Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Galatians 4:27 and Eschatology

“For it is written:

Rejoice O barren one, you who do not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who have no birth pangs;
For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband.”

This text is taken from Isaiah 54 where the prophet, by prophetic vision, sees the consequences of Zion’s Babylonian captivity. The captivity is tantamount to a barrenness where Zion is bereft of all her children. In the midst of this misery, Isaiah brings a message of promise and cheer. Captive Zion, though barren, will yet be magnificently fruitful.

The Apostle Paul quotes this passage and finds its fulfillment in the book of Galatians to the growing Church (Jerusalem that is above). The Apostle cites the passage in connection with his ongoing dispute with the Judiazers who are pushing the Galatian church to return to the captivity and bondage of the Law. The Apostle sees that this return would likewise be a return to sterility and barrenness. The barrenness that is the law is removed and in the Church there are children galore. It is in the Church where the vision of Isaiah is fulfilled.

There is one more fact I want to look at here. I wonder how it is that this passage isn’t appealed to as a Post-millennial passage? Here the prophecy is that ‘the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.’ In the context of the passage there is a clear and ongoing anti-thesis going on between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. That same antithesis is relevant to the just quoted snippet. What the Apostle is saying is that the children of the promise (desolate Sarah — see context) are more than the children of the she who has a husband and who produces children according to the flesh. The prophecy suggests that numerically speaking the number who are called of God are greater than the number who are not. This promise should give us great hope in our evangelism. God’s word has spoken that the Church is such a fecund wife that she will have more children then those who oppose her.

The Gospel will go forward. Great will be the number of the children of the Jerusalem from above and the size of the tent in which the children of the promise will inhabit will need be extended so that there is room for all the children. Indeed, that tent will be expanded so it covers the whole earth.

The Times They Are A Changing

“In 1960, only 5 percent of our children were born to unmarried mothers. In 1990 the figure was 28 percent. In 1960, 7 percent of our children under three lived with one parent. In 1990, 27 percent. In 1960, less than 1 percent of our children under 18 experienced the divorce of their parents. In 1990, the figure was almost 50 percent.”

Neil Postman
The End Of Education pg. 48

The culture of un-marriage (which includes children apart from marriage and divorce) has done more harm to our culture then anything that the culture of homosexuality will do. Indeed, it wouldn’t take much creativity to connect dots between the culture of un-marriage in one generation and the culture of homosexuality in the next. Allow children to grow up where the basic structure of family is perverted and bent and it shouldn’t be to much of a surprise if they become individuals whose perversion and bentness manifests itself in a host of areas including sexuality.

Now couple these statistics with the reality that America tries to provide a social safety net for all these casualties in the way of welfare, ADC, low income housing, food stamps, and a plethora of other benefits and it doesn’t take to much brilliance to see that a net that was ill advised, but still sufficient, in 1960 will break apart if the numbers continue apace. A family network financially supporting one or two strung out types is feasible. A family network financially supporting ten or twenty makes the whole family strung out. The same goes for nations.

The only cure for this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Reversing legislation on no fault divorce, making divorce more difficult again won’t change this because people won’t desire that legislation until enough of them have been convicted of their sin in despising God’s goodness. Preaching at people moralisms on the importance of loving their children more then their selfish desires won’t change this since love of self over love of everything else is at the heart of the sin problem. The only cure for this is the preaching of Law and Gospel. The law must be preached so that people can see the ugliness of their rebellious selfishness against God and their families so that the Gospel can be proclaimed that forgiveness can be genuinely be found in Christ. Only once people look to Christ can we expect the rejuvenation of the individual, family, and culture.

The statistics above are only a symptom of a far greater problem.

Church Politics In The PCA

I mentioned earlier that over at the Bayly Brothers blog they were discussing the dangers of egalitarianism. It seems that there is some kind of push in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) to ordain women as deacons.

What I want to post about here is only indirectly concerned to the issue of egalitarianism, or the issue of creeping feminism in the Church. Except to those who are advocates for egalitarianism and feminism it is a given that these are realities that are present in the Church. What I want to post on is the wonder of denominational church politics.

I suspect the Bayly’s and others of like convictions are beginning to realize how their concerns about the feminization of the PCA is linked to the issue of Federal Vision. It is simply a matter of votes. If the Federal Vision adherents are run out on rail from the PCA that weakens the ability of conservatives, like the Baylys, to build a firewall against encroaching feminism in the PCA, if only because many of the Federal Vision types would vote against egalitarianism. Politically speaking the removal of the Federal Vision adherents leaves the denomination (PCA) weighted in the direction of ‘men wearing skirts.’

Now the argument is presented by those who virulently oppose the Federal Vision that Federal Vision is more dangerous then the feminization of the Church since it attacks the heart of the Gospel while potential deaconesses only conveys a kind of ill health in the Church. I think there is currently truth in that observation. The only problem is that it is difficult to see how the feminization of the denomination is stopped once it is given its head. In other words, it may be the case that for now the Federal Vision is a more dangerous threat but it is not difficult to see how in the near future, with a couple of wins for the ‘men in nylons’ crowd, the denomination isn’t destroyed by feminism.

Pity the PCA. If on one hand they protect the Gospel from the attacks of the Federal Vision they are left with growing feminism. If they don’t protect the Gospel from the attacks of the Federal Vision they are left nurturing incipient Arminianism.

And that says nothing in regards to how they are harboring pagan theories of psychology in their denominational infrastructure.