Afore my color commentary, allow me to set down a few guiding principles. The first two are general, and the third applies to my observation of the debate. 1) Jesus Christ IS King of the United States of America, for he is the Ruler of the Kings of Earth (Rev. 1:5). This means that the only cosmic government is an absolute monarchy. Christians should simply admit this and quit trying to be sons of the Enlightenment, acting as if Jesus were merely a private King or the King only of his church. He’s certainly both of those things, but he’s more than that, too. He is the head of *all things* and is given to the church, which is the fullness of him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23). Okay… so far so good? No? Sorry. Moving on, then: 2) The law of God is not just for private use, family use, or church use, but is for the whole world, for all men and governments. There are plenty of qualifications to be made, but I want to stress that God’s law REALLY DOES apply to the President of the United States of America. For example, when God says, “You shall not murder,” that applies to individuals, families, the church, and the state. That’s right, the civil magistrate may not take human life, except as God has commanded him to do so. Another example: when God says, ” You shall not steal,” this applies to the government. This shouldn’t be contorted to mean that all taxation is illegitimate theft, but it should at very least, factor into our thinking about taxes and wealth redistribution. Finally, 3) past sins do not necessarily disqualify a candidate for office. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). By God’s grace in Christ, we repent, trusting in the Savior alone, and we’re forgiven. What’s more, we move on, having learned from our sin.

Character... what a funny concept!

Alright, now to the debate: it started with a question to Speaker Gingrich about his deplorable treatment of one of his ex-wives. I’ve heard people talk about Newt’s response and how good it was. Having listened to his response, I can appreciate one aspect of it. There were falsehoods in the story, as it was told, and Newt addressed himself to those to set them straight. So far, so good… we have (at least) to get our facts straight. From there, however, his response was lame. Newt’s response was dismissive and antagonistic. He didn’t speak a word about repentance. There was not even a note of remorse. What’s more, he let on that this sort of stuff was simply a sideshow, distracting from the *real* issues. Romney piped up, basically saying: “Umm… can we move on to something important?” What amazes me is that Newt (a Roman catholic) and Mitt (a Mormon elder) want to act as if their personal lives, past sins, and repentance DON’T MATTER! Do you think that’s true? Personally, I think it’s crazy. Somehow, it appears that both Gingrich and Romney think that personal integrity and character just are not an important aspect to the presidency.

Seriously. Not. Impressive.  …or maybe it’s very impressive, but in a negative way. What do you think?

Those two young mothers were friends. Maybe they met in college, in a dorm. Perhaps they’d been friends much longer, having met in elementary school or at a neighborhood park. It’s even possible that they were friends how their sons are friends. How are their sons friends?  The boys are friends, in the first place, because their moms are friends. These two moms probably had their sons at about the same time (as the sons looked to be about the same age). So, it was quite natural that the moms got together for play dates from very early on after they had their boys. Thus, these two boys were friends well before they knew what being friends meant. They simply were what they could not express. They didn’t know they were friends; they just were. They will look back (supposing their friendship continues) and always remember one another as friends.

Where my wife grew up...

My wife had this experience growing up in a wonderful neighborhood in Kaneohe, Hawaii. She had many friends in this neighborhood, many of them from early in her life. But she and Nalani were “first friends.” They were simply friends from the beginning. My wife has no concept of life without her first friend; Nalani was always there.

Now, I recognize that our relationship with God is wildly different that our earthly friendships. The relationship between humans and God, in the first place, is damaged and soiled by sin (both our own and Adam’s). Humans are (by nature) enemies of God and are under his wrath. God, however, has made covenant with his people, and I think that the experience of many children in Christian families is analogous to the two little boys mentioned above. They grow up, from the beginning, hearing God’s word, worshiping him, gathering with his people, praying to him, seeking forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ, and endeavoring after increased obedience. Why do they do this? Because their faithful Christian parents train them to do this. These children are beneficiaries of what we call covenant nurture. Covenant children (that is, children of at least one believing parent – 1 Cor 7:14) are reared in the nurture and admonition of Christ (Eph 6:4). That is, they’re taught, from the beginning, that Yahweh is their God, that they are his children, and that they must trust and obey their God, for Christ has shed his blood for them.

Now, please pay attention: would Maile and Nalani have been first friends if their parents never got together? If Maile and Nalani had not sat together on the carpet, drooling over the same toys, would they have had their unique “first-friends” relationship? Of course not. Similarly, if Christian parents don’t actively bring their children along into their worship, prayer, faith and repentance, the children (humanly speaking) will not learn those things. This means that our parenting is CRUCIAL to our children’s spiritual well-being. If the earth-shattering weight of that doesn’t drive you in tears to your knees, nothing will.

Praise our God that he’s promised to be a God to us and to our children (Gen 17:7, Ps 115:14, and Acts 2:39 just for starters). Praise God that, by his covenant, he regards our children as his children. We can bear up under the weight of covenant responsibility of parenthood only as we rest in our sovereign God who is pleased to make use of us. Let us, therefore, beg him that we could be faithful parents. Let us beg our God that the covenant nurture in which we rear our children will, by his grace, bear great fruit in the lives of our children. May God show himself gracious and faithful to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Heidelberg Catechism #44

Q. 44 – Why does the Creed add, “He descended into Hell”?

A. To assure me in times of personal crisis and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, especially on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from the anguish and torment of hell.

Theological: It is interesting to note that the Catechism basically bypasses all the discussion of the harrowing of hell in its answer. The wisdom in this policy is the controversy is not very edifying. The classic Reformed position is that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his passion, but especially on the Cross. Insofar as it was possible on the Cross, the Father forsook his incarnate Son: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” In all this, the Son suffered divine wrath for sins that were not his: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21). Christ, the Sin-Bearer, suffered all the torments of hell for everyone who would be saved. That’s right, if we’re even going to try to be rational about Christ’s atoning work, we have to understand it with built-in limitations.

By built-in limitations, I mean limitations that God himself purposed in the Atonement. Everyone (except Universalists) places limits on the Atonement. People balk a those despicable Calvinists who “limit” the Atonement to the elect, but the same people also “limit” the Atonement by speaking of it as “potential” or “possible.” Jesus died for this or that person if they believe. We prefer to think that God from the beginning knew who would be saved and who would be damned. God won’t be surprised when the sheep and goats are separated. Thus, we think it most logical (and biblical) that Christ’s atonement was divinely purposed (“limited”) for those who would be saved, not for those who would be damned. There’s something greatly unsettling about God planning and purposing something he absolutely knows won’t occur.

Practical: This is where the Catechism shines. Christ, our Lord, has suffered for us, suffered unspeakably. His suffering is our aid in suffering. Christ has sanctified our suffering for us. He’s gone before us in our suffering and has demonstrated that “through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom” (Acts 14:22). What’s more, we have great confidence in our trials, for we know that “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will He not with Him also graciously give us all things” (Rom 8:32)? We have a sure testimony from God that he will keep us through all our trails, for he’s given us his Son, who has suffered for us. Praise God! We have a Savior who has suffered greatly. Let us learn to identify with Christ’s suffering and thus press into the Kingdom.

It's well-known that Calvin basically wanted to kill everybody.

Now, my oldest son is named Calvin (after John Calvin, that monstrous heretic that burned hundreds of thousands of well-meaning happy people in that theocratic hell called Geneva). Just kidding, but my first-born is named Calvin after John Calvin. In any event, when he was born in April of 2005, I was on my way back from Edmonton, Alberta; I actually missed his birth! I was up in Edmonton meeting with the (then) Northwest Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church. So, for the past six years (marked by the day before Calvin’s birthday) I’ve been licensed to preach the Gospel. I was not, however, ordained to the Gospel ministry.

Recently, by the grace of God, the Columbia Bible Presbyterian Church called me to be their pastor. We moved down to Scappoose, Oregon, in Columbia County, and I’ve begun preaching and teaching. I am not yet a pastor, as I’ve not been ordained by the Presbytery. I have yet to undergo further examinations by the Presbytery, and, if I pass, I hope to be ordained within six months.

The upshot is: rejoice with us! This call to ministry is an answer to a lot of prayer (both on the part of the congregation and on the part of our family). We’ve rejoicing to be at the CBPC. We love the people here and are very excited to minister God’s Word, build up the people here, and grow the church. If you are around the NW Portland area, or if you know people who are in that area, please recommend them to come visit us. Also, check out the church’s website – it’s quite informative and helpful.

I got a (poorly bound) copy of this for less than $3.00 from Christian Liberty Press – give that a look!

As to the book, it’s written in pleasing (if occasionally highfalutin) prose. I know plenty of authors that like to drop two-bit words, but I don’t know that I’ve ever read one that footnotes his own two-bitters with definitions! That makes the books a feel a bit pretentious. One further negative is that the style of the last four chapters of the book was less pleasing; these chapters read more like a list of information. For these two reasons, I gave the book four stars.

On the positive side, Grant’s style is quite engaging. He kept the book short and punchy. Grant shows his wisdom in producing a very thin volume on Sanger’s life and work. He adequately shows that Margaret Sanger is one of the great monsters of the 20th Century, and that she deserves to be loathed right along side of the other, more despised fiends of the last century.

Grant demonstrates that, from her radical social/political roots, Sanger was well-connected to the European eugenicists of the early 20th Century. Planned Parenthood has tried to expunge her genocidal racism (at least the verbiage of it). To some degree they’ve succeeded, too, as Sanger is often hailed as Leftist saint, the embodiment of help to the poor, the down-trodden and minorities. But Grant observes that, if she wrote now what she wrote in the 1920s, she’s be crucified as an out-and-out racist, which she certainly was. Since, however, her views were backed by the *reverent pause* “Science” of her day, her racial views scarcely raised an eyebrow. Truth is, though, that her blood-thirsty, genocidal descendants (read: Planned Parenthood) are embarrassed by her terminology. That, however, is where the embarrassment ends. Planned Parenthood still carries on the support for the mass murder of minority and disenfranchised segments of society around the world. Sanger would’ve had it no other way. She was a wonderful woman.

View all my reviews

Baptism Hawaiian Style

Heidelberg Catechism #43

Q: What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?

A: Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to him.

Theological: Do you ever find yourself marveling at the way the Bible speaks of our definitive break from sin and darkness? I do. Paul tells us that our old man has been put to death in Christ, that we are new creations. I find it intensely interesting that the Heidelberg Catechism cites two texts to support the first three clauses: Rom 6 and Col 2. Both of these chapters connect our death in Christ and newness of life to baptism. Now, I do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but I do think that American Protestant culture has OVER reacted to Rome when it comes to baptism. When you look back to, recall, or think about your baptism, one thing that you should be thinking about is that, as you believe, your baptism is sacramental means of connecting you with Christ, his death, and his resurrection. We should love that.

Moreover, our thinking ought not to stop by looking through the waters of baptism to our union with Christ and our new birth, but should press on to live with joy in that newness of life. Our union with Christ’s death and resurrection is like a moral motor, moving us toward greater faithfulness, greater obedience, greater love.

Practical: Think often about your baptism. Think about the water, about how it cleanses your physical flesh. Think about the wonderful renewing and cleansing aspects of bathing. Think about how *great* it feels, when you’re really dirty, to take a shower and wash off all the dirt and filth. Then think through the water. That’s right, don’t let your mind stop at the physical sign of the sacrament, but press through the physical sign into the spiritual reality. In Adam, we were filthy, laden with sin and wickedness. But Christ came to us, by his renewing Spirit in the waters of regeneration. He has cleansed and purified us by his own blood. Press through the water and cling to Christ alone! God has given us the water of baptism because he wants to minister to us through it, not apart from it. As you meditate upon the great mystery of baptism, let your heart melt in gratitude. Pray that God would make use of you for his kingdom. Dedicate yourself anew to his service. Open the Bible, read what God says to do, and get busy.