Chew on this

by Phil Johnson



'm on the way home from Boston this morning and don't have the time or the technology to write a proper blogpost. I can't even get the normal weekend Dose 'o' Spurgeon post online (I'll do it this afternoon, Lord willing).

So for today's post I'm going to point you to this article, which is the best piece I've seen from a secular source on the Harold Camping debacle. It's a sad story. It's a classic example of why false doctrine is so dangerous. And it's a good reminder that the Battle for the truth is one we ought to take more seriously than we sometimes do.

Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Camping's way out

by Dan Phillips

Reader Joe Cassada took an idea I proposed, brought his willingness and abundant talent, we collaborated some more, and the result is above. Meant to be read along with the previous posts.

---

Harold Camping glorifies God: seventeen ways

by Dan Phillips

NOTE: this is a companion-piece to Harold Camping is not a false prophet.

It is tempting to write "Inadvertently, unintentionally, and by means of contrast" — and let that suffice. However...

First, Harold Camping glorifies God because all things are God's servants (Psalm 119:91). Camping can't not glorify God. You can't not glorify God. You will either glorify Him as His servant, or as His tool; but you will glorify him (cf. Isaiah 10:5-16).


Second, Harold Camping glorifies God because, by his refusal to repent for past false guesses and his insistence on "doubling down" and putting all his weight on yet another guess, he illustrates God's wisdom in warning us: "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly" (Proverbs 26:11).

Third, Harold Camping glorifies God, because his arrogant false claim to knowledge he does not and cannot possess spotlights the humble truthfulness of Jesus, who confessed that "concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," and then admonished us "Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come" (Mark 13:32-22).

Fourth, Harold Camping glorifies God because his repeated false guesses about the future throw God's exhaustive knowledge of the future — and inerrant declaration of the same through His genuine prophets — into stark and splendorous relief (Isaiah 41:22-23; 44:7; 46:10; Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

Fifth, Harold Camping glorifies God because, by his repeated predictions despite past humiliation and exposure, he bears out God's wisdom in warning that you can "Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him" (Proverbs 27:22).

Sixth, Harold Camping glorifies God because he bears out the critical importance of James' God-breathed warning, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1).

Seventh, Harold Camping glorifies God because he spotlights God's wisdom in structuring the local church as an organization led by men who first had to show and prove themselves as being capable of humbly receiving instruction from other men (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:1-2; 3:10-17; Titus 1:9), and as not being self-willed and schismatic (Titus 1:7).

Eighth, Harold Camping glorifies God because he highlights the wisdom of God in warning church leaders to be on the lookout for self-absorbed schismatics, and to give them the boot if they won't accept correction (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 3:10-11).

Ninth, Harold Camping glorifies God because, by ignoring God's Word and thus falling into atrocious folly, he commends the wisdom of God in repeatedly warning us to hear and heed counsel, rebuke and instruction from others (Proverbs 5:12-13; 10:17; 11:4; 12:1; 15:10, 22; 24:6).

Tenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of ignoring God's warnings against being wise in one's own eyes (Proverbs 12:15; 26:12).

Eleventh, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of an arrogant isolationism (Proverbs 18:1).

Twelfth, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of forsaking a primary focus on preaching Christ and His Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:1-11; Colossians 1:27:29).

Thirteenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of ignoring Paul's God breathed warning that each of us should not "think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (Romans 12:3).


Fourteenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of ignoring Paul's God breathed warning against those who "have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:6-7), and why God moved him to say it was necessary to shut the mouths (epistomizein) of such men (Titus 1:11).

Fifteenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by providing a living illustration of the horrendous result of ignoring Paul's God breathed warning against those who have a sick obsession with divisive trivia (1 Timothy 6:3-4)

Sixteenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by showcasing the wisdom of God in directing local churches to shut down schismatics who obsessively major on minors and promote speculation rather than edification (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

Seventeenth, Harold Camping glorifies God by how his hopelessly (and oft-rebuked) muddled hermeneutics  highlights the perspicuity of Scripture and the validity of a normal, grammatical historical theological approach — so much so that Christians of all traditions are publicly affirming the clarity of the dominical word,  "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. ...Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming" (Matthew 24:36, 42).

In this ways, for a starter, Harold Camping does glorify God. Unintentionally, unconsciously, and in spite of himself.

SEE ALSO: Harold Camping, the true Gospel, and hedged bets

---

Open Letter to a Military Family

by Frank Turk

My Dear Friends and Citizens,

This year my son turns 12, and he's getting big -- as big as his mom for sure right now, but pretty soon as big as I am (except, to paraphrase Paul, without the spare tire). A couple of weeks ago, a friend of ours was injured seriously in Afghanistan during military service, and he's only 18 -- but I can remember when he was my son's age. I can remember when he was a kid trying to figure out what it means to be like the men he admired, and how to be a man like his (adopted) father. I can see a lot of what he was in my son now.

So when that young man was a headline in our hometown, it was more than news to me. In my mind, there was a story there of someone who loves his family, and his church, and his small town, and his nation, and he volunteered to go off to serve his country in what the Bible calls the ministry of the sword.

Now, maybe the military institutions themselves today would not use those words. Maybe they have forgotten how. But the small towns and churches who nurture and grow the young men who staff the services have not. There is a great and godly dignity to want to serve your fellow man and your nation by giving up your own life and freedom for the sake of preserving home and hearth.

And when these young men put themselves in this service, and they go out in a uniform, and they are equipped with implements of death far more devastating than a sword, we see them as something a little larger than life -- when they are not our son. When they are our son, we know what it means to pray to God that he forgive their sins and protect them from evil. We know what it means to have those in whom, whether we meant to or not, we have placed out hope for the future march into the maw of conflict to be the final solution when evil men live lawlessly. The grand words for it all sort of shrivel up when it's our son who has to be the first one into the breach.

So today I am thinking about my son, who is getting big. And he's making me think of your son, who got big, and gave up his life for you, and yours, and mine.

Today, as I tuck in my son, I am grateful for your son. I cannot repay you for him, but I will live here and now with the solid reminder of what he did. God bless you, and keep you, and may his face shine upon you. I will spend this weekend remembering.

---

The World-Tilting Gospel available for pre-order... in case, you know, you're interested

by Dan Phillips

You will, I hope, forgive me this:

For anyone who cares, you can pre-order a copy of The World-Tilting Gospel (set for release August 1, 2011) by some no-name, online.

I know of the following locations:

• Amazon has it for pre-order, with all the Facebook "like" and Twitter stuff, as well as an author page.
• Christianbook accepts pre-orders (also has Facebook and Twitter buttons)
• Barnes & Noble also has it, and buttons. (Thanks, Squirrel!)
• For my dearly-loved British-type readers, eden-co.uk is also offering it for pre-order. I think they have a special discount if you order more than a million copies, or something like that. Fewer "pounds" per pound.

August 1 seems like a long way off to me.

So now, in the hopes of having something of interest or value for everyone, a flurry of variouses:

1. Thank you to Phil, without whose generosity I'd not have the megaphone of this blog, nor the opportunity of reaching still further with the message of this book.
2. Thank you to Frank, for accepting it as his personal ministry to make sure none of this (or anything else) goes to my head. And for being an example of sharp, incisive, Gospel-aimed thinking and writing.
3. Thank you to all of you, our readers. That's you! You gave the initial announcement of this book a welcome I'll never forget. (In fact, I'm developing one of those titles into a book-proposal.) And then your voices were very helpful in picking the cover for the book.
4. Let me flog that one just a tad more: please know that I don't take any of your kind words for granted, or your encouragement or your prayers. You have been very cheering, very generous. I can't express how frighteningly humbling it is each time someone says she or he has pre-ordered a copy, sight-unseen, not having read so much as a word or a single review. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
5. Thank you to my generous endorsers, who took the time to look the book over and offer their verbal thumbs-ups: Phil Johnson, Lig Duncan, Jim Hamilton, Chris Brauns, Rob Plummer, Brian and Janet Rickett, and this one other guy... oh, what's his name? Preacher. Kills me that I can't think of it...  Oh well, it'll come to me. You may never have heard of him anyway. Regardless, their endorsement is eloquent testimony to their generosity and graciousness, and I am in their debt.
6. The book has other thanks inside as well, as you'll see in August, DV.

This process has been a real education. When Brian Thomasson approached me to propose a book, years ago, he suggested maybe basing something on the post on sarkicophobia. So I went there, took that, and stepped back for a broader look, framing that post in terms of the Gospel. But that "broader look" led me to something I had heard David Wells say years earlier, about the reason why the Bible did not start at John 3:16, but at Genesis 1:1.

Thus was born the core idea of the book: framing the Gospel in terms of the whole Bible, beginning at the beginning, tracing our way through God's plan of the ages in Christ, right down to the personal, street-level connection and impact of our salvation and life in Christ.

And that's how a ~1300-word post turned into a ~300-page book.

Some other time, I'll tell you a bit more about the journey from idea to book.

---

Nothing But Toil and Trouble

A Meditation on Psalm 90
by Phil Johnson

A Prayer of Moses, the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of man!" 4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. 5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. 7 For we are brought to an end by your anger; by your wrath we are dismayed. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. 10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. 11 Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you? 12 So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom. 13 Return, O LORD! How long? Have pity on your servants! 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, and for as many years as we have seen evil. 16 Let your work be shown to your servants, and your glorious power to their children. 17 Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!

egarding the shortness and misery of this life, Moses wrote, "All our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away" (Psalm 90:9-10).

This is a common theme in Scripture: our days are few and full of trouble (Job 14:1). In case you have wondered, it's not just you; we all experience misery and affliction. That's the nature of earthly life. The earth itself is cursed. Moses gives a nod to that fact in the phrase "all our days pass away under [God's] wrath." In the King James Version, the second half of that verse says, "We spend our years as a tale that is told." The Hebrew expression actually means, "We finish our years like a groan."

That's true, isn't it? Life ends with a groan. The end of life is like an extended sigh of pain. Life doesn't generally get more pleasant as we get older; in fact, it typically works the other way: life gets harder and more trouble-filled. At the end you die, and if you're "fortunate" to live long enough to die of old age, the end of your life will be like a drawn-out sigh. Meanwhile, this life is filled with moaning and affliction. All nature groans (Romans 8:22-23).

That reality leads Moses to reflect on the reality of divine wrath against sin. Moses, you recall, had sinned by losing his temper at Meribah in front of the whole nation. There was no water when Israel arrived at Meribah, and (as usual), complaints and rebellion were brewing among the people. So God gave Moses these detailed instructions: "Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle" (Numbers 20:8).

Instead, with the nation gathered before him, Moses went into a rage: "Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice" (vv. 10-11). As a result, Moses was forbidden to lead the nation into the promised land (v. 12). Aaron likewise was kept out of Canaan and died immediately after the incident at Meribah (vv. 23-29).

It seems an extremely harsh punishment for a seemingly minor (and completely understandable) transgression. In Psalm 90:11, Moses acknowledges this, but he implicitly affirms the justice of God: "Who understands the power of Your anger and Your fury, according to the fear that is due You?"

In other words, no matter how much we might fear God's wrath, His wrath against sin turns out to be more than equal to the worst thing we could ever imagine. That's why the biblical descriptions of hell are so awful. God's wrath is infinitely worse than anyone really fears.

But notice: that doesn't cause Moses to despair. He knows about—and has tasted—the goodness of God as well. And that's what launches him into the petition phase of his prayer. Verse 12: "So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." In other words, help us to keep both the brevity of this life and the realities of eternity in perspective, so that we can be truly wise people.

And then Moses pleads with God for compassion: "Return, O LORD! How long? Have pity on your servants! Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." (vv. 13-14).

Moses realizes that even though he can't erase the consequences of his sin, his life isn't hopeless. He's not dreading what's ahead or seeing the future with a grim outlook at all. He knows the mercies of God are inexhaustible, and God abundantly pardons. God can restore even the years that the locust has eaten. So Moses prays for a special outpouring of God's blessing. Verse 15: "Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, and for as many years as we have seen evil."

In other words, Give us blessing at least equal to our trouble. "Let your work be shown to your servants, and your glorious power to their children. Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!" (vv. 16-17).

God answered that prayer. The work of Moses' hands was certainly established. His life's work was by no means wasted. And he wasn't kept out of the Promised Land forever. Because at the transfiguration, when Christ revealed His glory, Moses and Elijah were there, talking with Him. Moses got blessing equal to his trouble—and infinitely more. After all, God was His dwelling place—and God is a better dwelling place than the land of Canaan.

That's the whole point of Psalm 90. We are dying creatures. Our earthly comforts are few and they are only temporary. This life is going to end shortly. And even if you die of old age, it's a long process of decline to get to that point. The very best you can hope for is that your life will end like a drawn-out groan.

But if God is your dwelling-place then you have an eternal habitation, because He Himself is eternal. Not only that, if God is your dwelling place, then He can bless you even in this sin-cursed world. He will even bless you more than the days you have been afflicted. Certainly, the blessings of heaven are infinitely greater than all the miseries of this life combined.

Romans 8:18: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." There's a lot for the believer to look forward to, no matter how miserable life gets.

---

A Word About Mothers, A Week after Mother's Day

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. Readers of Dan Phillips's Friday post may be interested to learn that Spurgeon had exactly the kind of godly mother Dan described in part 2 of his post. The following excerpt is from Spurgeon's Autobiography.

hildren are often very reticent to their parents. Often and often have I spoken with young lads about their souls, and they have told me they could not talk to their fathers upon such matters.

I know it was so with me. When I was under concern of soul, the last persons I should have elected to speak to upon religion would have been my parents,—not through want of love to them, nor absence of love on their part; but so it was. A strange feeling of diffidence pervades a seeking soul, and drives it from its friends.

Yet I cannot tell how much I owe to the solemn words of my good mother. It was the custom, on Sunday evenings, while we were yet little children, for her to stay at home with us, and then we sat round the table, and read verse by verse, and she explained the Scripture to us. After that was done, then came the time of pleading; there was a little piece of Alleine's Alarm, or of Baxter's Call to the Unconverted, and this was read with pointed observations made to each of us as we sat round the table; and the question was asked, how long it would be before we would think about our state, how long before we would seek the Lord.

Then came a mother's prayer, and some of the words of that prayer we shall never forget, even when our hair is grey. I remember, on one occasion, her praying thus: "Now, Lord, if my children go on in their sins, it will not be from ignorance that they perish, and my soul must bear a swift witness against them at the day of judgment if they lay not hold of Christ." That thought of a mother's bearing swift witness against me, pierced my conscience, and stirred my heart.

When I was a child, if I had done anything wrong, I did not need anybody to tell me of it; I told myself of it, and I have cried myself to sleep many a time with the consciousness that I had done wrong; and when I came to know the Lord, I felt very grateful to Him because He had given me a tender conscience.

Fathers and mothers are the most natural agents for God to use in the salvation of their children. I am sure that, in my early youth, no teaching ever made such an impression upon my mind as the instruction of my mother; neither can I conceive that, to any child, there can be one who will have such influence over the heart as the mother who has so tenderly cared for her offspring.

A man with a soul so dead as not to be moved by the sacred name of "mother" is creation's blot. Never could it be possible for any man to estimate what he owes to a godly mother. Certainly I have not the powers of speech with which to set forth my valuation of the choice blessing which the Lord bestowed on me in making me the son of one who prayed for me, and prayed with me. How can I ever forget her tearful eye when she warned me to escape from the wrath to come? I thought her lips right eloquent; others might not think so, but they certainly were eloquent to me. How can I ever forget when she bowed her knee, and with her arms about my neck, prayed, "Oh, that my son might live before Thee!" Nor can her frown be effaced from my memory,—that solemn, loving frown, when she rebuked my budding iniquities; and her smiles have never faded from my recollection,—the beaming of her countenance when she rejoiced to see some good things in me towards the Lord God of Israel.

---

Open letter to RADM Mark L. Tidd, Navy Chief of Chaplains

by Frank Turk

UPDATED: Navy changes mind about policy. And before they read my letter, even.

Dear Rear Admiral Tidd,

It's unlikely you're going to read this, I admit, because this is a blog explicitly about the Christian faith, and your job has become, since its inception in 1917 "to provide a system of appointing qualified and professional chaplains that meet the needs of the Navy," less about the Christian faith and more about finding a variety of religious backgrounds to counsel the sailors in the Navy. That's not hardly your fault -- it's just the state of things as our nation migrates further and further into multiculturalism and watches where we came from roll off toward the vanishing point on the horizon.

The reason I'm writing today is this bit in the NavyTimes about a policy change for the chaplains of the Navy. And I want to be fair to the logic of the policy change -- because it seems to me that this is not a change so much as it is a clarification of the role of the chaplain in the Navy.

As I read N097A/207063, the first matter of its business is to clarify that, barring the order of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, and previous military policy and guidelines, the use of naval facilities is not based on any pre-requisite sexual orientation. Fair enough, I guess -- I'm not sure I would have asked the question implied, but that's me. But then the next section states that a chaplain, insofar as he is licensed to do so, is practicing his own religious obligations, and it is legal in the jurisdiction in question, may participate in a ceremony of same-sex marriage.

Now seriously: this is a far cry from the establishment of chaplains in the Navy in 1775 who were, under orders of their captain, "to take care that divine service be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays, unless bad weather or other extraordinary accidents prevent."

I bring it up to you for a reason, which I have been pondering in other contexts lately. The reason is this: I wonder how we can anticipate each other to behave in a moral way anymore.

Before we go to far here, let's dispense with some of the more-rudimentary retorts to such a thought. For example, I grant that a person who does not share my moral orthodoxy (that is: my view of what is morally-orthodox, not my personal perfection -- which is lacking) can act in a nice way. They may even sometimes act in a morally-heroic way. I also grant that just because someone has chosen to do one particularly-immoral action and to justify it as not-immoral, they don't necessarily have a completely-defective moral code. They might have one blind spot, as a drunk who is a private drunk but still is a model citizen, or a person who only steals from dumpsters and empty lots but is a fabulous Boys & Girls Club volunteer and a member of the Rotary.

That is: I grant you that in theory we can say that someone who adopts a false moral precept is not necessarily, from a sociological point of view, someone we cannot trust at all. He might be a swell guy otherwise, and perhaps we should say with Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that."

Here's what worries me: that might be true in theory, but in practice we know for certain that moral codes are what they are. So a person who is guilty of avarice is inevitably guilty of other things that are caused by avarice -- and they likely justify all those things together as a bundle. They in fact have to do it -- otherwise they just simmer in want and frustration, and heavens knows that it's far worse to be bad company due to frustration than it is to be a secret scoundrel who is doing all manner of things to satisfy the envy and greed under the skin.

What worries me is that we are forgetting that agreement on the foundational moral items of our society is critical for there to be a society at all.

So when, for example, we make it clear that the use of our public spaces are hinged upon a principle of being "sexual orientation neutral," I'm afraid we've said a lot more than we intended. Seriously: Naval legal counsel really meant to say that any manner of sexual expression was A-OK in the Navy's public spaces? There's no way I'm going to unpack that, Rear Admiral, but I am certain that you can come up with at least one example which even you would say, "um, no. Not in the Navy."

But this is where we are headed. This is, in fact, where your policy is assisting us in going. I remember watching Monte Python's The Meaning of Life in college, and being flabbergasted by the scene in the prep school where John Cleese conducts a live-action sex ed class and thinking, "Wow. That's so far beyond absurd that it's not even funny -- its actually vile." And yet this week it is reported that this very thing happened at Northwestern University! 30 years and suddenly the completely-absurd unthinkable has become the practice. {Kudos to Northwestern, btw, who removed the Professor who did this from teaching that class -- but consider it: this person still teaches at Northwestern.}

Yet the slippery slope is not actually my point here -- it's an incredulous aside. It's the rabbit we cannot help but chase a moment because it cannot be avoided as we think about this.

My point is whether or not we can anticipate the moral judgments of people who do not agree with us on foundational moral premises. In the military, we have gone from the strict policy of DODD 1332.14 [which forbids propensity or intent to commit Homosexual acts] (10 U.S.C. § 654 [which upholds the longstanding tradition which places stricter codes of conduct on military personnel than ought to be enforced in civilian life]) which said homosexual behavior was incompatible with military service, along with the Uniform Code of Military Justice passed in 1950 which gave policies and procedures for discharging homosexual service members, to "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," to this policy -- which says, "it's your thing - do what you wanna do." What we have in fact done over time is to say this: military discipline does not apply to your sex life.



Now if we read that statement to 100 Americans, here's what I think someplace between 95 and 99 of them would say: of course, the military should not have jurisdiction over a person's sex life. So given the groundswell of support against such a thing, the Military ought to be broad-minded enough, wise enough even, to banish archaic codes.

That seems right, yes? It sounds like we should do this right away -- but then I go and read DoDD 1334.01, instructions for Wearing the Uniform. And let me say this: this instruction is far more detailed and far more restrictive than 1334.14. For example, section 3.1.4 says it is forbidden to wear the uniform when doing so "may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces."

Discredit? Heavens -- that implies that we can agree on what is and is not a credit to the military, doesn't it?

What if we can't? See: the problem is not that people with an inconsistent system of moral values can't sometimes act like they are "just like" someone else. The problem comes when we have to decide what it means to be a credit or discredit to the Armed Forces -- or to our nation, for that matter.

And I put it to you: this is the foundational question the chaplain ought to be able to answer. The chaplain ought to be the agent of the divine in the midst of those who, if I may get Christian on you a second, are engaged in the rightly-appointed ministry of the sword on behalf of the government. When the chaplaincy has become the place where policy trumps the ability to define what is a credit or discredit, and what is an honor or a dishonor, it is no longer discharging, as they said in 1775, "the divine service."

I'm praying for you, Rear Admiral. I am hoping that somehow God will use you in this moment to do something which no one expects, and no one will understand -- but that everyone will agree was more than just the work of a good leader or a great administrator. And I leave you with that much to consider.

---

Need for living, challenging, "provoking" fellowship

by Dan Phillips

Recently I alluded to a particular long stretch, some time ago, that I spent in ongoing depression. One of the contributing factors to that depression, and to its eventual defeat, was my church fellowship at the time... or lack of it.

Note well: I said "contributing factor." I alone am responsible for the choices I made and make as to my own mental, affectional, attitudinal furniture. But associations are among those choices, and they can help, or they can hurt (Proverbs 13:20; 1 Corinthians 15:33).

In this case, we were attending a church in which the give and take of real fellowship just did not happen. I wrote, then deleted, descriptions of what I'm talking about — because I'm unwilling to speak critically of a doctrinally-sound church. Let's leave it at this: whatever the reason, and despite our best efforts, the fire and the wood just never met for us there. Speaking for myself, despite my regular readings in the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, readings of Spurgeon and other good sources, I was shriveling up inside.

Then one day a friend mentioned a church he'd found with terrific preaching. I went, as an advance scout. Sure enough, it was very good preaching. I brought a positive report back to camp, and we returned in force. That became our church home for years. God did us a world of good there, and we served and committed and gave to the best of our ability.

But as I cast back my memory's eye, good as all that was, the single factor that I remember most piercing and affecting me was the living fellowship arising from that passionate, Biblical preaching. I attended a Men's Fellowship meeting, and there met men who were alive, growing, excited. Each time we got together, they'd talk about Piper or Sproul, or this Biblical doctrine or that, which were really gripping and helping them and lighting them up. I found myself challenged once again, involved in the give-and-take of fellowship. One brother loaned me tapes (!) of Piper's talks based on his then-new Future Grace. In the context of the preaching, worship and fellowship, that book helped me mightily.


Extended fellowship is also very helpful, as a supplement (not a substitute). For instance, apart from whatever good God has stooped to do for others through my writing, blogging has been helpful to me. Knowing Phil and Frank has been immensely helpful to me. Our godly, growing commenters have been helpful to me. The discipline of thinking and writing, knowing that people wiser and godlier than I (a staggeringly vast category) will be reading and assessing, has been helpful to me. These are challenges, pokes, prods.

In time, I came out of the darkness that had been my daily reality. I won't say that every moment since has been sunshine and puppies; I'm afraid my temperament this side of Glory will remain susceptible. (For instance, I've already had passing winces over the scathing reviews of my two books... reviews that haven't been written yet!) But I've never gone there to live again.

Churches do have personalities, as Revelation 2-3 attests. Verses like Proverbs 13:20 and 18:15 and 17 are instructive here. We must set our hearts individually (Proverbs 4:23) to seek God-fearing wisdom with singular devotion (Proverbs 1:7; 4:25-27). But at the same time, in our seeking of society, of fellowship, we need to be with people who also have this commitment. We need their iron to sharpen our iron (Proverbs 27:17). We need their faithful, foul-weather commitment (Proverbs 17:17) and their loving rebukes (Proverbs 27:6). We need to "provoke" to good works, and to be "provoked" (Hebrews 10:24). We need wise brothers and sisters to examine our opinions (Proverbs 18:17).

The alternative is the great and arrogant folly of isolation (Proverbs 18:1), in faithless disobedience (Hebrews 10:24-25), and all the miseries and spiritual retardation that attend that path (Jeremiah 2:19).

At the same time, we should do our best to assure that our friends are not themselves charitably "slumming" by their association with us, locked into a "take-and-take" relationship in which we alone benefit, and they only give and give. Find people who can challenge you, and give yourself to returning the favor.

It makes a big difference.

---

Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Flee from the Wrath to Come," a sermon preached on Sunday evening, 23 October 1881, at the Met Tab in London.

onsider the question of John the Baptist: "When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

I have no doubt that the Pharisees and Sadducees were very much surprised to hear John addressing them in that way; for men who wish to win disciples, ordinarily adopt milder language than that, and choose more attractive themes, for they fear that they will drive their hearers from them if they are too personal, and speak too sharply.

There is not much danger of that nowadays, for the current notion abroad now is that gospel ministers can sew with silk without using a sharp needle; and that, instead of piercing men with the sword of the Spirit, they should show them only the hilt of it; let them see the bright diamonds on the scabbard, but never let them feel the sharpness of the two-edged blade. They should always comfort, and console, and cheer, but never allude to the terror of the Lord.

That appears to be the common interpretation of our commission; but John the Baptist was of quite another mind.

There came to a him a Pharisee, a very religious man, one who observed all the details of external worship, and were very careful even about trifles, a firm believer in the resurrection, and in angels and spirits, and in all that was written in the Book of the law, and also in all the traditions of his fathers, a man who was overdone with external religiousness, a Ritualist of the first order, who felt that, if there was a righteous man in the world, he certainly was that one.

He must have been greatly taken aback when John talked to him about the wrath of God, and plainly told him that that wrath was as much for him as for other people. Those phylacteries and the broad borders of his garment, of which he was so proud, would not screen him from the anger of God against injustice and transgression; but, just like any common sinner, he would need to "flee from the wrath to come."

I daresay that the Sadducee was equally taken aback by John's stern language. He, too, was a religious man, but he combined with his religion greater thoughtfulness than the Pharisee did;—at least, so He said. He did not believe in traditions, he was too large-minded to care about the little details and externals of religion. He observed the law of Moses, but he clung rather to the letter of it than to its spirit, and he did not accept all that was revealed, for he denied that there was such a thing as an angel or a spirit. He was a Broad Church-man a man of liberal ideas, fully abreast of the age. He professed to be a Hebrew of the Hebrews; yet, at the same time, the yoke of religion rested very lightly upon his shoulders. Still, he was not irreligious; yet here is John the Baptist talking to him, as well as to the Pharisee, about "the wrath to come."

They would both have liked to have a little argument with him, but he talked to them about fleeing from the wrath to come. They would both have been pleased to discuss with him some theological questions, and to bring up the differences between their two sects, just to hear how John would handle them, and to let them see which way he would lean.

But he did not waste a moment over the matters in dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees; the one point he had to deal with was the one of which he would have spoken to a congregation of publicans and harlots, and he spoke of it in just the same way to these nominally religious people. They must "flee from the wrath to come;" or else, as surely as they were living men, that wrath would come upon them, and they would perish under it.

So John just kept to that one topic; he laid the axe to the root of the trees as he warned these hypocritical professors to escape for their lives, else they would perish in the common destruction which will overwhelm all ungodly men.

This was not the style of preaching that John's hearers liked; but John did not think of that. He did not come to say what men wished him to say, but to discharge the burden of the Lord, and to speak out plainly what was best for men's eternal and immortal interests. He spoke, therefore, first, concerning the wrath of God; and, next, he spoke concerning the way of escape from that wrath.

---

True Worship

Why truth—not music, not bare passion, and certainly not ritual—deserves the place of prominence in worship
by Phil Johnson



"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).

od is spiritual in His very essence, and therefore He must be worshipped with spiritual worship—worship in the energy of spirit; worship that engages and employs our entire spirit, not just the motions of our hands and the words we form with our lips; not bare ritual; but a true expression of the heart and soul. "Worship in spirit."

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Jesus is making a deliberate contrast between the worship God seeks and the typical kind of worship that is dominated by human tradition, obscured by empty ritual, and buried under meaningless layers of pomp and ceremony.

Listen to Christ's criticism of the Pharisees' religion (Matthew 15:3, 8): "Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"

They had all the ceremonies down. Many of these were rituals prescribed by Moses' law, ordained by God, and therefore good things if used properly. They were fine if seen for what they really were: symbols of a greater reality, aids to worship; not the end-all and be-all of worship. But the Pharisees were more enamored with the rituals than they were with the truth the rituals signified. And so they added layers of their own manmade rituals on top of what the law prescribed: extra washings; more complicated ceremonies; more elaborate costumes—longer tassels on their robes and whatnot to exaggerate the liturgical impact of all the pageantry and spectacle.

The flesh loves that. And the ceremonies themselves became what they thought of when they thought of "worship." It was a flamboyant display for the benefit of the worshiper rather than an expression of praise and honor to God. They were worshiping Him with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him. They were indulging their flesh, not worshiping in spirit.

And let's be honest: we all have a sinful tendency to do that. We go through the motions without really engaging our spirit in worship. We seize the opportunity during the pastoral prayer to look at our watch, or send a text message during the congregational hymn, or whatever. Jesus said that's not authentic worship; It's not worship at all unless we "worship in spirit and truth."

This is a much abused and widely misunderstood principle today. Jesus is not calling for the kind of shallow passion that responds to the music and the atmosphere. He's not saying we should aim at working ourselves into a frenzy of feeling and passion devoid of any rational content.

Authentic worship is concerned with truth, not bare passion.

It's a common misconception today that worship in the spirit requires us to empty the mind of anything rational. I visited a charismatic church a few years ago where the worship leader said that very thing: He encouraged people to "sing in the spirit"—and in order to do that, he said, "you need to empty your mind and let the spirit take over your voice. Close your eyes and forget where you are, and just feel the worship."

A lot of contemporary worship is just like that. We use music and atmosphere to build raw passion to a crescendo. And lots of people think that's the purest form of worship—when you are basically so overwhelmed with emotion that your mind is unattached and unengaged in any kind of rational thought. In fact, music is so important to the process that when you use the word "worship" today, most Christians assume you are talking about music.

But notice that Jesus gave truth, not music, the place of prominence in worship: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

That's loaded with implications. "Truth" here stands in contradistinction to bare ritual. It also contrasts with raw passion. Jesus is saying that sound doctrine, a clear conscience, and a true heart are infinitely more important for authentic worship than the place where we worship, the forms with which we worship, the style of our music, or any of the other things people usually want to talk about and fight over whenever the subject of worship comes up.

What's important in worship is what you believe, not what tribe you belong to. Authentic worship is about how you think of God, not just how you "feel" when you sing about Him. It's about lifting up your spirit and opening your heart before Him, not merely raising your hands and closing your eyes.

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The Father is seeking such people to worship him.

---

Briefly: terror (of a certain kind) and theology

by Dan Phillips

I am making my way through Michael Horton's The Christian Faith, at a glacial pace. It is thought-provoking and instructive, to say the least.

Let me lift out and amen! just one snippet from page 97 which, I think, very nicely adorns and unites a lot of our concerns:

...Calvin judged that many theologians of his day who did not sense the importance of justification before a holy God had not yet sufficiently experienced the terrors of conscience that make the knowledge of God's truth such an urgent enterprise.

Bringing to mind also:

Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD,
and whom you teach out of your law (Psalm 94:12)

Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I keep your word (Psalm 119:67)

It is good for me that I was afflicted,
that I might learn your statutes (Psalm 119:71)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,  who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.  For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.  If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer (2 Corinthians 1:3-6)

Books are important. They're just not all-important — except the one Book, when learned and lived.

---

Open Letter to [Names Withheld]

by Frank Turk

Dear [Names Withheld],

This weekend it was released that US Armed forces, under direct orders from President Obama, launched a strike on a compound in Pakistan to kill Usama bin Laden. The report from the White House, and from the President himself, is that the mission was successful and Usama bin Laden is dead.

You have heard this, and now, you doubt it. That is: like a bad paraphrase of a famous figure in the Christian Bible, unless you see the bullet hole in his head and can put your hand in his cranium, you will doubt the reports. Some of you are convinced he died in 2002, and others believe he was dead even before 9/11 – replaced by another man with less gray hair and a larger nose.

Now, from my desk, I say to you: that’s a very complicated religion you have there. I have a better one to offer you, but it doesn’t come with photographic evidence, so I doubt you will take it up. Suffice it to say that if you believe in the resurrected Christ and you repent of your sins – your pride, your avarice, your entitlement and self-promotion above the governments God has ordained for this world at this time – you can be saved from your paranoia and your crypto-anarchist tendencies.

That’s not why I’m actually writing. I’m writing about the photos.

Look here: in your view, until you personally see the photos, President Obama is a liar. That is: he’s not innocent until proven guilty, he’s guilty until he can produce witnesses to exonerate himself – and that’s easy work, you say, since everyone involved works for him. Just the photos, since the body is in a watery Sheol to prevent its exhumation per Sharia law, and we can call it even.

As you have read on twitter, I’m agin’ it, and I wanted to tell you why.

Back when Jesus was telling people that he would have to die at the hands of the Romans and the Jews, they did something called “crucifixion”. It was a practice so vile that even the Romans hated to write about it – and they wrote about everything. Yet they continued the practice for one purpose only: to make the point that Rome was not to be dallied with, and that those who were so stupid to do so would not just be killed, but would be put on display as a monument to their own stupidity for the sake of warning off others.

And that, it seems to me, is the executive logic behind releasing the Usama death photos: proving that we did it, and that you do not mess with Texas. Or Honolulu, as the case may be. From your desk, the reason is also to prove (to you personally, since you are the most important person we’re talking about) that the Government didn’t lie to you about violating the sovereign space of an ally for the sake of destroying a man who was (allegedly, in your view) leading an effort of mayhem and terror against the United States in particular and Western Civilization in general.

But there’s the thing: Western Civilization.

You know: as I’m typing this, I am in an airport waiting to board to go home from a business trip. Thank God, but I did not have to be virtually strip-searched at either point of entry, and somehow someone named “Turk” doesn’t raise any questions to the TSA about whether he is hiding a weapon where the sun don’t shine so I also was not given the enhanced pat-down. But in 3 weeks I’m taking my family to SoCal, and we will likely be subject to that treatment at at least one point of entry to the national airport system – me, my wife, and my two kids under the age of 12. I get all of Phil’s tweets about how vile it is that our government is treating innocent citizens like criminals for the alleged sake of containing air terror – but I can hate the game without inventing a whole MMORPG of planning and intention which causes me to abandon the principles of Western Civilization.

If what is actually at stake here is our culture and our values, then let’s distinguish war from not-war (and “not-war” is not necessarily “peace”; for example, “not-war” could be “legitimate civil debate” – it could be “pragmatic misalignment”) and approach what is not-war with the right set of categories which preserve the ways and means of Western Civilization.

So to that end, are we at the point where we are revisiting the logic of crucifixion as a deterrent to violence against our citizens? If the answer is “no,” and we can see the western logic of disposing of Usama’s body in the ocean, then maybe we should follow our western logic to its conclusion – and let crazy people who have no body to produce pretend that absence is the same as invincibility and immortality, and let them promote Usama to the Imam in the well for all we care: the fact that the live in a delusion should not cause us to allow them to dictate the way we will run our non-war civilization.

And I don’t want to be the one to point this out to you, but I’m sure you can remember the death of Nick Berg in 2004. His beheading was videotaped by those who were conducting Jihad against, well, us at that time, and their point was exactly: this is what you get when you mess with Jihadists. In fact, this is what you get when you are kidnapped by Jihadists, and when they are running things as well. That is: this is the civilization they want you to embrace.

Now, given that they did do this to Mr. Berg, if we therefore say, “We’ll see your kidnapped and helpless victim and raise you your number one guy in his house on a Sunday night, [gamer expletive omitted]. And here are our pictures,” what are we really doing? Are we saying that because we are stronger, we are right? Is that how we want to reason with the Chinese right now?

So my point is that if we’re going to allegedly be defending civilization from lunatics with Scimitars and dreams of nuclear holocaust drawing an invisible priest of God out of the well to usher in the end times, we have to be something other than the exact same guys but with automatic weapons in place of big swords and Lady Gaga or Donald Trump in place of the invisible holy man and Atlantic City or L.A. in place of the well. We have to actually have a civilization worth saving from those maniacs because it is different from what they want.

Do you want something different than what Usama wanted? Are you sure? Because if the only difference is that in your plan Jason Stratham plays you in the movie, and in his plan Jason Stratham plays him in the movie, you both like the same movie – you both want the same thing. You’re just fighting over who gets the credit.

So when the photos do come out – it’s politically inevitable and the only way our president can prolong this into a boost in popularity both here and abroad – ask yourself if that’s what we want to be known for. That’s the visual we want for this stage of western civilization: we rock because we can blow your head off.

I am certain that Caesar would be very proud.

---

Lange's Bible Commentary on Logos

by Dan Phillips

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (63 vols.)

Logos Research Systems, Inc. (2008; repub of vols orig dating from 1857)

Having used Lange's with profit in the print edition from Zondervan, I was delighted when Logos provided me with a review copy of their Logo-tized version.

This commentary set is the brain-child of Johann Peter Lange (1802-1884), who was a professor in Zürich,  professor of evangelical theology in the University of Bonn, and a prolific author. Lange began this commentary series in 1857.

As the introduction to the American version (found not in Genesis, but in the first NT volume) says, this commentary series "aims to give all that the minister and Biblical student can desire in one work." The claim is not hyperbole. Lange aims high, and the contributors and editors give it their all.

To this end, the design is a wonder. I wish some modern series would emulate it as effectively. Each book has an introduction that is both academically and homiletically (i.e. with an aim to preaching) focused. The text is a fresh translation, followed by a threefold commentary on each section.

The first part is exegetical and critical, containing the exegetical and interpretive analysis of the original text, including textual notes, often studying every word. Second comes the doctrinal and ethical section, focusing on theological and moral truths gleaned from the passage. Finally the homiletical and practical section communicates suggestions as to how the passage can be preached and applied, drawing suggestions both from German (Luther, Tholuck, etc.) and English-language (Hodge, Henry, Spurgeon, Clarke, Charnock, etc.) sources. This is genius. It isn't only a help in analyzing the passage, but often it assists in formulating a plan to proclaim or teach it.

The contributors include some of the more prominent German and English-language scholars of the day. The English-language contributors comprise a pretty impressive constellation of scholars from around the doctrinal spectrum, including Philip Schaff, Charles A. Briggs (boo), W. G. T. Shedd (yayy), Patrick Fairbairn (yayy), W. Henry Green, John A. Broadus (yayy), James Strong, and C. H. Toy (boo). Not all are equally orthodox (Briggs, Toy), but all are eminent scholars.

The English edition was commenced in the 1860s. Disappointingly, while the German version featured the scholars' fresh translation, the English-language edition reverts to "the collation [of the KJV] adopted by the Board of Managers [of the ABS] in 1858, and printed in 1860 and since," with notes or improvements inserted in brackets.

I'm certainly not endorsing every word in the volumes, but I've been glad to have them. Not all the writers come from the same doctrinal neighborhood as we, and the whole should be read with discernment. Still, it was a real help to me in preaching Psalms and teaching Romans. It is dated, and needs to be supplemented by more up-to-date scholarship. But the Bible wasn't written yesterday, and the insights of our long-gone brothers, standing on the shoulders of their long-gone brothers, are of enduring value.

The doctrinal orientation is basically orthodox, with some thises and thats. But for instance, the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is heartily affirmed, as is the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter and sixth-century origin of Daniel, and so on. But Lange had some sympathy for Schleiermacher, and you'll read things like this from the introduction to Genesis:

Does the Old Testament theocracy rest then on the completed compilation of scriptural books, or, indeed, on writings at all, or does it not rather rest on the living, actual revelation of God, which preceded all writings? And now all Christendom! The church also rests, indeed, not on the authenticity of the New Testament books, but on the living revelation of God in Christ, although it is regulated by the canon of the New Testament.

Many of us use Keil and Delitzsch with profit, though not always embracing every thought. Lange's is valuable in that it is a bit more recent than K&D, so the authors interact with and comment on K&D's previous work.

Of greater weight than my commendation is that of Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries:

I do, however, greatly prize the series lately produced under the presidency of Dr. Lange. These volumes are not all of equal value, but as a whole, they are a grand addition to our stores. The American translators have added considerably to the German work, and in some cases these additions are more valuable than the original matter. For homiletical purposes these volumes are so many hills of gold, but, alas, there is dross also, for Baptismal Regeneration and other grave errors occur.

The the presence of "grave errors" did not stop Spurgeon from heartily commending the whole. In a Sword and Trowel review (1880, 92), Spurgeon says:

WITH this volume the English issue of Lange’s great Commentary is completed, and all ministers and students are deeply indebted to Dr. Schaff and the Messrs. Clark for so great a boon. The several volumes differ in value according to the ability of the various authors and translators, but we could not spare one of them. ...our younger men who are not yet compelled to devour the library in the nursery ought to possess themselves of the complete set as soon as possible. Homiletically, these commentaries are of high value. Often by a single sentence they will start the mind and give it a push along a line of thought, and this is the chief thing that most of us need.

Logos even found and included a "lost volume" on the Apocrypha which, though not canonical and inerrant Scripture, are useful in reconstructing intertestamental history and thought.

This set would make a fitting gift from a church, or a good wish for a birthday or Christmas list. I think the preaching pastor will find himself dipping in regularly and gladly, as I did when preaching through books.

---

Against Legalistic "Holiness" and Morbid Self-Examination

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from Spurgeon's Autobiography.

   have found, in my own spiritual life, that the more rules I lay down for myself, the more sins I commit. The habit of regular morning and evening prayer is one which is indispensable to a believer's life, but the prescribing of the length of prayer, and the constrained remembrance of so many persons and subjects, may gender unto bondage, and strangle prayer rather than assist it.

To say I will humble myself at such a time, and rejoice at such another season, is nearly as much an affectation as when the preacher wrote in the margin of his sermon, "Cry here," "Smile here." Why, if the man preached from his heart, he would be sure to cry in the right place, and to smile at a suitable moment; and when the spiritual life is sound, it produces prayer at the right time, and humiliation of soul and sacred joy spring forth spontaneously, apart from rules and vows.

The kind of religion which makes itself to order by the Almanack, and turns out its emotions like bricks from a machine, weeping on Good Friday, and rejoicing two days afterwards, measuring its motions by the moon, is too artificial to be worthy of my imitation.

Self-examination is a very great blessing, but I have known self-examination carried on in a most unbelieving, legal, and self-righteous manner; in fact, I have so carried it on myself. Time was when I used to think a vast deal more of marks, and signs, and evidences, for my own comfort, than I do now, for I find that I cannot be a match for the devil when I begin dealing in these things. I am obliged to go day by day with this cry,—

"I, the chief of sinners am,
But Jesus died for me."

While I can believe the promise of God, because it is His promise, and because He is my God, and while I can trust my Saviour because He is God, and therefore mighty to save, all goes well with me; but I do find, when I begin questioning myself about this and that perplexity, thus taking my eye off Christ, that all the virtue of my life seems oozing out at every pore.

Any practice that detracts from faith is an evil practice, but especially that kind of self-examination which would take us away from the cross-foot, proceeds in a wrong direction.

---