Category: The Ministry

Top 11 Reasons To Read oddlife.org

Top Ten Reasons I Like Dr. D. Gnostic Hart and his blog,

11.) A constant reminder to be gentle and tender towards and with women who are on their cycle

10.) Every Holmes needs a Moriarty to bring out the best in him. Still looking for my Moriarty.

9.) My home-run totals are at “Hall of Fame” proportions because they let the guy with the “hanging curve-ball” play

8.) Never a need to worry about losing my Muse

7.) Everybody needs a living “Wizard of Oz” to remind him of the principle of impotent men with large egos

6.) Allows me to practice receiving him that is weak in the faith and to bear the faults of one another

5.) Every day is a new day to Praise God that I escaped being lobotomized

4.) How could the virtue of compassion be cultivated if there were not some people to pity?

3.) The constant living reminder why it was a good idea NOT to go for the Ph.D since Ph.D. programs have been so terribly dumbed-down

2.) Reminds me to pray for the Church which is by schisms rent asunder, and by heresies distressed.

And the number 1 reason why I like Dr. D. Gnostic Hart and his blog,

1.) Provides a daily reminder that old heresies like Gnosticism are constantly reinvented

What They Didn’t Tell Me In Seminary

This post is inspired by a column I read today at,

http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/what-i-wish-id-known-reflections-on-nearly-40-years-of-pastoral-ministry

The chap there (Rev. Storms) has been in the Ministry for nearly 40 years. I’ve only been in this calling for 25. So, with 15 fewer years, take this for what it is worth.

1.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how to help someone die. There has been nothing more difficult in the 25 years I’ve been in the ministry then to minister to the dying. No matter how often I step into this role as a midwife of the soul’s entry into the presence of God I always walk away from the committal service wondering if I had read enough scripture with the now deceased. Had I given enough comfort to them? Had I prayed long enough with them? Had I laughed enough with them or played enough of their favorite games with them on their good days? Had I pointed them towards Christ enough?

There is nothing more humbling about the ministry then the sense of inadequacy that washes over a minister after the time worn gruel of seeing death have its short term victory. Seldom has faith had to so tenaciously engage then upon the long jagged death of a well loved parishioner. I can only hope to die as well as those I’ve been honored to shepherd.

2.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how much fighting would have to be done for orthodoxy. Maybe they didn’t know. Maybe it is not seemly for a Seminary Professor to talk about how the life of a minister who cares would be characterized by one conflict after another in the setting of local Church, the denomination, the refereeing of congregational family dust ups, or local meetings among the clergy in the community where one is ministering. Maybe Seminary Professors had themselves learned that it is better to go along to get along and so figured that they would, by their silence, teach us to go along to get along as well. They didn’t tell me in Seminary how the Church is the problem as much as it is the solution.

3.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how to deal with the sense of betrayal that arises when people, who you’ve long been close to, leave the Church. They didn’t teach me how to put off the bitterness and hurt. They didn’t teach how to fake before everyone else in the Church and act like the departure of loved people doesn’t hurt. All this said, quite admitting that when people leave they leave for reasons they believe to be absolutely legitimate.

4.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how ill equipped any man is to be a minister of the Gospel. It would have been good for us to have drilled in our heads how the position of Minister is way beyond the capacity of any one man. They should have told us that a sense of inadequacy is a something that a minister daily lives with and they should have told us that the constant sense of inadequacy would be better for us to live with then the sense of thinking ourselves perfectly adequate unto the position.

5.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how strange I am and neither did they tell me in Seminary how strange other people were becoming. My Father-in-law entered the ministry in 1956. He used to tell me, when he was winding down from the ministry in the late 90’s, how odd people had become compared to when he first started. Twenty-five years later for me now, I can say that people are odder now then they were when I started. Worldviews have consequences and the stranger a culture becomes in its worldview, the odder the individuals in that culture become. In Seminary I graduated with an emphasis on Culture. We examined cultures and probed as to how they worked. Nothing though could have prepared me for how strange our own culture has become.

6.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that Ministers should not take themselves too seriously. Ministers, like myself, have a terrible habit of self-importance. We would have been well served to have been told early on to get over ourselves.

7.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that it was acceptable as a minister to just blow people off when they need to be blown off. If we are not supposed to take ourselves too seriously then it is perfectly acceptable not to take non serious people seriously. Ministers have a tendency to want to please and satisfy people, (it’s part of the reason why they went into ministry) and as such Ministers tend to compromise themselves by trying to satisfy people who should not be satisfied.

8.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that it was alright to be a failure, or at least they didn’t tell me how to properly measure failure and success.

9.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how it is normal for most church people, in our accelerated culture, to not have time to meditate, to read, and to think. Of course as people don’t have time for this it makes it next to impossible for a Minister to really help people on a deep permanent level. As such, much of the ministry is, at best, a triage and band-aid routine.

10.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how generous and kind many people could be. Of course that is something that is easy to learn and appreciate after the fact. It is amazing how the Lord Christ, after some “people encounter gone sour,” will bring into the Minister’s life people who are kind beyond measure.

It is amazing how many of the people I have served over the years have had the virtue of kindness and generosity.

Seminary Level Course 501 — “Continuing To Build The Reformed Weltanschauung”

Reformed Weltanschauung; Teasing Out the Implications

This course of study is intended as an extension to the previous Prolegomena course. The purpose of this course is to build the Weltanschauung superstructure upon the foundation already laid in the Worldview Prolegomena course. The emphasis will fall on the idea that Theology is the Queen of the Sciences and that all subject matter is merely Theology under another name. As such you will be studying different disciplines (culture, history, science, etc.) in order to understand how those are disciplines that are animated by a presupposed Christian Theology. As part of that theme you will be focusing on how ideas concretely work themselves out. You will begin to be able to identify a Theology by reverse engineering from its manifestation in different disciplines.

Main Texts

1.) Worldview: The History of a Concept — David Naugle
2.) Ideas Have Consequences — Richard Weaver

Required Reading

1.) Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought — W. Andrew Hoffecker
2.) The Calvinistic Concept of Culture — Henry Van Til
3.) Basic Ideas of Calvinism — H. Henry Meeter
4.) Lectures on Calvinism — Abraham Kuyper
5.) Roots of Western Culture — Herman Dooyeweerd
6.) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
7.) Science and Hermeneutics — Vern Poythress
8.) The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold — Eugene Windchy
9.) Foundations of Christian Scholarship — Gary North (Editor)
10.) Dust of Death — Os Guinness
11.) American Minds — Greg Stowe
12.) Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500 — Glenn R. Martin

1.) Read the main Text books and write chapter summaries.

2.) Read the rest of the Required Reading and write a paper on the following Subject Matter

A.) An explanation of the impact of Calvinism on culture
B.) The way Worldview effects Science
C.) An overview and review of Kuhns as applied to worldviews especially
D.) A review of Windchy revealing that you understand Windchy’s exposition Darwinism’s terminal Worldview problems
E.) Summarize the thrust of what Gary North is seeking to teach in Foundations of Christian Scholarship
F.) Guinness, Hoffecker, Martin, and Stow are works that deal with the History of the flow of Ideas. Write a paper that indicates that you understand how worldviews effect the flow of ideas.

4.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

5.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

Prolegomena — The Beginnings Of A Reformed Weltanschauung

Prolegomena — The Beginnings Of A Reformed Weltanschauung

This course of study is intended to begin building the framework that will be the basis upon which the Lion’s share of the rest of the curriculum will based. It will spend a great deal of considering issues of Epistemology. Because it is foundational there will be additional reading then what you will find in your subsequent courses.

Main Texts

1.) A Christian View Of Men & Things — Gordon H. Clark
2.) Van Til’s Apologetic; Reading and Analysis — Greg Bahnsen

Required Reading

1.) Thales to Dewey — Gordon H. Clark
2.) Introduction to Philosophy — Gordon H. Clark
3.) Three Types of Religious Philosophy — Gordon H. Clark
4.) Reason, Religion, and Revelation — Gordon H. Clark
5.) God’s Hammer — Gordon H. Clark
6.) Historiography; Secular or Religious — Gordon H. Clark
7.) The Meaning of History — Ronald Nash
8.) The Word of God and the Mind of Man — Ronald Nash
9.) The Light of the Mind — St. Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge — Ronald Nash
10.) Language and Theology — Gordon H. Clark
11.) The Philosophy of Science and the Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
12.) From Rationality to Irrationalism — C. Greg Singer
13) Essays on Ethics and Politics — Gordon H. Clark
14.) The Clark – Van Til Controversy — Herman Hoeksema
15.) Classical Apologetics by John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley and R.C. Sproul

1.) Read the main Text books and write chapter summaries. Identify where you find differences between Clark and Van Til.

2.) Read the rest of the Required Reading and write a paper on the following Subject Matter

A.) A Christian View of Epistemology
B.) A Christian View of History
C.) A Christian View of Language
D.) A Christian View of Science
E.) A Christian View Of Ethics
F.) A Christian View of Politics
G.) A Christian View of Education

3.) Write a paper critiquing the methodology of S.L.u G. (book #15).

4.) Write a paper detailing the foundation and authority of and for a Biblical World and Life View

5.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

6.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

McAtee Contra Piper On The Church’s Role In Speaking To Political Power

Just about 11 months ago John Piper’s lack of support for anti-sodomite legislation was reported here,

www.startribune.com/local/159819565.html?refer=y

However the Piper ministry was convinced that the Newspaper got it wrong. So, instead of trusting the Newspaper’s reporting and just going with that I am going to fisk Piper to show how the Newspaper got the essence of the story correct.

Piper said in his sermon,

Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

First, Piper reveals that he has compartmentalized his thinking. Somehow for Piper the Christian faith has nothing to say to Politics when Political agendas are impinging on the clear revelation of Scripture. Scripture forbids sodomy but Piper refuses to concretely support legislation that would forbid sodomite marriage. One of the uses of the law (usus politicus) reminds us that one of the purposes of the law is to be used by our magistrates in order to govern society. That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. And yet Piper would have ministers seemingly ignore this use of God’s law.

Second, Piper fails to realize that Politics is just theology by another means. Politics is not a free floating category unrelated to theology. Politics is instead the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. So, when Piper refuses to tell his people that they should support what God’s law proscribes and prohibits in their social order he is suggesting that the Church can not speak God’s voice on these matters.

Now some may offer up, as Piper does, that the Church cannot speak on these issues while individual Christians should. That sounds nice and tidy but it is really just a guarantee of the Church’s effeminacy. Consider, that if the Church refuses to speak God’s voice on these matters and its membership forms Christian associations on these matters the consequence is that you could get all kinds of advocacy groups all going under the banner of “Christian.” You could have a Christian group for man boy love. You could have a Christian Sodomy group. You could have a Christian pro-Sodomite marriage group as well as Christian groups supporting Christian morality. But in Piper’s anti-politics theology what voice will speak a “thus saith the Lord” to the advocacy groups that are potentially coming out of Piper’s church that support anti-Christ behavior? Not Piper … for he has said that isn’t his business.

Others can say what they want, but I still contend that this smells of cowardice to me on Piper’s part and on all the part of those who advocate this retreat-ism.

It should be the expectation of every Christian that their laws should be informed by Biblical categories. St. Paul reminds us,

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for murderers, 10For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Here Paul insists that the law is for the lawless. This is clearly support the usus politicus and ministers should, when necessary, be able to point to legislation and candidates and say, “based on the fact that this legislation or this candidate supports God’s usus politicus we need to get behind them.

Third, Piper introduces a false dichotomy in order to justify his cowardice. The Shepherds can, at the same time, point you over and over again to God and to His word while saying, “We need to support this candidate or legislative mandate, because he is and the legislation is also supporting God and His Word.”

What if the pending legislation was proposing forcing Jews to wear yellows stars of David in order to be identified as Jews? Would Piper sill counsel that pulpits be quiet about political activism? I think not. I think Piper’s reluctance to be politically active is one where he picks and chooses what to be active on and what not to be active on.

Piper preaches,

“Please try to understand this concluding point. When I warn you against politicizing me, or politicizing the institution called Bethlehem, or the church in general, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples. It doesn’t. It feels in the moment that it does. “Look at how many people showed up for the rally!” Or “Look how many signatures in that church they got!” Or “Look how that committee is functioning!” It feels powerful, but give it a generation. And little by little, that vaunted power bleeds away the very nature of the church and its power.”

1.) Raising up new generations of disciples? Piper is raising up new generations of disciples by refusing to give them God’s counsel on concrete actions they can take to support God’s legislating word? Piper is going to make disciples by modeling before them the necessity to hold truth in the abstract while evading truth in the concrete. Piper is going to make disciple by going all Platonic and Pietistic from the pulpit?

Allow me to suggest that the Church has too many of those disciples (and Pastors) already.

2.) Again, note how Piper is compartmentalizing his thinking. Discipleship happens in the Church. Instructing disciples on what discipleship looks like outside the Church is a no no. This is ecclesiastical schizophrenia.

3.) Certainly we can agree that it is possible for the Church to make the good the enemy of the best but to suggest that the Best (Preaching Christ and Him Crucified) necessitates that we give up the good (speaking clearly God’s voice on social issues where God has clearly spoken) is utter nonsense. It is like saying that since feeding my children was so important and such a priority while they were in my home that I could not also instruct them. Such thinking is utter idiocy. So, let us avoid hobby horses to the neglect of preaching up Christ but lets us also avoid the hobby horse that says that we can’t give concrete instructions to God’s people from God’s Word when the State intrudes itself upon God’s authority.

4.) Of course it is my position that it is Piper who is seeking, in all this, a theology of glory, despite his implicit accusation that that is what the putative “political activist” preachers do. When Piper avoids this kind of concrete instruction he can be sure he will offend no one. In offending no one he can build his big cash filled church because no one is offended by his supporting people and legislation who align with God’s authoritative Word that certain people may not approve of. People can sit in a church where they are offended in the abstract and blow it off but when they are offended in the concrete by knowing the Pastor is going to advocate defeating concrete positions by supporting concrete legislation or candidates then they are prone to leave.

Piper preaches,

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good. It’s your job, not mine. Don’t look to me to wave the flag for your vote. Or wave the flag for your candidate.

Why is it their job and not Pipers? Why is it the flock must act without the Shepherd? This is Pietism once again. The minister dare not get his hands dirty in concrete affairs. The minister must remain dealing with all these things in the abstract.

And if a candidate is advocating a position that is consistent with God’s Law how is it that the Minister is waving the flag for his parishioner’s candidate? What makes that candidate uniquely the parishioner’s candidate? Why is it wrong for the Minister to “wave the flag” against candidates that are advocating sodomy or tagging Jews with yellow Stars of David?

Second, America is not, nor has ever been, a Democratic order. We are founded as a Constitutional Republic. Piper might want to investigate the difference.

Piper preaches,

Let me read you from this week’s WORLD magazine the editorial by Marvin Olasky. Many of you are familiar with WORLD. WORLD is a very political magazine, and it ought to be. I just love the Marvin Olasky and the team at WORLD. I’m glad they’re doing what they’re doing. This is what he said in the article, pleading with churches not to be politicized:

Wise pastors prompt [Christians] to form associations outside the church, and leave the church to its central task from which so many blessings flow. That pattern in the 18th and 19th centuries worked exceptionally well. New England pastors in colonial times preached and taught what the Bible said about liberty, and the Sons of Liberty — not a subset of any particular church — eventually sponsored a tea party in Boston harbor. Pastors through America during those centuries preached about biblical poverty-fighting, and in city after city Christians formed organizations such as (in New York) the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. (WORLD, June 16, 2012, 108)

My job is to feed the saints with such meals that they go out strengthened and robust and able to do the study and do the courage and do the action needed as salt and light in this world. And that will go away if you insist on the church and the ministry being the political leaders. It will and we can point to many where it has.

1.) WORLD has long been recognized as a neon-conservative magazine. It seldom represents political or theological orthodoxy.

2.) Piper goes on earlier about how he can’t wave the flag for certain causes and yet by supporting Olasky and WORLD magazine he waves the flag for Neo-conservative pagan politics.

3.) We no longer live in the 18th and 19th centuries. The leaven of humanism has worked its leaven far more through the institutional structures of our culture. What might have worked during a time that remained much more Christian will not apply during a time that is doing all it can to tear Christianity up, root, branch and twig.