Good Morning!
Here’s some more photos of the two birds above.
On this day in 1099 Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders.
In 1806 Lieutenant Zebulon Pike began his western expedition from Fort Belle Fountaine, near St. Louis, MO.
In 1885 the Niagara Reservation State Park opened in NY state.
In 1965 the spacecraft Mariner IV sent back the first close-up pictures of the planet Mars.
And in 1968 Commercial air travel began between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., when the first plane, a Soviet Aeroflot jet, landed at Kennedy International Airport in New York.
______________________________________________
Quote of the Day
“No one wants advice – only corroboration.”
John Steinbeck
______________________________________________
Today is Linda Ronstadt’s birthday.
And it’s also Peter King’s, of Dakoda Motor Company.
______________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Morning all.
Now, someone, tell us what these birds are.
Heard the quints outside school today while I was working so had to go out to play! priorities!
LikeLike
They’re Northern Flickers- a type of woodpeckers.
They’re usually seen on the ground because they eat ants, beetles, and grubs they dig up with their beaks.
LikeLike
Well done, Aj. You get a gold star!
Did the book your wife ordered arrive?
LikeLike
“You’re no good
You’re no good
You’re no good
Baby you’re no good.”.
I suppose there was an era when that was a tender love song.
But if he’s no good, why is she hanging around with him?
LikeLike
cold and rainy here, it is winter, you see.
You can’t imagine how excited I was to find out that I had hot water for a shower when I was expecting only cold.
Prayed for a plane circling above the clouds around 5pm, trying to find his way home. Finally saw him come in very low and am not sure how he broke through. Praises.
LikeLike
Not yet Jo. I found out what they were on my own this time. 🙂
LikeLike
Yesterday, Linda opened an issue which caused lots of discussion. There was general disagreement on the subject. I made a comment that I agreed with Ajisuun and determined to leave it at that. i.e. Finished.
However, I was sitting on my porch when it occurred to me that I had, somewhere on my computer, something I had written years ago. It clarifies the issue, and I decided to paste it here, with a final comment about today’s situation.
We are all brothers in Christ. We have certain beliefs concerning the end times. Our convictions are firm, but nothing should divide us. While teaching Revelation in a SS class many years ago, I drew ip a chart explaining my stance in the issue. I presented in side-by-side style on the board as shown below.
THIS I KNOW THIS I BELIEVE THIS I SUSPECT
But since I can’t do that here, I have it listed; essentially the same.
1 THIS I KNOW
i.e. If you believe the Bible you believe this.
A. Jesus will return
Matt. 16:27, “The Son of man shall come…and reward…”
I Thess. 4:16, “For the Lord himself shall descend …with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first.”
John 4:3 ”I will come again and receive you unto myself…”
Acts 1:11, “…this same Jesus…shall come in like manner…”
Rev. 1:7, “Behold, he comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him…”
Etc. Too many to list
B. The time has already been appointed
Acts 1:7 “It is not for you to know the times or season which the Father has put in his own power.”
Daniel 11:35 “…even to the time of the end, because it is yet for a time appointed.”
C. No one knows when it will happen.
Matt. 24:42 Watch, for you know not the hour your Lord will come”
1 Thess. 5:2 “For you know that the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”
2 Peter 3:10 “ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night….”
D. There will be tribulation
Matt. 24:21, 29 “For then there shall be great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world….” – “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…”
E. There will be a judgment
Matt. 25:31f “…before him shall be gathered all nations…”
I Cor. 4:5 “ ..until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness….”
II Thess. 1:7 f “…when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed….taking vengeance on them that know not God….”
Rev 20:11f “And I saw a great white throne…And the books were opened…and the dead were judged….”
F. We should be watchful
Matt. 24:42, “Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord will come…”
Matt. 25 Entire chapter.
G. There will be false prophets throughout the ages.
Matt. 24:24 “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets… that if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect.”
II Thess. 2:3 “except there come a falling away first, and that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. (This refers to a specific person at a specific time.)
H. It will be a time of”
Joy for Christians
I Thess. 2:19 “For what is our hope, or jor, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming.”
Titus 2:13, “Looking for that blessed hope…the glorious appearance of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.”
Sorrow for sinners
I Thess.5:2-3 For you know perfectly that the day of the Lord so commeth as a thief in the night…For when they say Peace and safety, then suddenly destruction cometh upon them:
II Thess. 1:7f “…in flaming vengeance on them that know not God.”
Rev. 20:15 If anyone’s name was not written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
I. Not everyone will die. (There will be what we call “The Rapture”)
I Thess. 4:13-17, ….After that, we who are still alive, and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air…..
Coll. 3:4, When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
I Jn. 3:2 “…When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”
2 THIS I BELIEVE
My conviction is that I have interpreted the scripture correctly in this. However I have known brothers in Christ who differ in these interpretations.
A. Tribulation will proceed his coming.
Matt. 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation in those days…And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven…and he shall send his angels….”
II Thess. 2:3 “…that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed…”
B. There will be a millennium
Rev. 20:1-3 “And he laid hold on th dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”
Isaiah 65:18f “But be glad and rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall no more be heard in her…” 25 “”The wolf and the lamb shall feed together…They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, says the Lord.”
Hebrews 8:8f “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel….”
Zech. 14:16f “ And it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all the nations…shall go up to worship the King….”
C. God’s people will know: A lot of people have written books about the coming of the Lord and the identification of the Beast. I don’t believe that beforehand we will be able to identify him, whether it be the Pope, Mahdi, or some other political/spiritual leader. However, at the time, God’s people will recognize the abomination for what it is.
Matt 24:11, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many……v. 24… and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect..”
Daniel 12:4 “…seal the book, even to the time of the end:….” v10 “… Many shall be purified and made white, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.”
Examples of shepherds, wise men, Simeon Anna, and others who, at the time, were ready.
3 THIS I SUSPECT –Some, who agree with me on the previous assertions, disagree with this. However, I see the process in work.
A. Christians will endure at least part of the tribulation:
B. It will happen soon. We are presently in an unusual situation in world history where the entire world is aflame. This is different from other eras when there were evil, but identifiable enemies. We have a situation now where the enemy and the problem can’t be officially identified. i.e. Radical Islam and terrorism. With a little help from China, Russia and N. Korea. There are two bulls eyes in this, the targets everyone is after. The big Satan (US) and the little Satan (Israel). We have a treaty with Israel and for years the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean has tempered the surrounding nations. Obama is reducing our military capability. It is looking bad for them. But I believe God will protect them. Read Zechariah 12.
LikeLike
Thanks, Chas. I appreciate your points and your separation of your degree of certainty about different points.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting article. I am afraid that many of our pastors are like Andy Stanley. They are looking for any changes to keep an increasingly godless people in church.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/july-august/should-pastors-stop-saying-bible-says.html?paging=off
LikeLike
Flickers: Or on the sides of buildings drilling holes after said insects. Or in the air as you get a flicker of color flash by. They have an interesting call to let you know they have arrived and are ready to dismantle your shed. I like them.
Chas, thanks. I will print that off to show to a certain young man who wants me to tell him everything about what is going to happen but I tell him to read his Bible and figure it out as there are many opinions.
LikeLike
Well said, Chas. I suspect we all have wrongly interpreted some points of Scripture, but as long as we’re in heaven together through salvation in Jesus Christ, we’ll have time to figure it all out with the one who wrote the book!
LikeLike
Ricky,@8:17
I think “The Bible says” is still appropriate. We aren’t as concerned about what the millenials think as we are the authority of our preaching. We have seen, from the time of the reformation until now, that God blesses the use of the Bible.
Years ago, (I was still in college.) a young women said to me, “But the Bible is it’s own authority.” I said, “No, God is the Bible’s authority.” Matt. 26:54, Mk. 13:31, etc.
LikeLike
I got this in by e-mail. I thought it might amuse some of you who have been through this culture shock.
We thank God for our kids (now 8, 6 and 4) and their faith, perspective, and the laughter they bring. On a lighter note, here’s how you know you might be a kid on furlough from Central Asia:
1. You throw your toilet paper in the trash can.
2. Parents quarantine their kids from you for the first few weeks, but it doesn’t offend you
3. You’re always asking to have the A/C turned down
4. The Sunday School teacher thinks you’re lying when you tell her where you’re from
5. You know that Germany won the World Cup, but couldn’t give the name of one American sports player
6. You feel jipped when your allowance converts to single digit currency rather than hundreds.
7. When you play store, someone stands at the door to frisk customers
8. Bathroom gas stations seem clean and Walmart check-out lines seem speedy
9. You have no concept of feet, inches or miles.
10. You automatically take off your shoes outside of the house
11. You’re scared to death of mosquitoes because of the exotic diseases they carry.
12. You cry in the car when you realize you’re not flying to church
13. You say with surprise, “Was that a woman driving that car?”
I don’t know what happened to my avatar. I had to correct the data below or I would have come up as anonymous.
LikeLike
Good morning that God made! And He happened to make our good morning be good evening somewhere else. His creation shows His appreciation of variety. He probably enjoys seeing the variery of ways that true believers interpret His words and then heaven can be even more fun as a super surprise party.
Lovely flickers. We have those here.
Bosley is making the most of her couch this morning. I was gone for extra long yesterday because of rainy expressway traffic snarls. A jack knife tractor trailor was on the otherside so all lanes were blocked. I need to check the news to see if there were fatalities.
Thanks, Donna, for your post link yesterday about highway memorials. It was just what I needed for my curiosity. I think I wondered if those doing those memorials were people who could not afford a plot and memorial marker and that all they could manage was the little bit they had put up at the site of death. That made me sad to consider.
LikeLike
Here is a link for a sample copy of a good magazine for ladies in ministry. I think it would be especially appreciated by Jo and others in similar situations.
http://www.justbetweenus.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=107374
LikeLike
Jesus will return and we need to be ready. Amen.
We actually had a rare smattering of rain late last night. If it hadn’t been going on midnight — and if I weren’t already in bed (although not asleep, but reading) — I would have gone outside just to be in it. It took me a few seconds to identify the sound, rain has become so infrequent (and we rarely get summer rain here anyway).
Yesterday was rather monsoon-like for for us, high humidity (also rare) but thankfully cooler temperatures. I think it’s going to get drier and hotter again by the end of the week, in other words back to ‘normal.’
I’m reading the abridged copy of William Gurnall’s The Christian in Complete Armour. I have a daily devotional based on the work that I’ve used off and on for a few years now. But ever since michelle mentioned it some time back I’ve been curious to dive into the books themselves (it comes in 3 paperback volumes. Love the writings of the Puritans. But they’re not quick reads.
The Iowa By the Sea picnic is coming to our waterfront this year (thanks to the presence of the WWII battleship named for the state). Iowans came to this area in great numbers throughout the 1900s. The picnic is usually held in Long Beach across the harbor (this will be the 114th year it’s held). At one time it drew as many as 100,000 people along with visiting Iowa governors and other dignitaries making sure they made an appearance (especially if they were running for office)
It’s dwindled since then, but I’m looking forward to doing a story on it since Iowa was where my family came from also — I believe my grandfather may have attended one of the picnics while he was out here visiting maybe in the 1960s.
LikeLike
As for eschatology, I suspect we’ll all be a bit surprised by how it all ends when the time comes. 😉
LikeLike
Cute birds.
And Linda Ronstadt was a true sweetheart of the 1970s. What a voice.
LikeLike
Two good quotes from Donna: “Jesus will return and we need to be ready. Amen.” And “As for eschatology, I suspect we’ll all be a bit surprised by how it all ends when the time comes.”
Which is why I never enter into any discussion on such matters. I am a pan-millenialist. It will all pan out in the end. God’s going to do what He intends to do whether it fits our system of belief or not. When Jesus said no one knows the hour or the day, that is enough for me. Too much time is wasted arguing the various end-times beliefs. The Gospel is about Jesus’ death to conquer sin and resurrection to conquer death. No more is needed to preach to the lost world. I think that when non-believers see or hear Christians arguing end-times it turns them off to the truth. SO, believe whatever suits you, but don’t get into arguments over secondary issues.
LikeLike
I still have to catch up on yesterday’s & today’s comments (seems like I’m always behind lately), but wanted to drop this in here…
Did y’all know that the Beatitudes were all about class struggle? You know – the poor in spirit & the meek & all. 🙄 (I’ve never done an eyeroll, so I hope that’s the right way.)
There are so many things wrong with this article, & I know what I think about it, but I’d love to hear if any of you want to chime in on it.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/most-republicans-think-jesus-would-denounce-universal-healthcare
BTW, this was posted by YF. I didn’t comment on the entirety of the article, but I did point out that being poor in spirit or being meek have nothing to do with one’s “class” in life, that there can be rich people who are poor in spirit & meek, & poor people who are haughty & prideful.
She also commented that one of her favorite sayings of Jesus is the one about the rich & the eye of a needle. (Remember, she sees everyone except white males & the rich as victims.) I pointed out that that verse applies to her, & to me, that even the poor in America are rich compared to much of the rest of the world. (I don’t know if she’s replied to that yet.)
I’ll be back later. Love you all!
LikeLike
Peter, I agree with what you said. Focus on what is presently important and not confusing to unbelievers.
The camel and the eye of the needle: sounds like a good put down of the rich when it is read alone and not with what follows which makes known that all things are possible with God.
LikeLike
I didn’t get to read yesterday’s comments. I read today’s. We finished Genesis last night. In two weeks we will have a pot luck and discuss what we learned or think we learned. We will take August off and start something new in September. It only took 20 months to get through Genesis!!!!! Perhaps next we could study John III???????
The priest associate has been leading this class for several years. He has STRONGLY hinted that perhaps it is time for someone else to lead it and he merely be a participant.
LikeLike
I really enjoyed this devotional post and it reminded me of how this blog is a part of the Shalom I feel in life.
http://www.faithgateway.com/shalom/?utm_source=devosdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=devosdaily20140715&spMailingID=46467650&spUserID=NTUxNDM0MzAxNDcS1&spJobID=481952306&spReportId=NDgxOTUyMzA2S0#.U8VaNHPD_qA
LikeLike
Chas, The Linda Rondstadt song you quoted was never a “tender love song.” It was a break-up song about a recent split from a boyfriend from whom she “learned a lesson, it left a scar. Now I see who you really are.” She was hanging around him because she was foolish and naive, you see. But now she’s, “feeling better now that we’re through..feeling better cuz I’m over you.”
Get it?
All these lyrics popped into my head when I read your post. I wish I could memorize Scripture that easy. Of course, with music, I can.
LikeLike
Cheryl,
From yesterday, I never listened to James Kennedy, so I’m not familiar with what you’re referring to. My main exposure to post-millenialism is just from Pastor Wilson’s blog.
LikeLike
I just looked up the major accident (18 vehicles) I saw from the opposite side of the expressway. Wow! No one got killed. PTL There was an accident that had my side tied up, too.
http://www.cbs46.com/story/26014016/tractor-trailer-accident-shuts-down-i-285
LikeLike
Re whether or not we should discuss endtimes: Two things say yes. One, Revelation says we are blessed by reading it, and it seems to be written to be understood. (Personally, I think dispensationalists made it seem much more complicated than it is, and now many pastors even are afraid to tackle it.) Two, of course it isn’t a discussion for unbelievers, but Scripture does indicate there is a place for “milk” doctrines and a place for “meat” doctrines. You don’t shy away from “meat” because it’s too much for unbelievers or young believers.
I think the most important truth of Revelation is that Christ is victorious. But I also believe strongly that what we believe about theology matters in the real world. I gave example yesterday–post-millennialists who don’t think they have to obey the law if they don’t agree with it. I also have relatives who do not believe God is sovereign in salvation, but they believe it’s possible to “talk people into” being saved. And some of them are the most stressed-out people I know, because people’s eternal destiny rests on whether or not they use the right words in presenting the gospel! Real theology matters in real life.
And honestly, if we can “argue” over which sports team is better, why can’t we argue over far more important truths?
LikeLike
AJ, both of those flickers are males (they both have mustaches). Were they getting along, being that close together? Earlier in the summer I saw two females that close, and they were definitely being territorial.
LikeLike
On the other hand … end times and Jesus’ return are part of what Scripture teaches and as such are worthy of our study and discussion, I think. We don’t divide over these differences (and there are big differences — especially when you consider that within the general 4 views there are nuances and gradations/sub-views).
But everything in the Bible should have our attention.
Karen, any Scripture verse that seems to attack the rich are very popular with many on the left (many who never claim to be Christian but will still delight in quoting those verses completely out of context, of course). 🙂
Sigh.
LikeLike
cheryl and I cross-posted.
And I don’t think discussions need to turn into “arguments.”
At any rate, we all agree that the story, however it unfolds, all ends “good.” 🙂 And in that we can rejoice.
LikeLike
Cheryl: ” But I also believe strongly that what we believe about theology matters in the real world. I gave example yesterday–post-millennialists who don’t think they have to obey the law if they don’t agree with it.”
I haven’t encountered those folks. 🙂 But in the same line of thinking, there are people (not necessarily the majority of pre-mils, but some) who think it’s all going to hell in a hand basket so why bother re-arranging the chairs on the titanic?
Our views of end times do affect how we see the world around us.
LikeLike
I agree that we should discuss the end times with Christians in a civil, Christ-like way. But all too often these discussions turn into arguments with at least one side accusing the other of being lost because he isn’t an X-millennial. And if that argument is in a break room at the office, the lost at the workplace just shrug it off as “those Christians”.
Donna- How does our view “affect how we see the world around us”?
No, go ahead and discuss, just be careful as to what it turns into.
LikeLike
Donna, two post-mills that I know: one leans toward theonomy, and in fact believes that is a fundamental part of the Reformed faith. So she believes that any law that isn’t based on the Old Testament law is an illegitimate law. Most of the people at her church are fine with serving alcohol to their young children (apparently even very young children, six or eight) even though doing so is illegal in their state. Furthermore, it is illegal in her state for anyone under 18 to pump gas, unless they’re licensed drivers, and she lets her 13-year-old son pump gas, even after the station owner made sure she had seen the sign and knew it was illegal.
A post-mill guy at my church got into quite a discussion Sunday on how nearly all people in political leadership are illegitimate, and apparently by “illegitimate” he meant they aren’t believers. What he does in terms of obeying the law, I do not know. But it’s a little hard to imagine him going out of his way to obey laws passed by those who don’t have legitimate power.
Maybe this isn’t “typical” of the belief system, I don’t know. But I’ve seen it with my own eyes pretty starkly, and my husband definitely associates the belief with the position. (He used to hold the position himself, and that was part of his belief system, that if we just got the right political leaders everything would be set for spiritual health of the nation and for the Lord’s return.)
LikeLike
Cheryl,
At first I thought it was a pair and thought it odd they’d both be hunting with no one at the nest. Under zoom I could tell they were both males. It was odd because they did not bother each other, and seemed to stick together. When I got too close and one moved the other followed. They took off every couple minutes and landed together in a new area and went right back to work. Every few minutes they would fly to the same 2 trees right next to each other, then come back together. There didn’t seem to be any rivalry at all, which I thought was weird since they didn’t colonize like some birds. I guess with enough food to go around, they’re nicer and more tolerant of each other.
I was back there earlier and they were out again, but the rain sent them and me away. 😦
LikeLike
Cheryl, when you talk about serving alcohol to young children, are you talking about paedo-communionists or people serving wine instead of Koolaid at their kid’s birthday party?
LikeLike
Peter, I don’t really have a settled position on the millenial kingdom, but in response to your question, I do see an infectious optimism rooted in the postmillenialism of Doug Wilson when I read his blog. It’s definitely a real contrast to what I’m surrounded by among my evangelical friends and acquaintances.
LikeLike
I did not mean to ignore parts of Scripture which go into the end times, but when there is much talk about different ways of looking at God’s word, not only about end times, but on anything controversial, then it seems to be a BIG distraction that I do not think God intended. I don’t think it should matter about the views of the end times concerning how we live. Those who disobey laws set up for safety in the community seem to be setting themselves up as poor examples of Christians. There is a line that, IMO, between laws that do not go against God’s laws and ones that do. If someone is required to perform an abortion because it is the law of the land then I feel they are right to disobey. But to me that does not relate to end times, but just in being right with God and following the lead of Christ.
LikeLike
To add to my thought, if today were to be our last day on earth, would you rather have God take note that time was spent on end time discussion or in making an unbeliever aware of the gospel and how Jesus died to save their soul for eternity?
LikeLike
Maybe those birds are siblings. Does the bird world have twins?
LikeLike
Ree, I’m talking about serving wine or beer with supper, and having everyone partake no matter their age. I don’t personally have a problem with parents serving it to their 15- or 16-year-olds at home, but I think that serving it to the littlest children is potentially a problem. (I assume they do not serve it to one another’s children, but I don’t know.) This family, BTW, greatly respects Doug Wilson, probably more than any other living man.
LikeLike
Janice, do you think that when Christ returns He will somehow be disappointed in those who care enough about His Word to discuss it? I truly do not think so.
If Christ returns this evening and I spent my last day on earth cleaning the house, cooking for my family, and doing the editing I am being paid to do, I will not feel a sense that I wasted the day–I will be doing the work He gave me to do. All the more if I spent part of the day talking about His return!
LikeLike
I don’t know about other states, but in Missouri it is legal for a parents to serve their own children alcohol in their own home.
My dad let us taste alcohol when we were young and I never became addicted. We usually got a small glass of wine at Thanksgiving and/or Christmas dinner at my aunt’s house, which was more of a cultural thing for us. She also served us rum and coke (a little rum in a 12 oz glass).
LikeLike
Hey, Doug Wilson’s father’s roommate at the Naval Academy is one of our dearest mentors.
In other news . . .
Last week a local jewelry store (only one of two that carries Rolex watches north of San Francisco in CA), had an attempted robbery. Two men, one recently released from serving a 10 years sentence in prison, entered and held up the owner and two others in the store. They grabbed all the Rolexes and were on their way out when the owner grabbed a gun and opened fire.
(He apparently foiled a robbery a year ago for the same item in the same store with the same gun).
A 64- year old employee was shot in both arms, though it’s not clear by whom since one of the men emptied his cartridge of bullets. The two men fled, but not before the owner shot one of them four times, including in the chest.
An off-duty police officer eating lunch next door, heard the shots and ran toward the store. (Everyone else in the neighborhood locked store doors and fled to the back). Not wearing a bullet-proof vest or carrying a gun, he tackled the injured robber while the other one got away.
A big manhunt ensued and the one got away. The other is still in the hospital under armed guard, though has been moved out of the ICU.
My adorable granddchildren live mere blocks away; I’ve been in the store in the past to have my wedding ring resized (I type so much, I’ve grown muscles even in my fingers, right? 🙂 ).
I stopped by today to take in my mother’s pearls for cleaning and restringing, since I was in the neighborhood.
Glass cases are still broken and no Rolexes are on display. Flowers are in the store and the store owner, was practically holding court. Apparently neighbors have been coming in all week to thank him for shooting the robber and for taking “a good stand.”
While I found the owner very genial and polite, I was slightly unnerved. I’ve never been so close to a man who nearly killed someone in self defense.
Interesting how the community has reacted. He’s a hero.
The owner also said “they’re very close to finding the other suspect. He apparently sought medical help.”
My mother’s pearls were fake. (Dad!!!!)
But, as my husband likes to say, “at least you got a good story out of it.”
LikeLike
Peter, it depends on the state whether you can legally serve your children in your own home, whether you can serve your children elsewhere, whether they can partake in communion wine, etc. (Here is the best overview I could find right now. I’ve seen charts in the past. http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591 )
LikeLike
Oh, if you scroll down on that link there’s a chart showing each state.
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned, it’s none of the government’s business whether we allow our own children to drink before they’re 21. The law is wrong. We choose to obey it nonetheless. But I’d have no problem with someone saying, “I think it’s best that I be the one to teach my child to drink responsibly, and once they are 16 we will begin allowing them to drink in moderation, law or no law.” But if states (not the federal government) want to regulate it outside the home, then I think they have that right.
LikeLike
Michelle, and Doug Wilson’s father was mine, growing up in Moscow. He is the one who lead my stepmom to Christ at age eighty.
LikeLike
Well Michelle, the flip side of your pearl story is that one of my ex husband’s aunts died with no daughter in laws so my ex sister in law asked for a set of fake pearls. She took them to have them clean and restrung and they were REAL.
My pearls are strung on fishing line instead of silk. The 4th time I broke them in 2 years the jeweler got a sense of humor. 😉
LikeLike
Just in time to get 49!
Now to read the thread.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Cheryl. I just looked at your chart and realized that I was breaking the law when I allowed my daughter to partake in communion with real wine once when she was about 13. Normally my church serves grape juice, but on this occasion, they served wine at a Good Friday service. And now that I’m learning this, I’m unrepentant.
And another occasion that comes to mind on which we violated the law, and about which I’m unrepentant, was when my husband and I remodeled our master bathroom. We have a small master bath with a very small shower enclosure. I believe the enclosure is about 31″ square measured at the base. The old enclosure was a hideous fiberglass thing that leaked from the base. When we looked into it, we found out that the code said that the shower had to be a minimum of 32″ square, I think it was. (We were about an inch or so too small, but I don’t remember the exact measurements.) So in order to get a permit, we would have had to find a way to make the shower an inch larger. In order to expand the bathroom to do that, we would have had to remove the working furnace, that sits in the hall next to the master bathroom, and install a new one above the ceiling. Then we’d have to get all new duct work and we’d have to move the heat registers from the floor to just below the ceiling level. This would have the effect of keeping the forced air heat up high and forcing me to turn the heat up even higher to stay comfortable. If we had air conditioning, it would be preferable to have the ceiling registers, but we don’t, and we don’t intend to, so there would be no upside to this. So all this would have cost multiple thousands of dollars so that we could satisfy the local code requirement for our shower to be one inch bigger. In other words, there would have been absolutely no positives to doing this, except to satisfy an arbitrary code, and a lot of negatives to it. We decided to go ahead and remodel without the permit and to use the space as is. When the house was built, there was no such code, which is why they were allowed to make a shower that small.
I wouldn’t have allowed my underage children to have alcohol with dinner. My husband and I don’t even drink, and I don’t think that we can disregard any law not based on the Old Testament. But some laws are just too arbitrary, intrusive, obscure, and impossible to follow.
I’m curious, though, what others would have done in our place with the bathroom remodel situation.
LikeLike
Thanks for the missions post, Chas. I am very glad to be a white skin as that means that I was not frisked when going through stores on Monday.
I was in a study of Revelation here and at home. At home we had a study guide and it was a fascinating study with lots of discussion and a lot of homework.
Here, at the beginning, we had someone in the class who felt that everything mentioned in Revelation had already occurred during the first couple of centuries. Kind of hard to get a good discussion going.
LikeLike
Then, Mumsee, you will be delighted to know that the booklet I flog all the time, “How to Be Free from Bitterness,” is by that very same Jim Wilson!
http://www.aabible.org/filerequest/1540
P.S. Does this mean we’re related? 🙂
Pearls . . . my father did buy ME a real set of pearl earrings once.
At least I think they’re real . . . of course, they came from Hong Kong! 🙂
LikeLike
Ree, the Lord’s supper uses wine. Grape juice is a recent “invention” created by teetotallers who thought they knew better than God what to serve in communion. So I see no problem whatsoever in letting a child partake of the wine, especially when there is no alternative. That’s in the “we must obey God rather than man” category. Along with laws that say you can’t spank. I also think that laws that say a man can’t own a gun to protect his family are wrong and need not be obeyed. Sometimes civil disobedience carries potential consequences, but “Caesar” simply cannot tell us how to worship God, whether we can protect our family, whether we can discipline our children.
I don’t think permits should be required to remodel one’s home, nor is the size of a shower anyone’s business but yours. When possible, we should attempt to obey the law. In a case like you cite where it’s nearly impossible to do so, sometimes you just have to do what works. But where it’s possible to obey the law, and where obeying the law doesn’t mean disobeying God, then obedience is what is expected of us.
LikeLike
Ah, theonomy. It helped me to see it as being on a continuum (with some more rigid proponents of it and others more theoretically inclined). Someone did make the point once that our response to the OT laws’ harshness reveals the gap between God’s view of righteousness and our much watered down view. For example, rape was heinous enough to deserve the death penalty. But still, it does sound startling to me personally at times.
But it helped also (and I’m not saying I’m ‘sold’ on theonomy although I know reasonable, stable and kind people who are) that an embrace of God’s view of civil laws is something that would come from the bottom up as the gospel changes societies and cultures, it’s not anything that could (or should) ever be imposed.
I have, however, found that the post-mil view is a more optimistic one than the dispensationalism (yes, talk about complicating Scripture) I heard so much of years ago ever did.
And, again, this isn’t something we work to “impose” on anyone. It’s a work of God in the process of bringing his renewed creation into view. Voting is a good thing to do, but nothing can “hurry along” God’s design. Just as encouraging the state of the world to get worse more quickly maybe could hasten things along in that direction. While we are to be ready for Christ’s return, I’m willing to acknowledge it might yet be thousands of years away.
Or not.
Trusting in God’s sovereignty really takes the angst out of life. Trying to be God (or thinking you’re helping him along) is pretty foolhardy.
LikeLike
Cheryl, I agree about the wine for communion, but I don’t know of a church around here that follows that. 😦 And yes, good point that this is an example of obeying God over man.
As for the permit thing, I agree with you, but these kinds of laws are legion. It was technically possible for us to obey, with the furnace and ductwork replacement solution, so I can’t say that it was an impossible law to follow. But the more intrusive and impractical the laws become, the more it encourages contempt for law. That’s not a license to disobey God, but it is the practical outcome of the system we’re under. I think this may be the case with your “outlaw” friend. And as for her being a disciple of Doug Wilson, he encourages reformation of government led by lesser magistrates, not individual revolt.
LikeLike
Donna, I’ve come to the same conclusions about theonomy as you have.
LikeLike
By the way, I’m curious. What do you have against Doug Wilson, Cheryl? Is it that you feel he encourages civil lawbreaking?
LikeLike
Ree, my husband feels much stronger about Doug Wilson than I, and a lot of what is said about him is “hearsay.” But an awful lot of people who live in his town have no respect for him. In addition, he basically started his own denomination in order to teach a theology that most Reformed denominations have declared error, and my husband has made quite a push to make sure our local churches really understand the teaching, so he has little respect for those who teach it. So the short answer is I know little about him firsthand but I don’t like what I see, directly and indirectly, from him. (Largely the patriarchy “cult” is my biggest beef.) And my husband’s feelings are stronger.
LikeLike
On another note:
If a denomination openly sanctions homosexual marriage, that could be, and probably is, a sign of apostasy. —RC Sproul
LikeLike
Oh yeah, I’ve heard your thoughts on patriarchy before, especially in the context of Bill Gothard. I’ve been following Doug Wilson long enough to know, though, that he’s routinely misrepresented in what he teaches. I’ve been reading his blog almost as long as he’s kept a blog and I’ve also read criticisms and responses, so I’m leery when people talk about his supposedly aberrant teachings if they’re not specific. He is a proponent of patriarchy, although he was never aligned with Bill Gothard. I only know of the teachings through reading a blog, though, so I can’t say much about how they work themselves out in real life.
Donna, I’m surprised that R.C. Sproul left even that much wiggle room in his statement. I can’t imagine how a denomination that sanctions homosexual “marriage” could be anything but apostate.
LikeLike
Michelle, that is the booklet she shared with me as what opened her eyes to the Truth in the Bible. Well, God opened her eyes but He used Jim and that booklet and the Bible study Jim did with her.
Yes, we definitely are related.
LikeLike
Ree, I wouldn’t connect Wllson and Gothard. I didn’t even know until recently that Gothard was “still in business” and my husband had never heard of him, but had concerns about Wilson. Some of the stuff I’ve heard about Wilson is unsubstantiated, but enough to make me uneasy personally if someone I knew decided to go to his church. The connection between Phillips and Wilson is stronger than Gothard and Wilson. (I haven’t read Federal Husband, but amazon’s one-star reviews make it look pretty scary, including the repeated comment that he forbids women in his church to read the book.)
My husband’s biggest concern is the federal vision, and the links between Wilson and FV are hard to find but definite. (Wilson’s denomination is the FV stronghold, though it’s hard to “connect the dots” and prove a direct Wilson teaching of FV. But you don’t start a denomination that is safe for those who believe a doctrine that has caused them to be thrown out of their church without believing the doctrine yourself . . . so I don’t have any doubt on this one even though I haven’t personally studied it.) Here is one such discussion of the link, for example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/crec-church-my-area-74851/
If you aren’t familiar with the federal vision (most people aren’t), several Reformed denominations, including the PCA, have written position papers condemning it. It basically teaches baptismal regeneration and several other false doctrines, though they word it to suggest otherwise (http://www.theopedia.com/Federal_Vision). This is from the amazon description (probably a back-cover description) of Wilson’s Reformed Is Not Enough: “In the same way, when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians.” Here’s another link: http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2012/02/federal-vision-threat-to-reformed.html
Not trying to “convince” you, just showing you that there is indeed reason for caution, that people aren’t just making general claims with no support. (Where there is enough smoke, there is often fire.) Wilson has done a lot of good, but there is some reason to suspect he “believes his own press” and may be doing more harm than good these days.
LikeLike
Whoops. AJ, I’m told my comment is “awaiting moderation,” so I guess I was a bad girl who used too many links. I may end up breaking my comment up into separate ones, but I’ll give you a chance to find it and rescue it first.
LikeLike
It’s up now Cheryl.
LikeLike
I’m going to go ahead and break it into more than one comment and post it:
Ree, I wouldn’t connect Wllson and Gothard. I didn’t even know until recently that Gothard was “still in business” and my husband had never heard of him, but had concerns about Wilson. Some of the stuff I’ve heard about Wilson is unsubstantiated, but enough to make me uneasy personally if someone I knew decided to go to his church. The connection between Phillips and Wilson is stronger than Gothard and Wilson. (I haven’t read Federal Husband, but amazon’s one-star reviews make it look pretty scary, including the repeated comment that he forbids women in his church to read the book.)
My husband’s biggest concern is the federal vision, and the links between Wilson and FV are hard to find but definite. (Wilson’s denomination is the FV stronghold, though it’s hard to “connect the dots” and prove a direct Wilson teaching of FV. But you don’t start a denomination that is safe for those who believe a doctrine that has caused them to be thrown out of their church without believing the doctrine yourself . . . so I don’t have any doubt on this one even though I haven’t personally studied it.) Here is one such discussion of the link, for example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/crec-church-my-area-74851/
LikeLike
Thanks, AJ! I won’t repost the second half, and you can take down my reposting of the first half, if you like.
LikeLike
Ree, I suspect Sproul was signaling some charity depending on the specifics in any particular case — allowing that there may be unusual circumstances or background that *could* mitigate a hard-and-fast declaration of apostasy if a church or denomination misinformed.
(I know, hard to believe a denomination would be so biblically clueless, it’s a pretty black and white issue — but again I think he was giving *some* room to allow for extraordinary circumstances that might be repented of once the facts and truth are understood).
It still surprises me how many Christian friends I know (often in wobbly/mainline denominations already) who think gay marriage should not be an issue in the church, that it should be approved.
LikeLike
What denomination is Doug Wilson part of?
I’ve heard of him, read some of his things ages ago I think, but had lost track of him and don’t know much about his teachings.
LikeLike
Donna, he’s part of the CREC.
LikeLike
Donna,
The denomination is the CREC, or the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. It used to be called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, but apparently there were people who had a problem with the word “confederation” in the name, so they decided that it caused more confusion and controversy than necessary and changed it.
Cheryl,
I’m aware of specifically what Douglas Wilson teaches regarding Federal Vision theology and I’m aware of the mischaracterizations attributed to him by men like Scott Clark. Here’s one of many posts that should clear up the falsehood that Douglas Wilson teaches baptismal regeneration. http://dougwils.com/s8-expository/the-absolute-necessity-of-the-new-birth-romans-ix.html
LikeLike
Ree, federal vision isn’t “precisely” baptismal regeneration; there are nuances, and from what I have heard, Wilson is indeed more careful with wording than many. The question is, does federal vision teach a form of baptismal regeneration? (Yes, it does.) Is Doug Wilson a leader in a denomination begun largely to be friendly to federal vision? (Yes.) And does he deny federal vision or just avoid it? (I have never heard that he denies it, if he does.)
What can be done with this quote I gave above: “In the same way, when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians.” I don’t see how that can be read as anything other than some form of baptismal regeneration.
Remember the issues on World blog a few years ago when Andree Seu declared Glen Beck to be a genuine believer, and many of us were appalled, because he’s a practicing Mormon? He was able to use nice Christian-sounding words, but while he didn’t deny Mormonism, he could not be claimed as a fellow Christian. Now, I am not saying Wilson is not a believer . . . I don’t know him. But I can say that someone who is seen as a federal vision teacher, and who makes a place for federal vision teachers to teach, and who does not deny federal vision teaching, there is very good reason to be cautious about his teaching. He may be as able to use “the right words” as Glen Beck, but that doesn’t mean he is teaching the orthodox faith while all the evidence points to him choosing to be with the federal vision people and not with those who deny that false doctrine.
There are really too many “red flags” to me about Wilson, and this is a big one.
LikeLike
Cheryl, Doug Wilson has been laying out specifically what he teaches and what he denies for years on his blog. I don’t even know if there’s a uniform definition of what Federal Vision teaching consists of, but I do know exactly what Wilson teaches. He doesn’t just use words and let others assume the definitions like Mormons tend to do. He clarifies everything that raises a question, often multiple times, until no honest person who’s read his words can claim otherwise.
The portion you referenced above is in regard to his teaching on the objectivity of the covenant. He teaches baptism as the objective sign of an objective covenant relationship with God and His people. But he explicitly denies that this relationship necessarily implies regeneration. For the unfaithful, he teaches that it results in greater condemnation than for those outside the covenant.
He also frequently shows specifically how his teachings are more consistent with the Westminster divines than the teachings of his Presbyterian critics.
Although I’m not part of a CREC church, or even a Presbyterian church, I find his teachings persuasive. In fact, I was first exposed to them when I used to be involved in debates with Roman Catholics back in the early 2000s. Although I was never even close to being persuaded by the Roman Catholic arguments, there were certain assumptions in Scripture that seemed to make more sense in the RC paradigm. Wilson’s teachings made those portions make sense to me within a Protestant paradigm.
One of his most vociferous critics is Scott Clark, and Wilson has been trying for years to get together with Clark and to have some kind of formal discussion on these things, but Clark outright refuses. I’d encourage you to look into it for yourself, but if it would just stir up strife with your husband, then it’s probably not a good idea.
LikeLike
Ree,
Here is a good long quote from a FV person admitting it isn’t really traditional Reformed doctrine. (“BH” is Biblical Horizons.) http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/james-jordan-tells-the-truth/
BTW, I was trying to remember what denomination you are, and I can’t. I know I respected the long discussions you’d have with unbelievers on the World blog, but I don’t remember precisely where you are coming from theologically.
For the record, the Federal Vision has been officially condemned by the OPC, PCA, URCNA, RPCNA, Mid-America Seminary, and Westminster Seminary (CA) as contrary to the confessions and to Scripture. No, FV is not uniform in its teachings.
You’ve obviously read more of Wilson than I have. I own several of his books, but haven’t read most of them (mostly books on classical education that I bought before I knew whether I’d end up having kids who needed education). For all that he explains what he does believe, does he ever distance himself from the Federal Vision? The reason I made the comparison to Glenn Beck is that it seems Wilson tries to have his feet in both camps–he says little that we wouldn’t agree with on the face of it (as far as I know–again, I haven’t read him much–though I think I’d disagree pretty heartily on some of his marriage stuff, based from snippets I’ve seen), but he is fully supportive in every way of Federal Vision people. You just can’t start a denomination for people who’ve been thrown out of their own denominations as heretics, not even bother ever to say, “I actually disagree with them theologically,” and still be accepted as not believing what they believe. I think he’s trying to have it both ways, but I don’t see how that works.
In other words: part of a standard confession is not just what we affirm but what we deny. Mormons such as Glen Beck who are trying to come across as members of just a different Christian denomination may affirm, “Jesus is the son of God.” The problem is, we too often fail to make sure that they deny such beliefs as “God the Father has a physical body,” “God the Father is God of this planet, but not Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe,” or “Jesus and Lucifer are physically brothers.” Without such denials, Mormonism “sounds like” Christianity . . . but once you understand that “God the Father” means something very different to Mormons, and so does Jesus’ relationship with the father, you see a different photo. I’ve seen Christians send out Christmas cards that say, “As we are, God once was. As God is, man can become,” without even realizing that is Mormon doctrine and not Christian doctrine!
We knew the points of connection Doug Wilson has when he talks to people who don’t believe the Federal Vision. But what does he say to his fellow pastors who believe in the Federal Vision? And what does he deny of what they believe?
LikeLike
I meant, of course, a very different picture, not photo. I’m editing a book that keeps using “photo” instead of picture (she is speaking about Catholic cards for saints, so she obviously doesn’t mean a photo), and now I’m doing it too!
LikeLike
That’s funny how you can pick up weird speech and writing habits when you’re exposed to them too much. Sometimes I find myself phrasing something the way my Indian husband would!
It looks like James Jordan is making a distinction between FV theology and traditional Reformed theology primarily in the area of paedo-communion and its ramifications. As I understand it, he’s correct that paedo-communion was never a part of Reformation theology, while it’s an important part of FV theology. I don’t think that paedo-communion is condemned by the Westminster Confession of Faith, though.
I know that some FVists have been kicked out of the PCA, and I also know that at least one, Peter Leithart, was tried and and found within the bounds of orthodoxy. I really don’t know the details, since I don’t follow that closely, but based on what I have read, I haven’t seen any evidence that the ones condemning these men have shown any good faith in even wanting to understand. Anyway, I’m certainly not defending everything that’s been taught under the name of FV theology. I don’t know enough of the nuances to defend or condemn. But your Glenn Beck/Mormon analogy is precisely opposite to what’s going on here. The Mormon’s use language that sounds orthodox but when unpacked, actually isn’t. While the FVers tend to use language that sounds unorthodox, but when unpacked, actually is. In fact, that was pretty much the conclusion of the men who tried Leithart.
As for my own theological leanings, I regard myself as Reformed, but the church I’m part of is non-denominational Evangelical, baptistic with Reformed leanings. I’ve long been considering changing churches, but I have built relationships there and am pulled there for other reasons, too. It’s a huge source of conflict in my mind because I’m quite concerned about some general trends at my church, but I haven’t found another church in my area in which I feel would necessarily be an improvement.
As for Wilson, what specifically are you asking if he’s denied?
LikeLike
Ree, federal vision is close to splitting the PCA, and more conservative denominations are looking at us askance for tolerating it as much as we have. That Leithart and Myers and others have been found not guilty is considered pretty scandalous in large parts of the PCA.
It is definitely more than paedocommunion. People can believe in paedocommunion without being FV. (I’m nearly positive the Westminster standards do not allow paedocommunion, BTW–elders who believe in it have to take an “exception” and generally have to promise not to practice it or teach it, if I understand correctly.) The bigger problem is really their stand on what baptism does, and how they end up teaching faith plus works. My husband is the “expert” on this; I am not. But he has studied it extensively and I’ve learned some things from him and from listening to or reading some of what he has studied. If you want me to send you his study notes (some things he used when teaching our church about it), I can do so. Again, multiple denominations have declared it outside the realm of orthodoxy. And those who tried Myers and Leithart studied exhaustively, reading everything that had been written, etc., but their hands were really tied in the trials (just four hours to try in one case, for example, including any questioning of witnesses), because their presbyteries were in favor of what they are teaching.
Re Wilson, I’m asking if he has denied believing/ teaching federal vision? His wording usually isn’t as bold as that of some of the other men, but he is offering them “shelter.” It would be impossible for him to say he doesn’t agree with federal vision, I think, when he so clearly has offered refuge to those who do. As far as I know he has never claimed the term, but neither has he denied it. Again, my husband has followed Wilson much, much more than I have . . . but I keep running across something else concerning Wilson that makes me lose more respect for him so I admit that I do have a bit of “bias” by now, but not as strong as my husband’s disrespect for him. He really sees him as a wolf and a very dishonest man.
Again, if you want any of those notes, you can e-mail me. My husband isn’t here right now, but I’m sure he’d be willing to send them out.
LikeLike
Oh no, Doug Wilson doesn’t deny teaching federal vision. He’s one of its proponents, by all means. But as I said earlier, as I understand it, federal vision teaching isn’t monolithic. Not all of Doug Wilson’s theological convictions aren’t exactly the same as others under the umbrella of FV. On the other hand, unlike some in the Reformed world, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t necessarily regard those with whom he disagrees on certain points as heretics.
I’m not a theologian, but I think I have some degree of discernment. I was exposed to Doug Wilson’s teaching without prejudice, knowing nothing of the Federal Vision controversy except what I read in his blog. And I don’t see anything that translates to works righteousness in anything I’ve read from him. I’ve also read some things from Peter Leithart, but not nearly as much as I have from Wilson. And I haven’t read much of anything from any of the other FV teachers.
I know that lots of people hate Doug Wilson, both within and outside of the church, but in all the controversies that I’ve witnessed online, I haven’t seen anything persuasive against him or his teachings. Granted, I haven’t experienced what it’s like to be under his teachings, so I allow for the possibility that maybe I’d feel differently if I had. Even his patriarchy teachings don’t bother me when I read them. In fact, they’re kind of refreshing in comparison with the egalitarianism that’s been creeping into my home church. But again, maybe if I experienced them personally, it would seem different.
LikeLike
You’re right that federal vision teaching isn’t monolithic . . . but it’s more than prejudice that makes all the conservative Reformed denominations take a stand against it. The details of what Wilson does or doesn’t teach (or does or doesn’t believe) are more than I know, but I have seen statements that are clearly unorthodox, and I’ve definitely seen statements that are not Reformed, from those who teach it. Wilson works harder to appeal to everyone than some of his fellows do.
None of us hates Doug Wilson. We disagree with him. You may have been exposed to Wilson’s teaching without prejudice, but exposure has prejudiced you. I understand that. I have had pastors fall into sexual sin, and I know how hard it is to think that someone I respect might be mistaken. But even people we respect can be wrong.
I don’t think his patriarchy teachings are the worst thing he teaches, since FV is worse. I personally have seen the damage of patriarchy in my family, Phos/Roscuro has talked about the results some (re Gothard) and I have read much (some of it Gothard, some of it others). I don’t really tend to think of Gothard when I hear “patriarchy,” by the way. Gothard is in his own category and is more cult-like than the others, though patriarchy is definitely part of what he teaches and he almost definitely planted the seed for other teachers of it. But I have read stories of children growing up in huge families their father can’t support (one bathroom for 12 people, too little food) and under great burdens. Much of it is theologically very troublesome. As my husband keeps saying, they think the law sanctifies, and it doesn’t. If women can just cover up enough, wear their hair long enough, be submissive enough to men, then all is right.
I do think that some of it is a reaction to cultural excesses. For example, I thought that much of the courtship model was good. My husband and I chose never to be alone together before we married, and we chose to submit our courtship to the elders of my church though I was 43/44 and we certainly didn’t “have to.” But when I read such things as 70% of couples marrying in the church have had sex with each other (and that doesn’t include couples where one or both had sex with someone else, but they refrained with each other, and I think that doesn’t include couples who went as far as oral sex, though possibly it does–I’m sure it doesn’t include couples engaged in sexual touching short of sex), it was very important to me that we draw the lines carefully, and my husband agreed. So there’s a lot to be said for some of that. But that said, as “conservative” as we were–and we were very conservative–my “patriarchal mind-set sister” actually begged me, and pleaded with me in tears, not to allow my husband to hold my hand or touch me in any way until we were married. She also didn’t think I was allowed to marry until our oldest brother approved (he didn’t even get a chance to meet my husband until we had been married a year!).
If Doug Wilson says that the women in his church are forbidden to read a book he has written to husbands, Doug Wilson is wrong. First, wives should be able to read books written to their husbands, and second that just isn’t the kind of decision he can make for households in his church. (If my husband were to say, “Don’t read that book; I think it would hurt you,” I would respect that. But that isn’t a decision my pastor can make for me, beyond saying it as a suggestion.) So yes, ultimately I believe the patriarchy is false theology and that it goes overboard. A husband does not stand between Christ and his wife; Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Period. Single women, women with unsaved husbands aren’t left mediator-less; you have Jesus, and so do I. I actually told my sister, when she said that her husband was her priest and her mediator, that if that was true I was better off than she was (I was single at the time), because I had a perfect Mediator and she didn’t.
But there are bigger problems than the patriarchy.
LikeLike
By saying I read him without prejudice, I meant to say that I had no prior knowledge or expectations. I didn’t read him to take sides either with or against him, his teachings, or the PCA. I agree that exposure has prejudiced me in the sense of inclining me to defend him, but if I’d found his teachings to be off, I never would have continued reading him. As it is, I’ve seen controversy from every side, and in each case, I continually see him being misrepresented. I’ve also seen him respond with openness and humility to those who disagree with him, but who honestly engage with what he says. But I haven’t seen the leaders of the PCA doing that. And I say this even though I attend PCA when I’m away from home and visiting other parts of the country. My “home-away-from-home church” when I’m visiting my family for a few weeks each year in Massachusetts is a PCA church that I have to drive 30 minutes to get to, and I also sought out and attended a PCA church in Greenville, SC when my daughter and I went there for her scholarship interview. I expect to go back there whenever I’m there again once my daughter moves there for school. So I’m not anti-PCA, by any means.
Now, your statement that Wilson tries hard to appeal to everyone couldn’t be more wrong. If he can be accused of anything, it’s a tendency to go out of his way to say things in a way that will cause offense. Of the people who actually read him and are inclined to agree with him in principle, the thing that drives many of them the most crazy is that. He’s a self-described contrarian, and that’s an apt description.
You say that you’ve seen FV statements that are clearly unorthodox, but I don’t know what they are or who said them and I don’t know how their authors would explain them. But I know that statements out of context often don’t mean what they seem. (That’s another lesson that I first learned from debating Roman Catholics in reference to the church fathers.)
Also, based on what I’ve read, I don’t believe that his patriarchy teachings resemble what you’ve described. If he really forbids women in his church to read his book, then that’s troubling to me, but I don’t take it on the word of a few Amazon reviewers that this is true. I do know that he’s posted portions of that book, as well as many of his other books, on his blog, and I haven’t found the portions I’ve read to be disturbing at all.
I grant that my exposure is limited just from reading a blog, but what I have seen and read just doesn’t sound consistent with your experience with patriarchy.
LikeLike
FV believes that through baptism one finds union with Christ, adoption, justification, etc., but not security or perseverance. We can walk away from our union with Christ. Our faithfulness keeps us in the covenant.
Again, I haven’t read what Wilson says about it, but my husband has studied FV extensively, and so have many other elders. Whole denominations have called it error. Have you studied why? Obviously they have seen more than what you’ve seen Wilson say, and obviously they have seen more than a quote or two yanked out of context.
I know Wilson is a contrarian, enough that people who know him have a hard time liking him. But on this issue he seems somehow to be trying to please both sides. He says nothing that people can’t prove unorthodox, yet he provides a place for those who have been turned out for teaching error. As part of the “public face” of federal vision, he speaks in a way that people can decide it isn’t really that bad, and yet his denomination provides a place for people most of us would call heretics. (BTW, the apostle Paul had no problem calling people “wolves” and other strong words. I think that a church being able to use strong words like “heresy” or “false teacher” or “error” is hardly the mark of a bad church. The question is whether you use them rightly. When multiple denominations have judged it error, it’s worth considering whether it is. And when it strikes at the heart of salvation, the error is serious.)
Again, the PCA is definitely not the “bad guys” coming down hard on federal vision. Other denominations are seeing us as tolerating it. Many conservative pastors within our denomination are at least considering leaving. Other denominations definitely come down stronger. Have you studied why?
(I think I’m going to have a link or two, maybe some quotes, from my husband later. If you want, you can e-mail me and we can continue this offline.)
LikeLike
OK, here’s a link to some other things. A bunch of quotes from the Leithart trial (apparently the comments are useful as well): http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-substance-of-the-leithart-trial-highlights-from-leitharts-testimony/
I already gave a quote from James Jordan admitting it isn’t very Reformed.
A quote from Samuel Miller, Princeton professor of church history in the early 19th century:
“I do not forget that some of the respected and beloved brethren, who are regarded as the advocates of the doctrines alluded to, tell us continually that they believe substantially as we believe; that the difference between them and us is chiefly, if not entirely a difference of words. And is it possible, if this is the case, that they will allow so much anxiety and noise to be created by a mere verbal dispute?… But whatever may be the understanding and the intention of leading preachers of the doctrines referred to, the question is, how are they understood by others?
“… There is the utmost danger that others, not so discerning or so pious, will be led astray by the language in question, and really embrace, in all their extent, the errors which it was originally employed to express. …
“Besides, all experience admonishes us to be upon our guard against those who, in publishing erroneous opinions, insist upon it that they differ from the old orthodox creed “only in words.” This plan has been often pursued, until the language became familiar, and the opinions which it naturally expressed, current; and then the real existence of something more than verbal difference was disclosed in all its extent and inveteracy. Such was the course adopted by Arius, in the fourth century. …It is, indeed, an easy thing for a minister accused of heresy, and affording too much evidence of the fact, by ingenious refinements, and plausible protestations, to render it difficult, if not impossible for a judicatory to convict him. And it is easy for such of his brethren as resolve him from censure, so to varnish over his opinions, as to hide, for the present, most of their deformity.”[1]
[1] Samuel Miller, “Letter VII, Adherence to our Doctrinal Standards,” in Letters to Presbyterians (Philadelphia: Anthony Finley, publisher, 1833), 119-121, 126. (Free download at archive.org/details/letterstopresbyt00mill or republished with other S. Miller writings in Doctrinal Integrity, 1989).
Here is a link to the documents from the Leithart trial, if you want to read it: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kpzd4mjnptyipkm/ApHiA1kiZ9
I’ll give one more link in a separate post so I don’t end up in blog purgatory.
LikeLike
Finally, I’m not sure how much you followed the Leithart trial, but to the dismay of many, one of the prosecutors ended up becoming Roman Catholic. Here is his take on Federal Vision not being Reformed: http://www.creedcodecult.com/crap-i-should-have-just-stayed-in-the-pca/
The piece itself is brief, but be sure you scroll through the comments at least far enough to get to Steve Swenson’s “smoking gun” question at April 4, 6:55 p.m., and Jason Stellman’s answer two comments later (8:13 p.m.). These are “baptismal regeneration” quotes.
LikeLike
Thanks, Cheryl. I’ll take a look at those over the next day or two.
LikeLike
Just one thing that comes to mind though is that I wasn’t claiming that there’s nothing distinctive about these doctrines to separate them from traditional PCA teaching. But that they don’t imply what their detractors insist that they do and that they are Reformed.
But I’ll look at those things and let you know my thoughts.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ree.
LikeLike
Hi Cheryl,
I spent some time on those links, and I totally understand how you see them, but I’ve read a lot more explication of that theology than are contained in those examination questions and answers, so I think I understand better what he’s getting at that one could get just from reading Leithart trying to defend himself. Here are a few threads where Doug Wilson is interacting with some attacks from Lane Keister.
http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/westminster-sacerdotalism.html
http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/continued-rejection-of-westminster.html
http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/westminster-286.html
He also has a whole series where he goes through the Westminster confession and defends his views in light of that. You can just go to his blog and type “Westminster” into the search bar and you’ll get a few pages of posts. But if go down to the bottom and click on “older posts” until you get to that series, you might be interested in reading them.
LikeLike
Ree,
I sent thru your post. The SPAM filter grabbed it. Any post with more than 2 links is automatically grabbed. If you have more than 2, best to do 2 posts so it doesn’t hang up and interrupt the flow of the back and forth. It actually did the same thing to Cheryl the other day during the conversation you two were/are having. 🙂
And sometimes, the SPAM filter goes rogue and just randomly selects a victim for no reason. 😯
LikeLike
Thanks, AJ, for letting it through. I remember Cheryl mentioning the spam filter, but I didn’t know how many links were too many. Thanks for letting me know, too.
LikeLike
Ree,
I’m currently in the process of reading your links . . . but so far I just don’t see anything that refutes such posts as this one: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/sign-and-seal/#comments
LikeLike
OK, I’ve read them all, along with some of the Green Baggins posts. Basically Wilson is saying, “It is too orthodox, and they’re picking on me.” Obviously both sides are saying “We differ.”
Do you understand why multiple denominations have rejected it? Ree, it isn’t that they don’t “understand” it. Many elders have studied it in great depth. If you want to accept it, then accept it. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that those who reject it merely misunderstand it. What denominations are for it? Only the CREC, a denomination formed to be a safe place for those whose denominations considered this to be error.
Federal vision was, by the way, one of the first questions my husband asked me about before we met in person. We e-mailed back and forth for a bit and got to know each other, and we both liked what we saw. But then we started asking specific questions to be sure we were “on the same page,” this question was in one of his very first e-mails. I told him I had read the PCA federal vision position paper and I didn’t understand federal vision but I was not a proponent. If I had been in favor of it, the relationship would not have continued. Churches are going to be leaving the PCA unless the PCA gets its act together and deals with this.
But we may need to just agree to disagree. My denomination, my church, and my husband (an elder who has studied it in great detail) have all declared this teaching to be error. I believe it to be error, too, though I cannot communicate that the same way some of these teachers can. Federal visionists themselves admit that their teaching differs from ours. There is every good reason to consider it false, and there is no good reason for me to come out from under authority and study it theoretically with a bias toward “Resolved: federal vision teaching is truth.” So I think I’m going to have to leave it at that. Thanks.
LikeLike
While I was reading your links, my husband sent me another one that he has just read. I haven’t really read it yet, but it does look relevant to this question, so I thought I’d go ahead and post it while I was at it: http://theaquilareport.com/the-federal-vision-ten-questions-and-the-westminster-standards/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-federal-vision-ten-questions-and-the-westminster-standards
LikeLike
Cheryl,
I’ll take a look at your link and I do understand why you wouldn’t want to go out of your way to study this stuff based on your husband’s stance on it. Also, I do see the difference between FV teaching and mainstream Reformed teaching. I’m not saying that I’m firmly convinced that the Federal Visionists are necessarily correct, but I have read things from them that reconcile different parts of Scripture that I just can’t see being reconciled any other way. Still, I’m open to the possibility that I’m missing something really sinister in FV teaching. But I haven’t seen anyone make a case for that that hasn’t relied on misrepresentations that are recognizable even to me.
LikeLike
Like for instance, this statement from the author you linked to. I picked this up from a link on your link, but it’s by the same author. He was linking to something he had written. He wrote, “In a DOS church, some may not have the personal, saving union with Christ which they profess to have, but those who do have it will never lose it. In a WYSIWYG church, everyone has a personal, saving union with Christ, but some of them may lose it.” (WYSIWYG church stands for a FV church in this context.)
Now this author says lots of things that I’m having trouble following. But when he makes a clear statement like that which I’m quite confident conflicts with FV teaching, I have to wonder what’s going on with these critiques.
LikeLike
Well, I’d think his statement is hyperbole. (No one believes the man who comes to church and doesn’t even profess Christ has a saving relationship with Christ.) But it would be based on the belief that baptism confers salvific benefits (adoption, justification, etc.) which at least some FV believers hold. Beyond that I don’t know.
LikeLike
You’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, presuming that he must be correct in some sense, but he isn’t. FV teachers teach that baptism puts one into covenantal union with Christ, but baptism doesn’t confer salvation. Doug Wilson explicitly denies that a person becomes regenerate upon being baptized. He talks of different people, baptized as infants becoming regenerate at different times throughout life, and some never experiencing the new birth. These ones Christians in one sense and not in another, just as some people could be Israel and not Israel, in different senses of the word.
I know that there are there are some variations under the umbrella of Federal Vision, but as far as I know, none teach baptismal regeneration in the sense that they’re accused of. And I know that Doug Wilson doesn’t.
LikeLike