November 19, 2014 at ETS

I had the privilege of hearing four excellent papers this afternoon related to Old Princeton.

The first was from Annette G. Aubert, titled "Old Princeton and Transatlantic Theology." She dealt with the German connection that Old Princeton had, as several of the Old Princeton faculty studied in Germany, and in the seminary journal introduced many of the German developments to American audiences. For this paper, she focused on the influence of E. W. Hengstenberg. This paper was related to her recently published book, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology, which is reviewed here: http://www.academia.edu/6441465/Review_of_Annette_G._Aubert_The_German_Roots_of_Nineteenth-Century_American_Theology_New_York_Oxford_University_Press_2013_. Anyone who has read Hodge's systematic theology knows how often he references German theologians. This provides a corrective, and new areas of exploration, for those who think Old Princeton's sole connection to Europe was Scottish Common Sense realism. Aubert is a lecturer in church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

The second paper was by Bradley Gunlach of Trinity International University, titled "Adam and Eve at Old Princeton." After dealing to some extent with Hodge and Warfield, he focused on three lesser-known Princetonians: George McCloskey, C. W. Hodge, Jr., and William Brenton Greene. He outlined their struggles with trying to determine what views regarding evolution and the origins of Adam and Eve were allowable within an orthodox doctrine of Scripture. It is clear that while they were more sympathetic to evolution than some of their conservative Reformed descendants, there were yet bounds that could not be crossed. It was also suggested that many of today's Reformed folks who lean toward theistic evolution really find very little to no support from Old Princeton, contrary to what you might read.

The third paper, titled, "Charles Hodge on the Separation of Church and State," was by Gary Steward, a doctoral student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was a helpful presentation, showing some of the difficulties that Hodge had in trying to maintain a "spirituality of the church" doctrine along with a commitment to a Christian America.

The final paper, "Warfield's Doctrine of Scripture Revisited," was by Fred Zaspel, already well-known for his book The Theology of B. B. Warfield. It was a clear and helpful presentation of Warfield's doctrine, sprinkled with plenty of quotes. Zaspel also commented that while Warfield is perhaps best known today for his statement and defense of inerrancy, that was not his primary area of interest. While he published some 1,500 pages dealing with the doctrine, he published considerably more on Christology and soteriology.

All in all, it was a profitable afternoon.

Those interested in copies of the papers (only Steward distributed copies of his full paper) should contact the authors directly.

John V. Fesko, Songs of A Suffering King

This is a brief devotional book that deals in sequence with the first eight Psalms. The treatment of each psalm follows the same order. First, Fesko presents the psalm in its original context: “What was occurring in the life of David to occasion the psalm?” Second, he considers the connection of the psalm to Christ: “In what way does the psalm speak of Christ?” Finally, he considers the connection of the psalm to the church. In this last section he primarily considers the application of the psalm to the individual believer, as can easily be seen by reading the conclusion to each discussion. Fesko also provides each devotional with some questions for further study, and a metrical version of the psalm so that it might be sung.

For the most part, it is a helpful set of devotions. I do have some concern with a statement he makes in the Introduction. He says, “First, the entire Psalter is connected to the person and work of Christ” (2). He defends this by an appeal to Luke 24:44. Such an appeal (and it is common among Reformed thinkers today) strikes me as reading too much into Jesus’ statement. Jesus is not saying here that each and every passage in the Old Testament refers to Christ, though that seems to be how Fesko takes it. It’s also the reading that David Murray in his book Jesus on Every Page takes. The result of such an approach, however, tends to produce a certain amount of fanciful exegesis in pursuit of the goal of finding Jesus in every text. Fesko effectively admits this, for example, in his comments on Psalm 3. In drawing parallels between David and Christ in this psalm, he says, “The parallels are not precise—they usually are not—but it was Jesus who was the  Messiah, and throughout his life there were those who sought to kill him” (41). The fact that the parallels are usually not precise should caution us about an undisciplined eagerness to find Jesus in each and every Old Testament text. 

I can give this book a limited recommendation, urging the reader to read with care. 

Reading Through the Psalms in 30 Days

This plan gives the reader about the same amount to read each day. The reader will also notice that I have divided Psalm 119 so that one section of the psalm is read each day for 22 days. It seems to me that this gives the reader time to savor the psalm a little bit at a time. Otherwise, the variations get lost in reading through it in one or two days.

Day 1: Pss 1-7; 119:1-8                                 Day 16: Pss 74-77; 119:121-128

Day 2: Pss 8-14; 119:9-16                            Day 17: Pss 78-80; 119:129-136

Day 3: Pss 15-18; 119:17-24                         Day 18: Pss 81-85; 119:137-144

Day 4: Pss 19-22; 119:25-32                       Day 19: Pss 86-89; 119:145-152

Day 5: Pss 23-28; 119:33-40                      Day 20: Pss 90-95; 119:153-160

Day 6: Pss 29-33; 119:41-48                       Day 21: Pss 96-102; 119:161-168

Day 7: Pss 34-36; 119:49-56                       Day 22: Pss 103-105; 119:169-176

Day 8: Pss 37-39; 119:57-64                       Day 23: Pss 106-107

Day 9: Pss 40-44; 119:65-72                       Day 24: Pss 108-112

Day 10: Pss 45-49; 119:73-80                    Day 25: Pss 113-118

Day 11: Pss 50-55; 119:81-88                     Day 26: Pss 120-129

Day 12: Pss 56-60; 119:89-96                    Day 27: Pss 130-136

Day 13: Pss 61-66; 119:97-104                   Day 28: Pss 137-142

Day 14: Pss 67-69; 119:105-112                  Day 29: Pss 143-146

Day 15: Pss 70-73; 119:113-120                  Day 30: Pss 147-150

Biblical Portraits of Creation, Walter Kaiser and Dorrington Little

This is a very useful little book. It is taken largely from sermons by the two authors. Kaiser, of course, is the well-known Old Testament scholar and emeritus president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Little is the senior pastor of the First Congregational Church on Hamilton, MA. In the book, they trace the theme of creation (and new creation) through Scripture by focusing on selected texts. Obviously Genesis 1 is included, as well as such other passages as Proverbs 8, Psalm 29, and Psalm 104. With regard to new creation, Little deals with Matthew 1 and 2 Corinthians 4 and 5. Kaiser deals with Isaiah 65 and 66.

The author gives an exposition of each passage, ending each chapter with a restatement of the conclusions and a list of study and discussion questions for small group use. The chapters are directed primarily to the non-professional, and are written accordingly. Contrary to what some might think, it is much more difficult to write for a popular audience than it is for a technical one, as a great deal of attention has to be paid to keeping the language clear, and explaining any technical terms that must be used. Both authors are to be commended for meeting this exacting standard.

The book concludes with an appendix, which is essentially a reprint of Kaiser’s article “The Literary Genre of Genesis 1-11,” which initially appeared in 1969. In this article he argues for reading Genesis 1-11 as straightforward “historical narrative-prose.” I think the article is convincing. However, such self-identified evangelical scholars as Peter Enns (formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) and John Walton (currently at Wheaton College) are currently insisting that Genesis 1-11 (especially Genesis 1-3) is really myth. I think the article would have been strengthened if Kaiser had rewritten it in order to take the views of Enns, Walton, and others into account. But that is a relatively small complaint.

By and large, I have no hesitancy in recommending this work for personal and/or group study on the doctrine of creation as set out in many key biblical passages.

A Christian Reading List for Atheists

In a day when Christian bookstore shelves are loaded with the likes of Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen, it is not surprising if atheists tend to think of Christians as either non-intellectual or outright anti-intellectual. However, it is somewhat surprising that the new apostles of atheism, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are so profoundly ignorant of the Christian intellectual tradition. In the spirit of enlightenment, I offer the following admittedly eccentric and selective bibliography for the study of atheists (and under-educated Christians) who need to be more familiar with the Christian intellectual tradition.

Many other books could be added, and no doubt better selections are available. I deliberately avoided systematic theologies (except in the case of Aquinas) and tried to stick to more readily accessible material (except for Edwards, which is a tough read). I have also tried to reflect the broadness of the Christian intellectual tradition (though I haven’t included anything from Eastern Orthodoxy, simply because I am not familiar with that tradition). So if I didn't include your favorite book, make up your own list.

The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. No atheist critic of Christianity has earned the right to be taken seriously if he hasn't read the Bible cover-to-cover at least once. I’m recommending this particular edition for two reasons. First, it is the King James Bible, which is still a foundational piece of English literature. Second, it is really a reader’s edition; no commentary, no cross-references, just clear, single-column text.

Augustine, The City of God. Cultural criticism, systematic theology, biblical exegesis and more under one cover, by one of the finest minds of the Western tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. I recommend the Concise Translation edited by Timothy McDermott. Aquinas summarized in 600 pages. Aristotle placed into the service of the medieval church.

Dante, Divine Comedy. Thomistic theology in the form of epic poetry. There are many good versions available, but I particularly recommend that done by Dorothy Sayers, originally published in the Penguin Classics series.

John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress. Puritan Protestant theology in allegory. Perhaps the greatest allegory in English literature. Available in many editions.

John Milton, Paradise Lost. “Justifying the ways of God to men.” Protestant theology in the dress of epic poetry. One of the greatest works of English literature.

Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will. Perhaps the finest philosophical theologian America ever produced. Here, a close and careful analysis of man’s choosing. Many editions are available, but the Yale University Press edition, though exorbitantly priced, has a very useful introduction.

John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. One man’s journey from status quo British theological liberalism to the Roman Catholic Church. One of the great spiritual autobiographies.

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy. Classic Chesterton. Perhaps a favorite of mine because his tale so resonates with mine.

More Thoughts on a Delegated PCA General Assembly

My previous post suggested four men (two TEs and two REs) from each presbytery as delegates to the Assembly. Responses have wondered about other ways of determining the number of delegates; for example, determining the number of delegates by the size of the presbytery or suggesting a much larger number of delegates. Also some suggested that one of the problems with preceding proposals for a delegated assembly was that men simply enjoy having the time to meet with other elders that they haven’t seen in a year.

While I recognize that some would like a larger attendance, even at a delegated assembly, four from each presbytery struck me as the right amount. It is a small enough number to enable the GA to function as a committee of the whole (in other words, no more “Committees of Commissioners”) and is sufficiently representative. In dealing with the “more representatives for larger presbyteries” question, it seems to me that the four per presbytery also avoids the problem of larger presbyteries having too much sway. In addition, the delegates from each presbytery would be instructed that they are going as representatives of the entire presbytery, thus perhaps giving greater representation to small churches.

In addition to the above, I would suggest that GA meet biennially. There is, as far as I can tell, no good reason for annual meetings. The reports and budgets of the denominational committees and agencies can be done on a biennial basis, as can review of presbytery records. In fact, having to submit records only every two years instead of every year may help some of our delinquent presbyteries come into accord with requirements.

As for the fellowship aspect of GA: if you take a look at the docket of GA, there is currently precious little time for fellowship, especially as each year the assembly seems to press harder and harder to get done before Thursday evening. As a result, fellowship takes place late, after the evening services, or it takes men away from the assembly itself, resulting in one-fourth to one-third of the commissioners commonly being absent from counted votes. My suggestion is that in the years between assemblies there be a “conference of presbyters.” It would be set up something like an academic conference. It would begin Monday evening with a plenary session presentation by someone picked by the GA on some topic relevant to pastoral work. Then, Tuesday through Thursday there would be smaller sessions, much like those currently done in the early mornings at GA. I would suggest two session periods each morning and one session period in the afternoon. There could be several alternatives at each of these periods, perhaps dealing with a general theme, but not required to. With only three session periods during the day, and with the evenings entirely free, there would be plenty of time for fellowship. Perhaps a final plenary session could close things out on Friday morning. REs would certainly be encouraged to attend, but since this is not a meeting of a court of the church, the presence or absence of REs would not be a problem. TEs could use this as a week of study leave, since the various presentations would be applicable to their pastoral labors.

This is admittedly a big-picture proposal. The devil is in the details, and perhaps these suggestions would not work. But unless we begin talking about alternative ways to doing GA, it is not going to improve.

It Is (Past) Time for a Delegated Assembly

As of 2012, the PCA had eighty (80) presbyteries, 1,474 churches, and 303 missions (church plants). Those numbers have not changed significantly in the last two years. This year, there were 867 Teaching Elders (TEs) and 256 Ruling Elders (REs) registered for General Assembly (GA). Those statistics also have not changed significantly in the last several years. In fact, if there is any movement at all, the trend seems to be to a lower number of attendees each successive year.

Every TE may attend GA. In addition, “Each congregation is entitled to two ruling elder representatives for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof, and one additional ruling elder for each additional 500 communing members or fraction thereof.” (BCO 14-2). That being the case, attendance at GA could theoretically be in the range of 7,000-7,200 people. Yet the real attendance is about one-sixth of that number. In fact, the total number of commissioners is about two-thirds of the total number of the denomination’s churches and mission works. So it is obvious that not every church is being represented at GA. But a closer look at the numbers makes it even worse. Some of our larger churches are diligent about sending their full contingent of TEs and REs. They are to be commended for that. However, that results in the fact that these large churches regularly have more commissioners present at GA than some presbyteries do. Many (certainly dozens, if not hundreds) of the denomination’s small churches are not represented at GA at all, because the cost of GA is more than the church budget can bear.

The unofficial motto of the PCA is “we’re a grassroots denomination.” That may at one time have been true. But we need to stop lying to ourselves. The PCA is run by the denomination’s program committees and the large and influential churches and presbyteries. The only hope for a real grassroots PCA is the move to a delegated assembly. That would mean that each of the eighty presbyteries would elect delegates to attend GA. Every part of the church would receive equal representation. It would completely change the character of the GA, and would quite possibly change the character of the church itself.

Making that change would not be easy. It would probably take 3-5 years to implement. For one things, there would have to be significant changes to the BCO and RAO (Rules of Assembly Operation). Further, there would be any number of practical considerations. Here are some suggestions to begin with. Each presbytery would send four delegates (two TEs and two REs). Expenses for attendance would be paid by the presbytery. GA would be held at colleges, universities, or other relatively small sites that could host the four hundred or so people who would be attending. Meeting in such venues would considerably reduce costs. Location of GA could be rotated, perhaps something like this: first year, somewhere in the Northeast; second year, Southeast; third year, Midwest; fourth year, Southwest; fifth year, Northwest. That way, the more expensive travel costs are spread around each year. I have more ideas, and I’d be happy to talk with people who would be interested in seeing this come about.

Some Thoughts on the Sabbath

Many who identify themselves as evangelicals in our day are opposed to the idea of the Christian having a weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath, in this view, is an Old Testament institution, part of the Law of Moses and not reiterated in the New Testament for the church. There is an extensive literature available dealing with the issue, and I have no possibility of adding anything new to the discussion. I do, however, want to deal briefly with one passage and make some application of it.

Hebrews 4:10-11 says, “for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.” By the non-Sabbatarian, these verses are taken to be saying the following: when we believed in Christ, we rested from our works. Therefore, we have already entered that rest of which the Old Testament Sabbath was a figure. Since we have already entered that rest, there is no more need for the Sabbath.

In some sense, it is true that when we believed in Christ, we entered that rest. However, the passage is not speaking about our present enjoyment of that rest. It is speaking about our future enjoyment. Hence, the “there yet remains a Sabbath rest” of verse 9, as well as the “let us strive” of verse 11. My sense of this is that while we, by trusting in Christ, have entered into rest, we have not entered into that final rest which is in view here. We have, as it were, left Egypt, but we have not yet entered Canaan.

The Sabbath in the Old Testament had a three-fold consideration with regard to time. First, it made the believer look back to be reminded that he was God’s creature (Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:11). The past fact was that God created. The present fact (for that Old Testament believer) was that God was his creator. The future fact was that God would be the creator of the new heavens and the new earth. Second, the Sabbath made the believer look back to be reminded that God was his redeemer (Deut 5:15). The past fact was that God redeemed a people. The present fact was that God was his personal redeemer. The future fact was that God would usher him into a redeemed new heavens and new earth. Third, the Sabbath was a sign that they were his people and he was their God (Ex 31:12-17). God had chosen a people going back to Abraham (in fact going all the way back to Adam, though the “I will be your God, and you will be my people” language goes back only to Abraham). They had been his people in the past. They were his people in the present, ad they would continue to be his people into the future.

We, as New Testament believers, have the same identity. We are God’s creatures. We are God’s redeemed people. God has given us a sign that these things are so. We still have the same need—to be reminded that these things are so. Yes, we have entered rest, but we have not fully entered it. Do you not find that your heart is often restless, worried, anxious? If so, you have not fully entered into that rest. This is right, because our redemption is not yet complete. We are being sanctified. We will be glorified. But that work is not yet complete.

Some say that there is no distinct holy time for the New Testament believer because all time is now holy. But we all know that when everything is special, nothing is special. We still need that weekly time; time that is not ours to do with as we please, but time for God. He has given it to us in the weekly Sabbath. Will we not take advantage of it, preparing ourselves for that full rest that we long for?

Active Spirituality, Brian G. Hedges

Hedges is the Lead Pastor of Fulkerson Baptist Church in Niles, MI, where he has been since 2003. He blogs at brianghedges.com.

This book is a practical book dealing with the issue that sanctification, or growth in grace, is something that requires active obedience by the Christian. It is not a how-to book, which is to its author’s credit. Sanctification is something that looks different in every Christian, and proceeds individually, though the Spirit uses the same means with each person. It is written as a series of thirty-one letters to a young Christian making those first toddling steps in grace. Each letter is only 3-4 pages, so the book would make helpful devotional reading over the course of a month.

Hedges doesn’t say anything new here, but what he says is clear and helpful. The book is strengthened by the fact that Hedges has relied on some very reliable guides in charting his course. There are few better guides on this issue that John Bunyan, John Owen, and J. C. Ryle. In addition, Hedges makes judicious use of C. S. Lewis who, regardless of his theological shortcomings, was an astute student of human (and Christian) nature. The notes at the end of the book direct the interested reader to the works of the authors that Hedges has relied on. As a Presbyterian, I could wish Hedges had said more about the role of the church and sacraments. But the book is a solid piece of practical theology that will repay repeated readings.

Book Review: Forgotten Songs: Reclaiming the Psalms for Christian Worship

The subtitle of this book is Reclaiming the Psalms for Christian Worship. It could also be subtitled: Modern Baptists Discover Psalmody. Though not all the authors are Baptists, the majority are, and the book had its origins in a conference that was to be held at Union University, but was prevented by a tornado that tore through the campus not long before the conference was to be held. The work is divided into two parts: Biblical and Historical Foundations, and Practice. A look at the book on amazon.com will give the table of contents. Overall, I was quite pleased with the book, though, as with any such collection, the essays vary, not so much in quality, but as in how they affected me. I found C. John Collins' essay thin and unconvincing. The most helpful is Leland Ryken's essay "Reclaiming the Psalms for Private Worship." The essays by Craig Blaising and Douglas Bond I found quite moving. The essay by James Grant on introducing psalm-singing to a congregation was full of helpful advice. The essay by Richard Wells on the Psalms and pastoral prayer is challenging, especially in this day of short or non-existent pulpit prayer. The bibliographical essay (Appendix 3) is very good, though Garrett missed William Binnie's very fine work A Pathway into the Psalter. All in all a useful guide for bringing the Book of Psalms more fully into the life of the church and the Christian.

David Murray and Jephthah’s Vow, Part 2

Here is the link to David Murray’s original post. I forgot to put it in my last post: http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/02/24/jephthahs-perfect-vow/

In the previous post, I dealt with the first eight reasons Dr. Murray gave for his opinion. I stopped at that point in part because I couldn't really figure out how to deal nicely with his ninth point. I’m still not sure I can do it nicely, but I’ll try. Murray’s ninth point is that Jephthah would have lost his leadership credibility if he had sacrificed his daughter. Really!? Let’s look at the Israelite penchant for choosing leadership: in the wilderness, the people wanted anyone but Moses. After the death of Saul, most of Israel spent seven years trying to follow Saul’s ne’er-do-well son Ish-bosheth. After the death of Solomon, most of Israel went after Jeroboam, who promptly led the people into idolatry and apostasy. Why wouldn't these people follow Jephthah? People throughout history have followed bad leaders: Hitler, Stalin, and Castro, to name a few. The fact that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter would probably have had little impact on Israel. Given the state of Israel during the period of the judges, there may have been more than one man in Jephthah’s army who had sacrificed his own child. As with Dr. Murray’s other points, this one simply doesn't hold up to examination.

Murray’s final reason for holding that Jephthah didn't sacrifice his daughter is the fact that he is listed in Hebrews 11. He says, “Given that Judges 11 is the only thing we know about Jephthah, he would hardly have been included in such exalted company if the only thing we know about him was a gruesome sacrifice of his daughter.” Except that really isn't all that we know about Jephthah. We know that he led Israel to victory against its enemies at a time when any leadership in Israel was in short supply. We know that he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord to accomplish that feat. We know that he was a worshiper of Yahweh, even though that worship was expressed in a horribly heterodox manner. And let’s look at some of Jephthah’s “exalted company” in Hebrews 11. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). And in the very next chapter, he accepts Sarah’s half-baked scheme to get the son of promise through Hagar. Moses committed murder and spent forty years herding sheep in the wilderness for his father-in-law. Gideon made an ephod for the Israelites that they then worshiped. And then there’s Samson. It sounds to me like a Jephthah who sacrificed his daughter, thinking that he was doing God a favor, fits right in there.

We have to remember that Hebrews 11 was not written to exalt the persons named there, but to exalt the God who saved these people in spite of their weak, halting, and sometimes ignorant faith. Fundamentally, they believed God, and He credited it to them as righteousness.

It should also be noted that the idea that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter is a rather late development in the history of interpretation, not showing up until the Middle Ages in some of the Jewish commentaries.

In short, as awful a thing as it is to contemplate, it does appear that Jephthah indeed vowed to make his daughter a burnt offering, and after allowing her two months to mourn, did exactly that. Even true believers can be guilty of horrendous beliefs and practices. We need to remember this under two conditions: one, when we are tempted to abuse some Christian who has sinned in an obvious and painful manner; and two, when we are tempted to think that our sins are so bad that God couldn't possible save us.

I would also encourage readers to read Matthew Henry’s thoughtful comments on this passage.

David Murray and Jephthah’s Vow. Part 1

David Murray and Jephthah’s Vow. Part 1

David Murray recently posted a discussion of Jephthah’s vow (Judges 11:29-40). Reading Murray’s post, one might be forgiven for wondering why anyone would ever have thought that Jephthah made a burnt offering out of his daughter. However, a closer look at Murray’s points, reveals that none of them is certain. In the following, I give Murray’s points, each followed by a brief critique. I'll deal with the last two points and give a final evaluation in the second post.

 Jephthah’s previously godly character. Murray’s proof here is Jephthah’s balanced dealings with opponents earlier in the chapter. But dealing rationally with an enemy is not godliness. It’s just good politics. Jephthah may have been godly, but this doesn’t prove it.

Jephthah knew the Bible, so he would have known that human sacrifice was prohibited. The proof offered here is Jephthah’s response to the king of Ammon in vss 12-27. But that doesn’t prove that Jephthah knew his Bible. It just proves he knew his history. They aren’t the same thing.

He was filled with the Holy Spirit. So? That doesn’t prove anything either. One of the odd things about men in the Old Testament is that they are filled with the Spirit of the Lord for executing particular tasks. See, for example, Samson killing a lion in the power of the Spirit (Judges 14:5-6), or the Spirit of the Lord coming upon Saul (1 Samuel 10:6-10). Neither of those episodes shows that the men were filled with the Holy Spirit in a New Testament sense of the word.

Alternative translation of vs 31, using “or” rather than “and.” Yes, that is a possible alternate translation. So is the translation: “it shall be the Lord’s: that is, I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” The existence of an alternative translation does not prove which translation is correct.

Common custom of women serving at the tent of the Lord (Exodus 38:8). That there were such women serving at the tent of the Lord in the wilderness is clear. They are also mentioned in 1 Samuel 2:22. However, it is not clear that they were virgins, which is essential to Murray’s conclusion. There’s no evidence to that effect either in Exodus or in 1 Samuel.

The consequences not being her death, but her being husbandless and childless. That is certainly possible, but it would strengthened if there was some indication that dedication to the Lord’s service required perpetual virginity. There is no such indication anywhere in the Old Testament. Furthermore, if she were killed, she would certainly die without husband or child.

Commemorate, not lament. In Murray’s view, the NASB is correct in vs 40 in saying, “the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah.” He then says, they were going with “worshipful joy.” That goes well beyond what the word might possibly say. The word occurs only twice in the Old Testament: Judges 5:11 and Judges 11:40. First, these are two very different contexts, so what the word might mean in 5:11 is not necessarily what it means here. Further, the ancient versions read “lament” here, which might be wrong, but it certainly is what the translators understood the word to say. The word may mean no more than to recount or retell.

Possibility of repentance. Certainly Jephthah could have repented of a foolish vow. But the text seems to indicate either that he did not think it was foolish, or that he could repent of it (see verse 35).

PCA GA for Beginners, Part 3

There are essentially three forms of church government. In alphabetical order, they are congregational, episcopal, and presbyterian. In the congregational system, the authority of the church rests in the local congregation. The congregation may have elders or deacon, or leaders of some sort that they give other names to, but the authority ultimately lies with the congregation. In the episcopal system, the authority of the church lies in the bishops (episkopoi in Greek). These bishops are ranked in order up to the archbishop. In the presbyterian system, the authority in the church lies in the elders (presbuteroi in Greek), but not just at the congregational level. In that sense, the presbyterian system is more like the episcopal system than the congregational system. At each higher level, there is what the PCA calls “review and control” (R&C) of the lower levels. The elders of the local church have R&C with regard to the congregation. At the presbytery level, the presbytery exercises R&C over the congregations by means of the annual review of the records of the sessions of the local churches. This R&C is done to make sure that everything is being done “decently and in order” (a popular phrase with Presbyterians).

The GA exercises R&C over the presbyteries by means of the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records (RAO 16). This committee is made up of one representative from each presbytery, either and RE or a TE. Once elected to the committee, the commissioner serves a three-year term. It is the responsibility of each presbytery to submit its records for annual review by the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records (RPR). Thus, theoretically, there are eighty sets of presbytery records and eighty commissioners to review them. In practice, some presbyteries are negligent about submitting their records, and some presbyteries are negligent about electing and sending commissioners to serve on this committee.

This committee works in the following fashion. It meets in Atlanta approximately a month before GA for approximately three days. Prior to this meeting, copies of records of two-three presbyteries are sent to the commissioners to be reviewed before the RPR meeting. At this point, each set of presbytery records is reviewed by at least two first readers using guidelines provided by the committee. When the committee meets, the presbytery records are reviewed again, paying particular attention to anything that the first readers noted. After all the reviews are reviewed and collated, the committee, as a committee, decides on recommendations for each presbytery. These recommendations are submitted to the GA for action.

The work of the RPR can be tedious. But there are at least three distinct advantages to serving on this committee. First, it gives the commissioners a real understanding of how the work of the church is being carried out throughout the denomination. Second, it gives the commissioner an understanding of what major issues there are in the denomination, and where those issues are hottest. Third, it gives the commissioner an opportunity to meet face-to-face with men he would otherwise never meet. Thus, other presbyteries become more than just names, and the denominational identity takes on a reality it does not otherwise have.

I encourage men starting out in a presbytery to seek to serve on the Sessional Records committee, because in doing so they will learn a great deal about their presbytery. I make the same recommendation regarding RPR. It’s a great way to learn about your denomination.

PCA GA for Beginners, Part 2

The work of the PCA is carried on at the denominational level by five permanent committees and five agencies. The five committees are: the Administrative Committee (AC), the Committee on Christian Education and Publications (CE&P), the Committee on Mission to North America (MNA), the Committee on Mission to the World (MTW), and the Committee on Reformed University Ministries (RUM, an admittedly unfortunate acronym). The five agencies are: Covenant College (CC), Covenant Theological Seminary (CTS), PCA Retirement & Benefits, Inc. (RBI), PCA Foundation (PCAF), and Ridge Haven Conference Center (RHCC). Each of these committees and agencies present a report to each GA. These reports include summaries of the activities of the committee or agency throughout the year, a budget for the coming year, and a set of recommendations for the coming year.

Before the official beginning of the assembly (that is, on Monday and Tuesday of the meeting week) these reports are reviewed by Committees of Commissioners (CoC), made up of either a TE or an RE from each of the presbyteries (see RAO 14 for more information). That means that theoretically each of these CoC has 80 members, though it is rarely the case that the number approaches that total. In 2013, for example, the CoC for the Permanent Committees consisted of the following numbers: AC-29, CE&P-21, MNA-25, MTW-38, and RUM-29.

It is the responsibility of the CoC to review the reports of the permanent committees and agencies. These reports are to be circulated at least one month prior to GA, so that the commissioners may have time to review and evaluate the reports, so that they are not unprepared when the time comes for the CoC to meet. The committee may ask representatives of the committee or agency questions regarding its report. The committee may also amend or change the recommendations that constitute part of the report of the committee or agency. Again, more detail appears in RAO 14.

For prospective commissioners to the GA, especially for those who will be serving on a CoC, it is your responsibility to make sure you are thoroughly acquainted with the material to be covered in the GA. For that reason, I recommend that commissioners register as early as possible. Them when you begin receiving material for GA, set apart time to review it. If you have questions about any of it, ask your pastor (if you are an RE) or ask a more seasoned minister in your presbytery (if you are a TE). Also make sure that you have familiarized yourself with the BCO and the RAO.

In addition to these CoC, there are other committees that meet annually for issues related to GA. These will be discussed in future posts.

PCA GA for Beginners, Part 1

It is about six months until the 2014 meeting of the PCA GA (Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly). I am planning to do a series of posts over the next several weeks that will provide an introduction for those for whom this will be their first GA. GA can be overwhelming to the first-time attender. These posts are intended to reduce that difficulty.

First of all, get used to acronyms. The most prominent ones will be, of course, PCA and GA. Others that you will see frequently, and that I will use in these posts are: BCO (Book of Church Order, available online here: http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013BCOReprintALL10-13.pdf); and RAO (Rules of Assembly Operation, included in the BCO at the above link). I will introduce others along the way.

First, what is the GA? It is the annual meeting of representatives of the churches that make up the PCA. A fuller description of the GA is found in Chapter 14 of the BCO. I recommend that you read it. The GA meets at different locations around the nation, usually in a city that has sufficient hotel accommodations and a meeting place large enough to hold a full contingent of commissioners.

As for attendees, all teaching elders (TEs) in good standing may attend, as well as ruling elders (REs) as elected by their churches (see BCO14-2). The PCA has 4,321 TEs, and 1,474 churches, as well as 303 mission works. Given that each church may send at least two REs, theoretically the attendance at GA could be about 7,000 commissioners. Usually, though, it runs between 1,500 and 2,000. That can still be an overwhelming number for a first-time attender.

Preliminary meetings take place on Monday and Tuesday of the week of the meeting (I’ll explain more about these in a later post). GA officially opens with a worship service Tuesday evening of the meeting week. After the service, the assembly takes care of some basic business (electing a moderator, declaring a quorum, approving a docket, and so forth), then recesses until Wednesday. The work of the GA as a whole begins on Wednesday morning. The docket is set to wind up Friday at lunch time, but in recent years there has been a concerted effort to finish business Thursday evening.

In all, it can be a busy and tiring week. In future posts, I’ll outline some of the structure of the Assembly, and try to give some counsel on the best way to maneuver through the week.

An Illustration of Repentance at Work in the Life

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has an excellent definition of repentance in Question 87: “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience."

In the heat of the Christian life, however, that definition may seem more theoretical than practical, not particularly helpful when seeking to live a life of repentance (See the first of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses: When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.) We recognize that repentance is a grace. That is, it is a gift from God. It is not something we work up for ourselves. It is not turning over a new leaf. It is a turning away from sin and a turning to God that is fueled, as it were, by the Spirit of God at work within us.

We all recognize that that first act of repentance is only the beginning. We recognize that sins must be mortified. We recognize that there is the problem of indwelling sin in the life of the believer. But I suspect that we don’t often attach repentance to these things. In part, this may be because we do not have a sense of what repentance look like when God is working repentance in us.

Perhaps an illustration will help. Imagine repentance as a man walking in one direction who suddenly realizes that he is walking in the opposite direction from which he should be walking. He stops. He turns around. Then he begins walking in the new direction. It is a quick and simple process. He realizes. He stops. He turns. But imagine someone on a bicycle realizing he is going the wrong direction. In one sense, it is still obvious. He stops. He turns around. He begins bicycling in the new direction. But it is a longer process. He has to come to a stop. Depending on his speed, that may take some time. The turning around also takes longer. And it takes longer to get up to full speed in the new direction. The process is the same for a man in a car. But it takes longer than for the man on the bike, and it may require going somewhat out of his way before he gets back on the right track. The process is the same for a man in a speed boat. He has to slow down, enter the turn, and come back. But the time and distance required to do so is much longer than what was required for the man walking. Now imagine that the man is piloting a supertanker. It takes him miles to slow the ship down enough to even begin to make the turn. The turn itself is immense, taking him quite a distance from his intended course. Then again it also takes a large amount of time to get up to full speed in the new direction.

Now apply the images to repentance. Some sins are small and easy. We stop and walk the other way. Some sins, like the bicycle, are a little more difficult. In God’s work in the believer, he takes a little time to bring the believer to an awareness that his course is actually a sinful one. Then there is the process of coming to a stop, the process of the turn itself, and the process of getting up to speed in faithfulness. But some sins are enormous. We may not be aware that they really are sins. Or they may be so deeply ingrained in us that we are not willing, at first, to recognize them as sins. God works patiently with us, carefully slowing us down, as the captain does with the ship, so that he can bring us through the turn and into the new direction, where he can bring us up to full speed.

There are two things that I find helpful about this illustration. First is the fact that God does not work repentance in us instantaneously, but over time. So the awareness of sin and the desire to change come gradually. God brings us, as it were, to a full stop slowly and carefully. So there are going to be many slips and falls on the way to that stopping point. The second thing has to do with the turning itself. In the image of the ship turning, there is a long time when the ship is neither on the old course, nor on the new course but, as it were, dead in the water. So it may well be in the life of the Christian. The sin has been admitted. The slips and falls have gotten fewer. But there seems to be little progress. We seem to be dead in the water. At that point, we are in the turn. Speed will pick up. Godliness will grow. But it will do so slowly, as God patiently works with us.

So if you have prayed for repentance for some particular sin, and there has been no instantaneous change, keep praying. God has promised to work, and he will. And you will be glad in the end that he did it slowly and carefully.

Worldliness

What constitutes worldliness? For many raised in fundamentalism, worldliness has much to do with outward appearance: the clothes you wear, the places you go, or refrain from going. It always struck me as humorous that in certain circles, it was bad to go to the movie theater, but it was okay to watch the same movie at home on video.

Many Christians even outside of fundamentalist circles tend to have an externalized idea of worldliness. Hence, in many conservative Reformed circles, the manner of one’s dress is a hot issue. Now I’m all for modesty in dress, but some of these people seem to think that Victorian era dress was the most modest in the history of the world, hence most to be emulated. One wonders how Christians in Corinth would have done on the modern modesty scale. In some circles, where your children are in school is a defining factor. Home school? Thumbs up! Christian school? Maybe thumbs up, maybe thumbs down, depending on whether it has the right curriculum. Public school? You heathen!

These rubrics of worldliness and holiness are prominent in evangelical circles. The Bible, however, doesn't seem to have much to say on any of them, except for modesty in dress. And even on that the Bible doesn't say all that much, except to encourage it. I think the difference is due to the fact that we like to be able to define godliness and worldliness and other such concepts on the basis of what we can see. The Bible doesn't do that.

Instead, we find passages such as 1 John 2:15-17. Verse 15 says, Don’t love the world. Love of the world and love of God cannot exist together. No man can serve two masters. But what is the world? Verse 16 tells us: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. This is a subtle allusion to the deception of Eve. She saw that the fruit was good for food (the lust of the flesh), was a delight to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and was desirable to make one wise (the boastful pride of life). The world is ever before us, drawing us away from the love of God and into love of the world.

But what is the problem with love of the world? Verse 17 tells us that the world is passing away (and its lusts as well). The lover of the world will pass, as will the world. But the lover of God abides. Note that worldliness is not just a love of sin. It is a preference for the temporary over the eternal. It is a preference for what we can see over what we cannot see. It is a preference for sight over faith.

We can’t see worldliness. It grows in the heart. But we may be able to see some of its fruits. And those fruits are not primarily in how we dress or how we educate our children. Instead, worldliness shows itself in carelessness about spiritual things. It shows itself in prayerlessness. It shows itself in using the weapons of the world to fight the battles of faith.

Are you worldly? I don’t know. But you might want to ask yourself: Do I prefer what I can see over what I can’t see? Am I disappointed with God because he didn't do what I wanted him to do? Do I prefer this present life over the life to come?  Do I desire heaven? Do I pray that his kingdom come?

It is easy to pass external tests for worldliness, because we make up those rules. It is much more difficult to mortify the root of worldliness that lies within us.

The Strange Unity of the Church

In the blogosphere kerfuffle surrounding John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference, one of the concerns expressed was that by holding such a conference,  and attacking Christian brethren, MacArthur was endangering the unity of the church. To the extent that any of the people making this claim attempted to provide some biblical justification for the statement, the appeal was usually to John 17:11, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” The folks using this argument appeared to be under the impression that Jesus’ prayer is for a visible, if not organizational, unity in the Christian church. This understanding is completely wrong, as even a brief reflection on the verse indicates. Jesus’ prayer is for a spiritual, ontological unity, such as the Father has with the Son. If Jesus was praying for a visible or organizational unity, it is pretty clear that such a prayer has never been answered in the history of the church. This would call into question both the wisdom of Jesus’ prayer, and the Father’s power to answer it. Hence, the prayer is not for a visible organizational unity.

But Jesus does pray for the unity of his people, and we expect that the Father has fulfilled that request. Of what sort, then, is that unity? It is a spiritual, ontological unity. The unity of the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) is an spiritual and ontological unity, hence that is what Jesus prays: that his people may enjoy such a unity as well.

But the question becomes, Is this unity at all visible, even if not organizational? I would argue that it is, and that it can be recognized in two ways. But an Old Testament illustration may help here. In the Book of Numbers, we are treated to an unpleasant picture of the people of Israel, the people of God. They are disobedient, rebellious, resentful, and envious. Almost any sin that you can imagine is part of the description of Israel during the time in the wilderness. By the time the story gets to the end of chapter 21, we have little hope for the continued existence of Israel, let alone its unity. But at the beginning of chapter 22, we find Balak, king of Moab, and his nation terrified by what they see of Israel. They see a horde that has come to take over the land. Balak does not see the internal strife of Israel. He does not see their disunity. He does not see their sin. He sees them as a unified force coming up against his land. Hence Balak calls for Balaam to come and curse Israel. Of course, Balaam can do nothing but bless the people of God.

Then in chapter 24, we are privileged to see God’s view of Israel. In spite of their sin, their rebellion, their disunity, God says, “How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel! (24:5). Balaam’s oracle goes on to give a lovely picture of the ugly Israel we have seen displayed in the first twenty-one chapters of the book.

In line with that example, I would suggest that the unity of the church is visible in two ways. First, Christians recognize that unity when they meet other Christians from other denominations or other communions and see in them brothers in Christ. Such recognition does not deny that brothers may be in sin, may need to be corrected. There is still that real spiritual unity that exists within the body of Christ.

Second, the unity of the church is recognized by the non-Christian world, much as Balak recognized the unity of Israel. The non-Christian world does not see the church as a divided mess but as a threatening horde. We should take note of the fact that when modern secularists complain about the influence or the views of Christians, by and large they do not complain about Catholics, or Baptists, or evangelicals. Instead, they complain about Christians. They may, in some sense, recognize the divisions in the church, but they see above those divisions an overarching unity that is a threat to them.

Finally, there is God’s view of the church. God knows those who are his. They are his people. He is not blind to their divisions and their shortcomings, but he is building a great temple that, when it is complete, will demonstrate his wisdom and glory to a surrounding world, both physical and spiritual (Ephesians 3:10). A building in progress is not always a beautiful sight. In fact, it usually shows nothing of its future glory. Such is the church. Nothing John MacArthur does can change that, and to the extent that MacArthur’s criticism of charismatic/Pentecostal beliefs and practices are correct, they serve only to contribute to the growth of that glorious temple of God, the church.

God in My Everything, Ken Shigematsu

This is a book directed at helping Christians develop a full-orbed spiritual life. Many evangelicals in particular have "spiritual life" tucked into corners of their lives: quiet time here, prayer there, church for a couple of hours on Sunday. The rest of the time, God is not really in their thoughts. Mr. Shigematsu, pastor of Tenth Church in Vancouver aims at helping people change this by thinking differently about what spiritual means, and also by thinking in terms of a rule, that is, a rhythm of life, in which we make a conscious effort at centering our lives on God.
He draws from a variety of spiritual resources, mostly Catholic and the broader Christian tradition. His illustrations are helpful. The book is probably most profitably read a little at a time. The fifteen chapters could be spread out over a month, or even one chapter a week. That way his points don't get lost in the flood of words. He begins by warning people to begin small and to build slowly. This is good advice, as those who want to introduce significant change into their spiritual lives tend to try to do it all at once. The all-at-once approach generally ends in failure and disappointment.
For me, the best part of the book was the Appendix, in which several people line out their own "Rules of Life." These help make it clear that even a full-orbed spirituality is going to look different for different people in different walks of life. The rhythm of the spiritual life will also look different for the same person at different points in his life. So, the examples include a single woman in her twenties (a graduate student); a working mother with a young son; a married man in his thirties with young children; and a married man in his thirties with no children.
There were, to my mind two significant shortcomings to the book, that are related. The first is an real appreciation for the role of the church in the spiritual life of the individual. He does have a place for attendance at worship, but that seems to be the extent the involvement of the church. The second is his identification of the Sabbath as simply a day of individual rest, set apart from the remainder of the week, and primarily focused on the individual. The idea of the Sabbath rest as a rest from our labors and a rest unto God is entirely absent. In addition, while he devotes a chapter to the importance of friendship, he does not tie it into the life of the church body.
Ultimately, I'm not sure the book is worth the price. Brother Lawrence's classic, The Practice of the Presence of God is much shorter, plainer, and available free online. For those in the Reformed tradition, I would suggest Henry Scudder's The Christian's Daily Walk, which is longer, and would require more labor to go through, but is also available online.

Review of Anselm of Canterbury, Simonetta Carr, Reformation Heritage Books

For many Christians, church history seems to begin with the time of their own conversion. For others, it goes back to the beginnings of evangelicalism in the mid-twentieth century. But there is a great deal of church history before that. Simonetta Carr and Reformation Heritage Books are doing a wonderful service for the church with the series “Christian Biographies for Young Readers.” This one on Anselm of Canterbury is the sixth in the series. The book is nicely illustrated by Matt Abraxas. The author tells the story on Anselm’s life simply and clearly. She introduces the reader to the historical and political, as well as theological, context of Anselm’s life and ministry. She also highlights Anselm’s importance in the development of the doctrine of atonement, and his influence on later Reformation theology.

This nice little biography is also useful for older readers who are ignorant of Anselm, but have not the time nor desire to tackle a major biography. It also made me want to go back and reread some of Anselm, especially his Book of Meditations and Prayers.