Category Archives: autobio

My last Table Talk article for Ligonier

1 Reply

Title: HIStory

Column: A Pastor’s Perspective

Date: Don’t have that written down on my copy.  Sometime between around 1999 to 2000.

Magazine: Ligonier Ministries’ TableTalk

Quick! What’s the basic message of the Bible? Summarize it in as few words as possible and say what first comes to mind.

Here’s how I would answer the question:

Boy meets girl.

No, I am not joking. We see it in the happy ending of Revelation, which shows us a wedding between Christ and the church and tells us that they live happily ever after. We see it in Adam and Eve all the way back in Genesis 2, which–as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5–refers fundamentally to Christ and the church. When we read in Luke 2 of how the Spirit will overshadow Mary, we realize that the description of the Spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis 1 involved the same theme. From beginning to end , this theme of boy meets girl pervades all of the Bible.

Twice in Genesis, once in Exodus, and oncein an incident reported in both Joshua and Judges we see a man coming together with his wife in association with a well or spring of water. Agraham’s servant meets Rebekah, the future wife of his master Isaac, at a well. She gives him a drink and waters his camels, demonstrating that God has chosen her to be the bride. Jacob meets the shepherdess Rachel at a well. He rolls away the stone that is blocking the spring and then waters all her flock. Moses meets his future wife Zipporah at a well. He defends her and her sisters (who all “just happen” to be Shepherdesses, just like Rachel was) from bullying shepherds, then waters their flock. Caleb offers his daughter Achsah to the man who defeats the Canaanites in Kirjath Sepher. Othniel captures the city and wins the bride. In receiving her, he also gains some land grants from her father. Due to her petitioning her father, the grant is expanded to include springs of water.

So when Jesus meets a woman at a well, in Samaria, what are they going to talk about? Even if you have never read John 4, the asnswer should be inescapable. When Jesus meets this woman at a well, they are going to discuss her marital status. Indeed, Jesus rescues her from a much more dangerous threat than bullying shepherds.

There is much else to support this basic biblical theme. Space would fail if I were to mentions the Song of Solomon, the role of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs, and the way Proverbs culminates with the portrayal of the ideal wife. Neither could I list here all the times Jerusalem or Israel is called God’s wife, setting us up for the identity of the church as the bride of Christ.

There are two things we have to keep in mind if we are going to understand the Bible as God’s literary master piece. First of all, we must keep in mind the doctrine of providence: God is in complete control of everything that happens in history. As we read about the events recorded in the Bible, we must apply this doctrine by bearing in mind that not only what God is said to have done in these events, but also the events themselves, are part of His message. God could have brought about Jesus’ meetin with the woman at the well in some other place, but he predestined it to take place there. It is not simply what Jesus said that reveals god, but the entire situation in which Jesus acts.

Second of all, we must keep in mind the doctrine of inspiration. Every word, every jot and tittle of Scripture, is the very Word of God. It is not merely the overarching truths that are inspired but the words used to express them. With the woman at the well, John could have summarized what Jesus said about the Spirit without quoting the metaphor of water or mentioning the well where He spoke. He could have overlooked what Jesus said about her marital history. But by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John set down those statements.

If we remember these twin truths, we should be able to navigate between two common errors. Many conservative evangelicals, who (rightly) affirm the inerrancy of the scriptureal record of events, treat the events themselves as virtuously meaningless. The fact that the same things keep happening is simply ignored. Liberals, on the other hand, sometimes do much better at seeing the meaning in events, but they treat the Scriptures as a fictionalized account that cannot be trusted for historical veracity. For conservatives, the woman at the well really happend, but her encounter with Jesus is important only in that it gave Jesus a chance to say some things He could have said almost anywhere else. For liberals, the woman at the well fits nicely into the themes and theology of the Bible, but her encounter with Jesus probably never really happend. Rather, it is the work of a novelist.

But if we acknowledge that God is the great novelist, then we need never choose between meaning and truth. God is more creative than any human being and can make His novel work better than any merely human book. But God is also all-powerful and sovereign over history. Thus, God can make history by His novel. Therefore, He can make a truthful Bible work better than fiction, even while remaining completely truthful.

As characters in God’s novel, we usually don’t see how our problematic lives can possibly be leading to the kind of tidy plot resolutions that we find so satisfying in a narrative. But the Bible can function as a corrective to our lack of faith. As we see what a well-woven tale the Bible is, how it is all true, and what its story is about, we can believe that our own stories will make sense because they are tied to that story. We have to trust the novelist to finish his work and vindicate his graciously chosen protagonists. Ultimately, He is going to win the girl.

Some fixed points

Leave a reply

I was raised in a devout Evangelical home. Both parents were and are sincere Christians. I “asked the Lord Jesus into my heart” at age six and was baptized at age eight.

My parents were devout and raised us to be. We never skipped church and we read about and talked about the Bible, God, and Jesus as naturally as talking about anything else.

At about age fifteen I started living in ways that were, whether I admitted it or not, incompatible with my Christian confession. About a year later I repented. This led to loads of enthusiasm which really made me endearing to all my more secular friends.

I had a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher in high school who introduce discussions of calvinism into a place that otherwise was under charismatic hegemony. (Military base / all Protestants together)

I had never heard of the concept of election before this happened. I hated the idea when I first heard about it (before backsliding mentioned above).

When I resumed walking like a Christian, I got to see the original Holiness of God films from R C Sproul where he wore a turtleneck, colorful pants, and had straight black hair. I was a monergistic TULIP calvinist (L may have taken longer but I can’t remember) by the end of the series.

I became a calvinist after I had already been accepted to attend a Wesleyan college.

I had perfect grades, won a contest to go on the space shuttle, and was a perfect delight to all my classmates in the gentle and charitable way I explained to them that I was right and they were wrong about the basics of salvation.

pop-music-18-meme

5 Replies

I still need to do this one, but an easier meme has been sent to me. I was a metal head too, but I’m wondering if I was true enough. I love nostalgic 80s music now. And a lot of rock/metal makes me cringe. (Iron Maiden still makes me proud, but Quiet Riot? What was I thinking?)

So here’s the meme:

1. Go to http://www.popculturemadness.com/
2. Pick the year you turned 18 (left column)
3. Get yourself nostalgic over the song’s of the year
4. Write something about how the songs affected you
5. Pass it on to 5 more friends

I graduated from high school at the age of 17, so the songs of my eighteenth year are all associated in my mind with my first year of college.

This first one is kind of cheating since I knew nothing about the song or group until the movie came out. I watched it over 15 times. No. I am not exaggerating. I’m probably understating how many times. I refuse to watch the movie now because, I think, if I discover it was stupid, it will send me into an identity crisis.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/Y_9sB92dJzM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

This was a ubiquitous song on campus. I remember it playing at the Brookside (That was the first year it was renamed Lambein after a doner, but the denizens were fiercely resisting) on a lazy indian summer afternoon, while I waited for a friend I had just met to come down and take a walk or something. The song never made sense, though compared to the video (which I just saw for the first time ever–the Lincoln Memorial?), it is up there with the theory of relativity. Stll, for better or worse, it captures the mid-80s for me.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/IxoqzhgKReY" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

I remember being amazed Madonna could do a video where she appeared normal. I hate her but she was and is a genius of pop music. And this one was atmospheric. I never saw the movie and never will. But I still liked this video.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/fvRttd5ESx8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Great band. Great album (the better songs weren’t the ones that got radio play). Liked the Christian theme. Saw them in concert but was totally distracted and don’t remember much.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/TU7bp8aj99E" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

This one makes the Starship song look like a work of genius. It kind of incarnates everything bad and pretentious about the eighties and makes you want to dance to it. It still moves me (just not in public).

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/jjBXK4CTtvM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Coming back up from dive we just took. Peter Gabriel, “So” came out. I liked all the songs, but this was the first one to be released, I think.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/VArQABogDL4" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Finally, going back to not great quality, something about the beginning lyrics really captured my own sense of melodrama and angst (which plagued my first year of college). I have no idea what the song is actually about.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/H_i_C7r6uqE" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Four others: Jennifer, Paul, Wayne, Chris, and Jeff.

Short post before I go…

7 Replies

Finally, a decent internet connection! I’m at the coffee shop where I loitered with friends the other night when it was closed–homeless vagabonds in search of wifi in Memphis….

The most important thing to say to my friends in the blogosphere: This was a really encouraging G.A. I met people I had never met before and also met again people who I hadn’t known, or, who had changed so much it was like meeting a new person. There was lots of enouragement, lots of comfort, and lots of fellowship. This has been a truly refreshing time for me. Do not doubt that God is at work raising up leaders and shepherds who will protect his Church and understand the Gospel.

Also, I want to publicly thank Doug for his Christian advice. It helps me see the direction we should go (and experience not a little regret at ways I may have fallen short in the past). He is a true man of God.

Jesus is Lord.

Born to be wild

4 Replies

Continuing some photohistory.

scooterfamily450.jpg

My parents, my brother (or one of my nephews–you probably can’t tell at this resolution but the resemblance is striking) and me sometime in Liberia, West Africa. I’m guessing 1978. Yes, one time a taxi driver did yell out his window at us: “Overload.”

…wasted on the young

6 Replies

mark003blog.jpg

No, this was not its longest. The fact that my bangs don’t hang over my eyes or reach from the center of my forehead to my ears, tells you that I’m becoming rather tame at this point.

Is it embarrassing?

No, this is really embarrassing! God forgive the fanboy sins of my youth.

PS: And by the way, Chris always looked clean cut and conservative… so there! 😉

Predicting the sex gap circa 1882

1 Reply

One of the wonders that we lost with the web was the gorgeous beauty of the Liberty Fund book catalogue. It may still exist, but with their stock now all available for online ordering, and even searchable online, I can’t justify asking for a free copy any more.

Their books are equally beautiful in the care that goes into their publication, or more so. I used to own quite a few. They always offered them both in hardback and in cheaper paperback. I could only afford paperback but I always longed for the day I would be able to buy the hardback and display it in my library. Sadly, at one point in our lives, Jennifer and I 1) lacked shelf space and 2) lacked cash. This began the age of “books for daydates” in our lives. We would take a box of books and go up north to the half-price books store and get enought cash to take the family to a restaraunt. Good-bye Fisher Ames. Good-bye Ludwig von Mises. Good-bye Lord Acton. Hello Souper Salad!

One book I never parted with, however, was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity by James Fitzjames Stephen. This was partly because, as a small paperback, it would not net me much cash and partly because it was an extraordinary little book. I bought it more on impulse than anything else–it was cheap and the idea of a Millian pragmatist responding to John Stuart Mill really intrigued me.

I was well-rewarded. Stephen is the only secular public philosopher I remember ever reading to deal with the Church state question with honesty and courage. That was one of many things that made his book amazing. One other small part of this was Stephen’s objection to no-fault divorce laws as he felt Mill had proposed them:

If the parties to a contract of marriage are treated as equals, it is impossible to avoid the inference that marriage, like other partnerships, may be dissolved at pleasure. The advocates of women’s rights are exceedingly shy of stating this plainly. Mr. Mill says nothing about it in his book on the Subjection of Women, though in one place he comes very near to saying so, [155–56/290–91 SW] but it is as clear an inference from his principles as anything can possibly be, nor has he ever disavowed it.  If this were the law, it would make women the slaves of their husbands.  A woman loses the qualities which make her attractive to men much earlier than men lose those which make them attractive to women. The tie between a woman and young children is generally far closer than the tie between them and their father. A woman who is no longer young, and who is the mother of children, would thus be absolutely in her husband’s power, in nine cases out of ten, if he might put an end to the marriage when he pleased. This is one inequality in the position of the parties which must be recognized and provided for beforehand if the contract is to be for their common good. A second inequality is this. When a man marries, it is generally because he feels himself established in life. He incurs, no doubt, a good deal of expense, but he does not in any degree impair his means of earning a living. When a woman marries she practically renounces in all but the rarest cases the possibility of undertaking any profession but one, and the possibility of carrying on that one profession in the society of any man but one. Here is a second inequality. It would be easy to mention others of the deepest importance, but these are enough to show that to treat a contract of marriage as a contract between persons who are upon an equality in regard of strength, and power to protect their interests, is to treat it as being what it notoriously is not.

I will demur from James and say that the word “equals” does apply to men and women–though of course, I speak that way beause I’m not a pragmatist but an “essentialist” of sorts. But the bottom line is James knew what would happen, as anyone should have.

The trap of easy wage earning

Leave a reply

Regarding my regrets expressed here, I forgot to mention a major reason that held me back: I could make a living as a wage slave. Between my wife and I, it was fairly easy to live on hourly jobs that didn’t require experience.  (Actually, before children, Jennifer had a professional job in publishing.)
After seminary, with two children and another on the way, life was completely different. A history of working hard simply didn’t mean enough for my new economic situation.

So my advice to the young: work hard but work smart. You need your hourly rate to be a lot higher in a few years.

Theological misleadership and its fruit, updated

4 Replies

This was originally published on 7 August 2006, the month that disappeared upon transfering to this blog site. A recent blog post reminds me to republish it:

I hadn’t gone to seminary. I had only been Reformed for a few years. I was a college graduate reading a hot Reformed magazine. The issue was Lordship salvation and I read as a fan and a follower. The problem was that I had read too many books. So I’m reading about Lordship salvation and a “Reformed perspective” on the brouhaha between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges. And the Reformed experts in this magazine tell me they are both wrong. Specifically, MacArthur has not kept track of the ordo salutis so that he can properly distinguish faith and repentance. If he understood that faith is prior to repentance then his viewpoint would have preserved the orthodox and gospel view. As I read the article I found myself more and more confused. I reread it. Is he really saying that? Yes he was. John MacArthur was being dismissed because he failed to line up an ordo and put faith before repentance. This was written in a tone of utter confidence like everyone who knew anything about the Reformed heritage knew that this was true. It wasn’t true. And I knew it wasn’t true. And I knew that anyone knowledgeable in basic Reformed thinking should know that it wasn’t true. What I didn’t understand is how I could know this and yet the writer of the article seem completely oblivious to the fact. He’d been to seminary, after all. He would be aware of what the basic writers had written.

I lived out of my office in those days (saved money on the air conditioning bill) and my book shelf was not thee feet away from me. I swiveled my chair around and reached for the book I had recently read: John Murray’s Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. Murray’s book, if you haven’t read it (and that means you should go and do so), describes the ordo salutis, or, if we can give up our worship of the dead past, the “order of salvation.” Each chapter is given a title for a different step in the order. In fact, Murray is even prone to make distinctions that go beyond those found explicitly in the Westminster Confession. He has a chapter on “Effectual Calling,” followed by a separate one on “Regeneration.” Yet, mysteriously, “Faith & Repentance” is a single chapter. He treats faith first and then, in introducing repentance, makes the following statement:

The question has been discussed: which is prior, faith or repentance? It is an unnecessary question and the insistence that one is prior to the other is futile. There is no priority. The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance.

Everything said to dismiss MacArthur as a worthy Reformed thinker could have been written about Murray, and should have been. After all, Everyone knew MacArthur was a dispensationalist. If this “error” regarding the ordo was so significant, then the writer should have protected his readers from the author with the more established Reformed reputation. But then, who reads Murray anymore? I doubt he is even used that much in seminary. Generically, that is somewhat understandable, since there has been progress made. But in terms of the Reformed tradition, it seems rather like the disappearance of good money in favor of debased currency. The phenomenon I was encountering, but could not recognize because it was unthinkable to me at the time, was that the ones popularizing the Reformed faith for a new generation were altering it according to their own convictions and doing this by pretending that these were the only Reformed viewpoint. If you want to know why the PCA and the OPC are tearing themselves apart right now, it is because we are reaping fruit from a sowing of dishonesty that has been going on for a long time.