This is becoming an interesting conversation. I appreciate the insights some are laying out on the table in regard to hermeneutics (or principles of interpreting Scripture). Andrew suggests that we (the church) are abandoning a more conservative view for a more open and permissive view of interpreting the Bible, and thus are even considering enveloping homosexuals into the full life of the church, as full members. It is true, there are two ways to read Scripture, even on the homosexual issue. One, reading Romans 1 literally, would completely exclude the homosexuals from the church and see them as heathens, except, possibly, as objects of evangelism. Or a second reading is that Paul was speaking of a particular and heinous form of homosexual abuse and not of respectable gays or same sex married people that Paul, either knew nothing about or wasn’t addressing.
But the reality is that the church has always used both the more restrictive and the more open hermeneutic as it has seen fit, but generally moving from the more traditional (restrictive) to the more open. I’m speaking of our denomination, and not looking over the fence at other Christian denominations or groups.
One issue where this is obvious is in regard to Sunday observance. In the past (50 years ago or so) Sunday was seen as a Christian Sabbath where CRC Christians were very restricted in what they could do on Sunday (no sports, no work, no restaurants, no newspapers, no bicycle riding for children, no meal preparation, etc.) Today, in CRCs, Sunday is celebrated as the Lord’s Day (not a sabbath) and nearly anything goes. Nothing is nicer than going out to a restaurant for a nice dinner after church, or breakfast before church.
Or what about divorce. I remember when divorce was sanctioned in the CRC only under the condition of marital unfaithfulness, not even spousal abuse was a legitimate grounds. And those divorced were not allow to teach or hold office in the church. That has gone out the door for a more open interpretation of the Bible.
Or what about separation from the world and worldly amusements? I couldn’t dance, go to the show, play cards (other than UNO), etc. etc.
Or what about women in church office, or the so called “headship” principle? I haven’t heard that word in twenty years. We ‘ve pretty much removed the word “obey” from our CRC wedding forms. And there was no doubt that God forbade women from holding places of authority over men inside the church, as well as in society. Now we have a different understanding of the Bible. Women can be elders, deacons and ministers, all based on a more open hermeneutic.
Or what about Christian education? I remember when it was a requirement for church office bearers and Calvin faculty to enroll their children in the Christian school system. It was a covenant principle which was at the heart of our Reformed theology. Now Christian education is a nice CRC elective.
Or what about our narrower view toward the Holy Spirit’s role in the Christian’s life that was held in the past? Now increasingly we are adopting a Pentecostal and experiential perspective by which the Christian’s experience of salvation becomes more important than God’s role. Dancing in the aisles of church is evidence of a Spirit filled life. Now spiritual warfare is a matter of demons influencing people from some pseudo reality. The third wave movement is increasingly making inroads into the church because a more open hermeneutic allows and even encourages it.
Or what about interracial marriage? That was a definite no no for Christians. But, now, a more open interpretation of the Bible says, yes, by all means.
And we could go on to other issues but this will suffice. The point, is that Western Christianity, including (or especially) the CRC has always used both a closed minded traditional approach to interpreting the Bible, as well as a more open and less restrictive approach to hermeneutics. Just as the church has opened its doors to women in leadership (even at Synod) and to have authority over men and women, so also within the next twenty years the church will open its doors to homosexuals and will fully recognize their marriages as God ordained and will be seen as valuable assets to our churches, no different from any other member. And this will happen because we will see and understand that the Bible (our authority) tells us not to show prejudice against anyone, especially within the church. It’s a shame that this can’t happen sooner than later before we lose our reputation as a welcoming voice in our society.
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Thanks John for the reply. I did look at Kruger’s talks from the Gospel Coalition, but not in their entirety. I haven’t got the time to read everything a blogger or author suggests needs to be read. But I did notice a basic flaw in Kruger’s arguments. He’s assuming that whoever he is addressing in his Biblical arguments also believes that the Bible is true. But if he’s arguing with anyone outside of the Christian persuasion, then his argument carries no weight because this other person doesn’t believe the Bible to begin with, so why would he give any credence to a book most people put in the same category as the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Scriptures. They all make the same claim to be God’s inspired word and all endorse teachings that cannot be objectively verified. Whether it’s the Bible, the Koran, or the book of Mormon, the teachings of each are acknowledged by faith, apart from verifiable evidence or objectivity.
To most people it is not logical to claim that Jesus is very God come down from heaven to earth and was born in human form as a human baby, who grew up sinless to the age of 33, was crucified, died and buried but rose from the dead in three days and now has ascended to heaven from which he will come to earth once again to set up his finalized kingdom. That’s not logical teaching but is a teaching that can only be acknowledged by faith. The Bible’s teachings are no more logical than that of other religions. So Kruger’s teaching at the Coalition may have made sense to you because you recognize the Bible’s authority, but to anyone else his argument carries no weight. Just because the Bible claims to be true, doesn’t make it so. All religions make the same claim. So Kruger’s arguments may have made sense to you and other Christians at the Coalition, but not to others. His argument (or apologetic) is meaningless to most people.
Kruger’s argument, in regard to God swearing by his name as opposed to the Muslim God swearing by created things like mountains or stars, makes no logical sense either. If God is truly God, it doesn’t matter what he swears by. What he swears by doesn’t invalidate whether he is God or not. If the God of the Bible (the Christian God) swears by his name, or a star, or a mountain, it doesn’t change the fact that God is God. Nor does it change the reality that the Muslim God is truly God for the Muslim. Is Kruger trying to say our God is a better God because he swears by bigger and better things? His argument falls short of proving anything. And, of course, Islamic theologians will propose their own arguments to demonstrate why their God (Allah) is the one true God.
Then you suggest, John, that the Bible is the voice of the Living God. Muslims and Hindu’s make the same claim. They would never entertain the ridiculous suggestion that the God whom they worship is dead, and would just as persuasively suggest that the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the very voice of the living God.
Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
This is becoming an interesting conversation. I appreciate the insights some are laying out on the table in regard to hermeneutics (or principles of interpreting Scripture). Andrew suggests that we (the church) are abandoning a more conservative view for a more open and permissive view of interpreting the Bible, and thus are even considering enveloping homosexuals into the full life of the church, as full members. It is true, there are two ways to read Scripture, even on the homosexual issue. One, reading Romans 1 literally, would completely exclude the homosexuals from the church and see them as heathens, except, possibly, as objects of evangelism. Or a second reading is that Paul was speaking of a particular and heinous form of homosexual abuse and not of respectable gays or same sex married people that Paul, either knew nothing about or wasn’t addressing.
But the reality is that the church has always used both the more restrictive and the more open hermeneutic as it has seen fit, but generally moving from the more traditional (restrictive) to the more open. I’m speaking of our denomination, and not looking over the fence at other Christian denominations or groups.
One issue where this is obvious is in regard to Sunday observance. In the past (50 years ago or so) Sunday was seen as a Christian Sabbath where CRC Christians were very restricted in what they could do on Sunday (no sports, no work, no restaurants, no newspapers, no bicycle riding for children, no meal preparation, etc.) Today, in CRCs, Sunday is celebrated as the Lord’s Day (not a sabbath) and nearly anything goes. Nothing is nicer than going out to a restaurant for a nice dinner after church, or breakfast before church.
Or what about divorce. I remember when divorce was sanctioned in the CRC only under the condition of marital unfaithfulness, not even spousal abuse was a legitimate grounds. And those divorced were not allow to teach or hold office in the church. That has gone out the door for a more open interpretation of the Bible.
Or what about separation from the world and worldly amusements? I couldn’t dance, go to the show, play cards (other than UNO), etc. etc.
Or what about women in church office, or the so called “headship” principle? I haven’t heard that word in twenty years. We ‘ve pretty much removed the word “obey” from our CRC wedding forms. And there was no doubt that God forbade women from holding places of authority over men inside the church, as well as in society. Now we have a different understanding of the Bible. Women can be elders, deacons and ministers, all based on a more open hermeneutic.
Or what about Christian education? I remember when it was a requirement for church office bearers and Calvin faculty to enroll their children in the Christian school system. It was a covenant principle which was at the heart of our Reformed theology. Now Christian education is a nice CRC elective.
Or what about our narrower view toward the Holy Spirit’s role in the Christian’s life that was held in the past? Now increasingly we are adopting a Pentecostal and experiential perspective by which the Christian’s experience of salvation becomes more important than God’s role. Dancing in the aisles of church is evidence of a Spirit filled life. Now spiritual warfare is a matter of demons influencing people from some pseudo reality. The third wave movement is increasingly making inroads into the church because a more open hermeneutic allows and even encourages it.
Or what about interracial marriage? That was a definite no no for Christians. But, now, a more open interpretation of the Bible says, yes, by all means.
And we could go on to other issues but this will suffice. The point, is that Western Christianity, including (or especially) the CRC has always used both a closed minded traditional approach to interpreting the Bible, as well as a more open and less restrictive approach to hermeneutics. Just as the church has opened its doors to women in leadership (even at Synod) and to have authority over men and women, so also within the next twenty years the church will open its doors to homosexuals and will fully recognize their marriages as God ordained and will be seen as valuable assets to our churches, no different from any other member. And this will happen because we will see and understand that the Bible (our authority) tells us not to show prejudice against anyone, especially within the church. It’s a shame that this can’t happen sooner than later before we lose our reputation as a welcoming voice in our society.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
Posted in: Will the "Followers of Jesus" Please Stand Up?
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Posted in: Pastor as Friend?
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
Posted in: Celebrating Easter: Chocolate Bunny Required?
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Posted in: Series: How to Stay in Conversation With the “Other Side”
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Posted in: The Issue Behind [Every?] Issue: The Authority of the Bible and Its Author
Thanks John for the reply. I did look at Kruger’s talks from the Gospel Coalition, but not in their entirety. I haven’t got the time to read everything a blogger or author suggests needs to be read. But I did notice a basic flaw in Kruger’s arguments. He’s assuming that whoever he is addressing in his Biblical arguments also believes that the Bible is true. But if he’s arguing with anyone outside of the Christian persuasion, then his argument carries no weight because this other person doesn’t believe the Bible to begin with, so why would he give any credence to a book most people put in the same category as the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Scriptures. They all make the same claim to be God’s inspired word and all endorse teachings that cannot be objectively verified. Whether it’s the Bible, the Koran, or the book of Mormon, the teachings of each are acknowledged by faith, apart from verifiable evidence or objectivity.
To most people it is not logical to claim that Jesus is very God come down from heaven to earth and was born in human form as a human baby, who grew up sinless to the age of 33, was crucified, died and buried but rose from the dead in three days and now has ascended to heaven from which he will come to earth once again to set up his finalized kingdom. That’s not logical teaching but is a teaching that can only be acknowledged by faith. The Bible’s teachings are no more logical than that of other religions. So Kruger’s teaching at the Coalition may have made sense to you because you recognize the Bible’s authority, but to anyone else his argument carries no weight. Just because the Bible claims to be true, doesn’t make it so. All religions make the same claim. So Kruger’s arguments may have made sense to you and other Christians at the Coalition, but not to others. His argument (or apologetic) is meaningless to most people.
Kruger’s argument, in regard to God swearing by his name as opposed to the Muslim God swearing by created things like mountains or stars, makes no logical sense either. If God is truly God, it doesn’t matter what he swears by. What he swears by doesn’t invalidate whether he is God or not. If the God of the Bible (the Christian God) swears by his name, or a star, or a mountain, it doesn’t change the fact that God is God. Nor does it change the reality that the Muslim God is truly God for the Muslim. Is Kruger trying to say our God is a better God because he swears by bigger and better things? His argument falls short of proving anything. And, of course, Islamic theologians will propose their own arguments to demonstrate why their God (Allah) is the one true God.
Then you suggest, John, that the Bible is the voice of the Living God. Muslims and Hindu’s make the same claim. They would never entertain the ridiculous suggestion that the God whom they worship is dead, and would just as persuasively suggest that the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the very voice of the living God.
Posted in: A Post-Christmas Advent Reflection
Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.