakers for the service was Doris Buffet (sister of Warren Buffet), the wealthy benefactor whose Sunshine Foundation had paid for these inmates to pursue their education.  Obviously there was a great deal of gratitude expressed to her, and she was, to her credit, humble in receiving it.  Several said something like, “Who would have guessed that someone would come along and make someone in prison like me a benefactor of her wealth?”  It was very moving.  But friends, today we can stand and say that there is a greater Benefactor than any mere human being.  It is the God of the Bible who has made himself known in the Son.  He has a Son-shine foundation!

Are you aware of your new status in Christ?  Amidst all the vicissitudes of life, do you know you are an heir of God through Christ?  If you hold this status, this position, no man or circumstance may ever take it away from you!

If you do not yet have this privileged status does Paul’s description of it not make you desire it?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle