Why hasn't anyone said this?

Anyone who knows me for very long, particularly between the months of March and November, will find out that I am a pretty big New York Mets fan. If you search the archives of the Gentryman's Tale, you'll find in depth off-season and pre-season posts from previous seasons that I just simply do not have the time to invest in these days... but of course that certainly does not mean I'm not paying attention.

You may have heard that the Mets are opening their new stadium this year: Citifield. Affectionately known by me as "taxpayer field" - but that's another post... the thing I want to point out seems to me to be so obvious that I am somewhat astounded that no one has picked up on it. It has to do with Jackie Robinson.

Now, if you have even a moderate interest in baseball you know that Jackie Robinson was the first black Major League Baseball player. He played for the Brooklyn Dodgers before they got shuttled off to LA LA land. Now, while I have questioned the Wilpon's (owners of the NYMets) decision to make this new stadium have so many nods to those brooklyn days, no one can really blame them for wanting to honor Jackie Robinson for his contribution to the great game of baseball and to the civil rights movement. They did so by creating the Jackie Robinson Rotunda pictured below.



It's not a great picture - but I'm not trying to show off how pretty it is...
What I want to point out is the quote that Mr. Robinson has left behind, and that the Wilpon's have decided to emblazen around the rotunda:

"A life is not important except for the impact it has on other lives."

It isn't? Are you sure?

I mean... I think I understand the idea. You want your life to impact other people. Jackie Robinson's life impacted many people for the better. But would Jackie Robinson's life been less 'important' if he decided he didn't want to deal with all the harassment and abuse he took coming to the majors? Comparitively speaking it would have certainly been less impactful... but less important?

This to me seems to go against the whole idea of civil rights, doesn't it? The whole idea of human rights? Not to mention the impact on so-called reproductive rights...

I suppose it's fine if you only judge the life through the lense of history in order to determine its impact, and then quantify its importance... I mean we do that all the time - just read history books. But it seems to me that if this is what Mr. Robsinson meant, it is not how it will be read today.

I am probably being nit-picky about this; beating up a straw man perhaps... but it seems like an odd thing to put in the front door of a baseball stadium.

It's been a long day... I may just be sleepy.

Only one has satisfied justice

“There was only one, and there will not need to be another, who bore the full weight of the divine judgment upon sin and bore it so as to end it. The lost will eternally suffer in the satisfaction of justice. But they will never satisfy it. Christ satisfied justice.”

—John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 77

They will never satisfy it... Christ did.         mind = blown

HT: First Importance

Calvinism: New or Old?

Mark Driscoll's blog (or is it Mars Hill's blog?...) posted these distinctions between the old 'stereotypical' Calvinist, and what is being styled by many as New Calvinism. All this out of TIME Magazine's proclamation that this "New Calvinism" is 3rd among ideas currently changing the world.

Well - here are the distinctions:

1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
   

Now, I don't know if my head has been in a fog or something... but I had heard of neo-Calvinism, but not in these terms. (Don't ask me to remember what terms...these kind of things would have kept me up at night in seminary, now not so much...) But I am out of the 'controversy' loop, and I try to stay away from internet theological flame wars these days... so who knows.

But if the above is an accurate juxtaposition, then I have a couple comments:

First of all, 1 and 4 are stereotypical nonsense. But of course, stereotypes are based in experiential and anecdotal truths, so take them for what they are. I have known incredibly culturally "relevant" (to use a post-modern buzzword), as well as incredibly gracious Calvinists in my time - and like I said, I didn't even know they were Old Calvinists... Having great doctrine can very easily lead into pride, undoubtedly, but the heart of Calvinism, correctly understood, will bring about such a profound humility that it should be impossible not to be gracious and loving towards other believers... of course, Calvinists are still sinners (just ask them!) so they fall down a lot in this area...

Now, on 2 and 3... 2 is just great. I love seeing it and am so happy about it. And it is 100% truthful. Not sure if it was purely an American phenomenon that saw the reformed church retreating into the suburbs, but it has been a real blessing to see the church slowly seeing that this is where they are most called because this is where there is most need.

3... 3 is gonna be a problem for me... but maybe simply because I need some clarification. I have always styled myself as a cessationist. But I realize there are some difficult texts in the Bible dealing with these things. I have always said that I am 95% cessationist, because I bleieve we must leave room for the Holy Spirit to do whatever He wants, and we must leave room for new revelation (or at the very least, new understanding) at the coming of Christ. That being said, I would need to know what is meant by the "presence and power of the Holy Spirit"... The Holy Spirit (HS) has always been central to Calvinism - He is the monergistic mover in salvation. It is the Spirit's work and power that not only draws a person to Christ, but sustains him in Christ, and changes him to be more like Christ. This is powerful stuff, and demands His presence... I believe it is the HS that draws us into worship before the Father on the Lord's Day. It is the HS that filters our prayers, our singing and all vertical aspects of our worship to make them pleasing to the Father, He is the medium through which the horizontal aspects of the worship edify and grow hungry believers... This is powerful stuff, and requires His presence...
So if we are talking about emphasis on the HS, I'm cool with that. The HS should get His props (though he prefers to be in the background, like a deacon, reflecting all glory to Christ). But if they mean welcoming back into the corporate worship things like Speaking in tongues and prophesy, I think I have to fold my hand. Though I wouldn't leave the table...

To use Driscoll's terms, this is a state border, not a national one. I would have no problem fellowshipping and loving up a believer who held to these things. They are so far in the periphery that they do not even enter my mind - though I suppose it might make corporate worship together kinda awkward... But it would take some serious scriptural convincing for me to embrace it fully.

So am I a New Calvinist? Maybe 3 for 4? 75% New?

Actually it's kind of silly... There is nothing new here. We've just put a nice dress on an old friend and softened up some of the rough spots. In any case - for the world to notice this movement is great, and I thank the Lord for what He is doing in His Church.

Piper on Premarital Sex... great stuff.

I wish someone had this conversation with me when I was a young man...

Chillin' With the Baby... literally

My little snow angel...


at least its not yellow, right?

More Dr. Carson

Half of the stuff he teaches out of John 11 I had never heard before...

This is excellent stuff:

I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of D.A.C.

HT: Resurgence

Dr. Carson at Mars Hill

Awhile ago Don Carson spent a couple of days at Mars Hill church in Seattle and gave some seminars and messages.  There are five them, all which can be found at the Mars Hill Resurgence website.

I just wanted to post session 2 here for your marvel and enjoyment.  It's a sermon on Revelation chapter 12.  There is some incredible stuff here.  Carson is preaching a tremendous God, and an incredible savior.

Clowney Quote

“There is no call to the ministry that is not first a call to Christ. You dare not lift your hands to place God’s name in blessing on people until you have first clasped them in penitent petition for his saving grace. Until you have done that the issue you face is not really your call to the ministry. It is your call to Christ… Don’t seek the ministry to save your soul…A man cannot earn his salvation by preaching that salvation cannot be earned.”

(Edmund Clowney, Called to the Ministry, p 5)

HT: Unashamed Workman

The Origin of Evil

No, I'm not going to try and solve this one on my blog... but it came up in a 'conversation' with my friend (and uncle) on facebook today and I wanted to bring it here because it made me think about a Sunday School class from a few years ago when we talked about this same topic. (That and facebook only gives you a certain # of characters to comment on things) In that class a man, who has also become a dear friend, told me something I had not heard before in regards to the origin of evil... The bottom line is that it is 'extra-biblical' and so we put no confidence in it, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless, and have added what I think is a very interesting aspect to it...

That morning he said something along the lines that: When God, the perfect being, created something that was not-God, the potential for evil (or at least imperfection) came into being as a necessary consequence of creation itself.

In thinking about this again this morning, I have added: This is not to say that God was surprised by evil entering the world, but perhaps it was an acceptable consequence of achieving the greater glory He planned for Himself through His creative work. A glory that ends with the destruction of that evil by drawing His creation into Himself in His Son Jesus Christ, thereby erasing not-God aspect of creation, and therefore the necessary consequence of evil.

Now, "acceptable consequence" doesn't sound very sovereign - so feel free to insert your own phrase there, as I am having trouble coming up with one.

Anyway... feel free to continue the conversation

I Just Wanna Fly....

This is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick...

and I am sooo jealous.

HT: Molly

Mars Hill in the New York Times

JT points out that Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll were profiled recently in the New York Times.

I found the piece pretty well done... ok, maybe surprisingly well done, since it is the NYT we're talking about...

Molly Worthen did not make many attempts to judge Driscoll and his Calvinism, and did not do an awful job of explaining it. But it is the NYT, so it was not free of undermining and subtle slights. But overall I think she does a commendable job.

One thing to note that I found interesting was one rather overt jibe which ends the article and lays bare the express misunderstanding of Calvinism (read: biblical Christianity) and the doctrine of Total Depravity in particular. In closing her article, Worthen says,

Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

In context she meant this as a poke in the eye, but what she, and many others, do not get is that this should be the exact response of a proper view of Total Depravity (not to mention God's Sovereignty). Because if I am completely and utterly sinful in and of myself - and it is in Christ that I am placing my own worth and my own merit for salvation, and I am united to Him by faith - then it isn't about me. I am emboldened, I am given tremendous confidence, I am empowered exponentially due to the fact that it is not me that is at the source of that confidence, but Christ - because it is He who is being exalted. In Him we are freed from all human fear and self-deprecating (when preaching and teaching the gospel) because it is not about the man preaching, but the message being preached. And if you believe in a God who is Sovereign over every aspect of your life than there is no aspect of your life that cannot be approached in utter confidence and comfort because our God has promised that "for those who love Him, all things work together for good." Not our definition of good - but His - the only definition that matters.

Biblical Illiteracy

Ray Ortland points out some very sad poll results as shared by Al Mohler Jr. and then gives some solutions.

Here is the sadness:

"Researchers George Gallup and Jim Castelli put the problem squarely: 'Americans revere the Bible--but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates.' How bad is it? Researchers tell us that it's worse than most could imagine.

Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. . .

According to 82 percent of Americans, 'God helps those who help themselves,' is a Bible verse. Those identified as born-again Christians did better--by one percent. A majority of adults think the Bible teaches that the most important purpose in life is taking care of one's family. . . .

A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham. We are in big trouble."

As a pastor, this is pretty devastating.

Click through to read what Rev. Ortlund suggests we do about it.