Category: Devotional Grist

Text — I Peter 5:1-11
Subject — Congregational Care
Theme — The characteristics of congregational care
Proposition — The characteristics of congregational care should create within us certain expectations for Elders and Churches

Introduction

General requirement for Christians to shepherd one another

1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6)

Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. (Rom. 12)

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. (I John 3)

8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. (I Pt.)

6 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Of course all of this implies a certain involvement in one another’s lives that extends beyond a couple hours on Sunday. This would have been perhaps more common in First century churches since those Churches were completely local and people schedules during the week weren’t enhanced by automobiles. These passages came home to these people because these people were neighbors.

However, beyond the general care that was to be the privilege and responsibility of every Christian there was laid upon certain men the charge of a particular care for the household of God. (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23)

These men were called Elders, Pastors, Presbyters or Bishops. Some of them were given the general charge of care while to others of them were added the responsibility of teaching. The unique responsibility of these men was to be to the small congregations what a Shepherd was to a flock of sheep. As a shepherd was to look over the well being of his sheep — protecting them, leading them to feed and water, tending to their cares and hurts, — so the Shepherds of the congregation were to protect God’s people, be instrumental in their spiritual feeding and watering, and be among them to tend to their cares and hurts. As a Shepherd loved his flock, so the Elders were to love the congregation.

Here Peter deals with the issue of Elders and as he deals with the issue of Elders we would do well to understand that when we consider Congregational life, both now and in our future — Peter teaches us what we should expect from the Elders of a congregation.

As Peter inks this exhortation he reminds them of his position.

a.) Fellow Elder — Interesting that Peter merely names himself as one such as they
b.) Witness of Sufferings of Christ — Mark of Apostleship
c.) Partaker of glory — Note Present tense

Peter clearly teaches here that the Elders have a leadership position. As Shepherds, they are to be overseers.

This metaphor of Shepard is not unique to Peter though Jesus did say to Peter directly that Peter was to … “Feed Christ’s Sheep.” Throughout Scripture we find this metaphor of Shepherd used to describe God’s leaders.

God Himself is addressed as a Shepherd in Psalm 80

1 Hear us, Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock.
You who sit enthroned between the cherubim,
shine forth
———

In Ezekial the leaders are upbraided for being lousy Shepherds

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?

Similar language is used in Jeremiah 23

And the theme of Shepherd is picked up in the Psalms, Ezra, Zechariah and other books.

When you turn to the NT Jesus is the good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep and Peter notes here is the Great Shepherd.

So, when Peter turns to this metaphor he is turning to one that has a long and storied history in the Hebrew mind. Shepherds are to be God’s overseer’s who are answerable to God.

We should say at the outset that this call to Shepherding implies immediately the tenderest of relationships between the shepherd and his flock. It is true that the Shepherds are the overseers but they are overseeing they whom they love as their own and when you get right down to it they are but Sheep themselves who have need of being shepherded.

Peter gets to the nitty gritty of this Shepherding matter when he turns to give some qualifiers of what he is expecting in Shepherds. What I find so fascinating about this list is how resilient it remains some 2000 years later.

I.)Shepherd Characteristic #1 — Shepherding is done willingly (not by compulsion)

This is a implicit warning against laziness in the ministry

The ministry requires great effort on those who take it up effectively. You must become an expert in theology, people skills, you must become proficient in the languages, you must know your Bible, history, economics, sociology, law, etc.

Then on top of this you must be involved in the lives of your people as much as possible.

It is not the physical labor of the factory worker, or the meticulous skills of the airline agent, but it is work none the less… and hard work at that.

II.)Shepherd Characteristic # 2 — Shepherding is done eagerly (not for dishonest gain)

This is a implicit warning against greed in the ministry

I probably don’t need to go into all the stories about greed in the ministry.

Greed is a great hindrance to the ministry, not only for what it will cause men to do in order to get gain, but also for what it will cause men not to do or say in order to get gain.

Often, men who are in the ministry for gain will not say those things that need to be said for fear of losing profits by speaking against the wickedness of our times, or by speaking against some sin in a congregation.

III.) Shepherd Characteristic # 2 — Shepherding is done by example

This is a implicit warning against power tripping in the ministry

Calvin offers that one way power tripping is seen is by Pastors exempting themselves from the expectations that are laid upon the flock.

There is a danger among Christian Churches today to do a kind of Hollywood model of ministry where some Rock Star becomes the Pastor and the congregation becomes a bunch of groupies and woe be unto anybody who questions the Rock Star to closely. Often in these kinds of Churches there is a kind of ecclesiastical tyranny that goes on in the leadership as the great leader’s whims becomes diktat.

Instead what Peter offers in place of that is rule by example. The Shepherds do not pronounce edicts that everyone must follow upon pain of ex-communication or shunning but rather they set the example to be followed or not followed.

Shepherding, by its very definition is not done by driving people. Besides, quality people can’t be driven and when you try to drive them you’ll just get (and deservedly so) revolt.

The model here is example …

Jesus washing the feet of the Disciples (Jn. 13).
Jesus casting aside his privilege in order to serve (Phil. 2:5-11)
Jesus warning against the Political model of Leadership (Mark 10:42-45)

As an Elder you have to be willing, in most cases, to state your concerns to people without demanding of people that it is your way or else.

The phrase … “Those entrusted to you” is interesting because it reminds Shepherds that they are responsible for a particular flock.

Of course we know that the end of all this Shepherding was Jesus Christ. The Shepherd’s chief responsibility was feeding and watering their people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ which proclaims forgiveness of sins, and standing with God, and the rest and peace that comes from that. The Chief role of the Shepherd was to herald the good news of Jesus Christ for sinners. The chief role of the Shepherd was to speak up both the objectivity of the Gospel which is Christ for us and the subjective consequence of the Gospel which is Christ renewing us by His Spirit and His Law-Word.

The under-shepherd is to remind people who God declares us to be and what we can’t help but become in light of God’s Declaration.

The fullness of the Reward is delayed — vs. 4

“My Kingdom is not of This world.”

Jesus here confesses before Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world. Before we speak to the issue of the nature of the Kingdom of Jesus we will define the idea of “Kingdom,” as the rule of God in the hearts of men.

The whole idea of the Kingdom of God, when reduced to its essence is merely acknowledging that Christ is a Lord who rules over men who occupy some kind of realm. The idea of a rule, apart from a realm where the rule is upheld is difficult to conceive.

The fact that Christ is Lord is seen in passages like Ephesians 1, which also gives us a glimpse into the realm – or Kingdom — over which Christ rules.

(God exerted is power) in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Here we see that Christ is Lord over all and I would submit that we also see that His explicit Kingdom is over all of reality.

There is great agitation and controversy about what Christ’s Kingdom actually means or concretely looks like in the real world. Most Christians will not argue with the abstract fact that Christ’s Kingdom starts with the reality that Christ is King and so should rule our lives and certainly our churches. Most would agree that the ascended Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father over all rule and authority has been given a Kingdom over which He is the ruler, the Lord, and the King. Most would agree that in respect to their morals they should operate as a subject of Christ’s Lordship and as a member of His Kingdom. This would be consistent with the reality that the Scriptures teach that we have been translated from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son whom He loves.

However what has increasingly become a sticky wicket for many today is the question of whether or not the Kingdom that was entrusted to Christ is a Kingdom that in any way extends beyond the doors of the Church. Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend beyond the Church doors? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the Science laboratory? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the way we educate so that our education ends up bringing our students to different conclusions about their subject matter than the conclusion reached by those who don’t affirm the Kingdom of God? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into how we think about and how we do sociology or psychology? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the how we think about and do the arts? Economics? Politics? Philosophy?

In our current climate concrete notions of what Christ’s explicit Lordship looks like not only falls on deaf ears but it is actively resisted by Christians.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom w/ His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Postmillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age.”

All nations will bow to Jesus and all kings will serve him and his mustard seed kingdom will grow to become the largest plant in the garden with the nation-birds finding rest in its branches. His kingdom is the stone which crushed the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and which is growing to become a mountain-empire which fills the whole earth, until all His enemies are made His footstool.

Because Christ’s Kingdom is victorious on this planet His Kingdom extends beyond the personal private individual realm and so impacts the public square. Another way to say that would be precisely because Christ’s Kingdom continues to be populated by a swarming host of individuals those individuals take that Kingdom that has overcome them and in turn overcome all that they touch with the Kingdom.

Dr. Geehardus Vos was not a postmillennialist but some of the things he taught captures what I am trying to communicate regarding Christ’s Kingdom. Vos wrote,

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos

The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

So, what Christ was saying to Pilate when He said “My Kingdom is not of this world” was “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, law realm, economics realm, and every other realm you can think of for “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of our social order is touched by the kingdom of God.

Now as to how this Kingdom manifests itself and works itself out. Rome said that the Church alone was the Kingdom and so insisted that everything must be brought into and under the Church if it wanted to be part of the Kingdom. Many Pietists and R2Kt types said (and say) that the Church alone was and is the Kingdom and that nothing else was and so insisted that all outside the Church was all outside the Kingdom and was common, but still good in virtue of the fact that it partakes of God’s creational common grace. The Pietists and R2Kt types engage the world but they engage it as a people who insist that the Word does not explicitly speak to the creational common realm. Christ’s rules over the common realm but His explicit Kingdom does not include the common realm. The Anabaptists said the Kingdom was the Christianity community and so insisted that all outside the Christian community was outside the Kingdom and was wicked, and so classical Anabaptist teaching withdraws from the world.

The Magesterial Reformers were against both Rome and the Anabaptists on this issue of the Kingdom. Reformed theology teaches, as we have noted, that there are two Kingdoms in this world in antithesis to one another. Each of these Kingdoms manifests itself consistent w/ it source of authority. Each of these Kingdoms is a body that has distinct organs that are assigned certain tasks to advance their version of the Kingdom. The heart of each antithetical Kingdom is their respective competing Churches. (For example … the church heart of the Humanist Kingdom in these united States are the government schools while the church heart of Christ’s Kingdom in these united States are faithful Christ proclaiming Churches.) However, in these respective Kingdom bodies there are other organs that are distinct and do other work.

So, a church is at the heart of the competing Kingdoms and where the heart is healthy all else will be healthy. The heart of Christ’s body Kingdom is faithful churches and those faithful churches, as part of the Kingdom, have as their source of authority Christ’s Word.
So, in the words of Mark Chambers,

“Both Kingdoms, though manifested spatially, are ideological and systemic. Ergo when Christ said ‘My Kingdom is not of the this world.’ He was not saying “My Kingdom is not on the surface of this planet. Jesus was not using ‘world’ in the sense of here but of what. He was talking type, not place.”

R. J. Rushdoony had some things to say regarding the affirmation that Jesus Kingdom is not of this world means that the Kingdom of God does not impact upon the public square.

“To deny that Christ’s kingdom is in this world is to alter the faith to either a neo-Platonic idealism or a Manichean dualism. In either case, the world and history are rejected and are handed over to the devil. Not surprisingly, such people who hold this view are insistent on seeing Satan as the prince of the physical universe and become implicit Satanists in the powers they ascribe to Satan. From such a perspective, the Church has little to do with history other than to rescue lost souls and then wait for the end.” (Institutes Vol. II)

Now how does this work practically? If we believe that Christ is King and has a Kingdom and if we confess that the Kings must Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way, and if we insist that all men must bow to Christ what standard shall we use in order for men to know that they are indeed bowing to Christ?

And the only answer to that, that I can see is God’s Law-Word. We believe and confess that Christ is King but what is a King without law?

Now, as we have said countless times it is clear that we are not saved by our law keeping but by Jesus Law keeping for us but this does not mean that we therefore are not ruled by every law-word that proceeds from His mouth. The fact that we are saved by grace alone does not mean that we live and move and have our being in our own fiat law-word.

No … as the Heidelberg catechism teaches we are freely and graciously saved to the end that we might do good works according to the law of God (qu. 90-91)

So when we talk about and celebrate Reformation it is just another way of celebrating the advance of God’s Kingdom in space and time History. In the 16th century God was pleased to visit His people with a great extension of His Kingdom.

Coming at just the right time with the advent of technology to advance it (Printing Press) and on the cusp of burgeoning world wide exploration that would find such exploration taking the effects of the Reformation to the new World the Reformation was God’s victory over His enemies.

However we live now in another time that needs Reformation. The Lordship of Christ is clouded for those who confess Christ. There is a need, once again to see Christ’s Lordship over every area of life.

Christ’s Lordship Over History

The first pillar of pagan history that Augustine challenged was the belief that history was a guided by the dialectic of chance and fate. Interestingly enough this dialectical view of history being guided by the dialectic of chance and fate was seen in a contemporary context in the film “Forrest Gump,” where the theme of the movie is how history is controlled by the dialectic of chance and fate. Augustine held instead that all of history was providentially controlled, providentially governed, and guided by the divine will of a extra-mundane personal God. In order to support this contention the Bishop of Hippo appealed to the OT theology where God is constantly portrayed as the Lord of History who held the nations in his hand like so much fine dust.

The second pillar of pagan history that Augustine dismissed was the belief that history could be explained by some kind of cosmic dualism. Augustine had been saved out of ancient Manichean dualism that taught that both evil and good were equally ultimate and that earth’s history is where these equally ultimate principles waged their battle. Augustine countered by teaching that evil is not a positive ultimate principle and did not have existence the same way that goodness does. Augustine believed instead that evil was a negation – a parasitic corruption of the originally good world. Like a tear in a shirt evil was merely a lack of good. It was nothing in and of itself. Augustine affirmed that good and evil stood in opposition to one another but he denied that evil was co-equal or co-eternal with good and taught that at the great assize humans would finally understand how evil found resolution in the context of God’s justice and God’s providence.

Historicism … that History can only be understood in light of itself. No objective reference point.

The third pillar of pagan history that Augustine critiqued was its cyclical view of history. Augustine believed and taught that history is linear and is moving towards the point of God’s ordained end. Augustine appealed to Scripture to overthrow the cyclical view of history that taught endless repetition of meaningless events by pointing to the book of Hebrews that teaches “For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more.” Augustine also overturned this pagan cyclical view of history by teasing out its nihilistic implications. Augustine contended that if life is to have meaning or hope there must at least be the possibility of progress, noting further that an idea of progress can only exist where there is a sense that history has a set teleology. Without these sense of a history that is linear and has a destination life and history, in the words of Henry Ford, is nothing but “one damn thing after another.”

After Augustine dismantled pagan views of history he then proceeded to give the basic elements of a Biblical view of history.

1.) The God of the Bible is superior to the gods of paganism, nihilism, materialism, etc.
Throughout Augustine’s writings the Saint contrasts the God of the Bible with the pagan gods of Rome, as well as the unknown god of Neo-Platonism. All worldviews have a distinct Ontology and in Augustine’s work we see him insisting on the superiority of a Christian Ontology over the pagan dialectic Ontology where god is so transcendence that he has no contact with his (their) creation while at the same time so immanent he (they) are really nothing but humans said loudly.

2.) Creation Ex Nihilo

Christian views of History are what they are, largely due to the Christian doctrine of Creation. In the Christian view of history we have the teaching that God created the world out of previously non existing materials at a definite point of time in the finite past. This creative event, happening once, forms the temporal basis of all of history’s unique events to which Christianity alone, with its view of linearity, can attach significance and meaning. In a Christian view of history humanity plays a central role and as significance precisely because God set mankind at the center stage of his creation and at the center stage of his outworking of history (seed of the woman vs. seed of the serpent). In pagan views of history man is insignificant and without transcendent meaning since man is but one detail of the naturalistic world that has by both blind fate and random chance come into meaning. If in pagan views of history, history’s meaninglessness is summarized by “one damn thing after another,” in pagan’s views of history man’s meaninglessness is summarized as “man being just another damn existence among a host of damn existences.”

3.) Human Sinfulness

Augustine believed that man’s sinfulness necessarily divided the human race into two communities – The City of God vs. The City of Man. This corresponds nicely to the Reformed antithesis of The seed of the woman vs. The seed of the serpent. This human sinfulness, according to Augustine, divides men because occupants of each city have different aims, motives and principles. Augustine believed that human sinfulness was the most prominent thing that could be discerned in human history. Keep in mind though that this seemingly simple observation is unique to a Christian view of History because non Christian views of history have no transcendent reference point by which to adjudicate sin and no view of history that can define sin except as those things which have occurred which eventually came to be thought of as “bad” because some majority subjectively labeled those things as “bad.” Augustine had a measure by which he could adjudicate sin and righteousness in history.

4.) Redemption By Christ

Humans can escape the city of man and become citizens of the city of God because of the Redemption offered in Christ. The redemptive events in the life of Christ are unique events in history that end up giving significance and meaning to human history. In Christ man lives in the City of God and acts out his citizenship in that city by his involvement in the city of man. The result is that human history is suffused with meaning as men who have been redeemed bring their citizenship in that city to bear on their citizenship in the city of man.

Scripture — I Peter 3:21f
Subject — Baptism
Theme — Peter’s explanation of Baptism
Proposition — … will cause us to appreciate the meaning of our Baptism.

Introduction

Re-cap

Main Body

This is a passage that makes most Christians sweat because of the intimate connection that it posits between Baptism and Salvation. It directly says that “Baptism Saves.”

What Peter is doing here by saying that Baptism saves is that he is suggesting that there is analogical relationship — a comparative touchstone — between the salvation of the 8 souls who were saved through water during the time of the Noahaic flood and the salvation of Christians who are saved through the water of Holy Baptism. This analogical relationship between the Nohaic flood and Baptism is the kind of relationship that exists between a person when they are three and a person when they are thirty-three. The former is an earlier and incomplete model of the latter so that by looking back through the latter we can understand the former more completely. Peter says the flood was an anti-type of Baptism. The flood was an incomplete picture of a fuller picture that would come later.

Now as we enter into this we must affirm that it was God who saved Noah and His family, but He did so through water as Peter says. As such it would be accurate for Noah to say He was saved by God or by the flood as long as it was understood that it was God who saved Him by the flood.

The same thing is true of Baptism. If we say we are saved by Baptism we never mean that we are saved by baptism apart from God’s saving work. And yet we can say with Peter that we are saved by Baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Note in both Noah’s salvation and in our salvation it is God who is doing all the saving. In both the OT type and the NT anti-type (fulfillment) the emphasis is on God who is doing the work of saving His people.

Now the reason I spend time to point that out is to articulate again the Reformed and Biblical understanding that Baptism is not about our pledges to God. Baptism, as we see in this passage, is about God’s work of delivering His people.

Most of your Christian friends will not agree with this. Most of your Christian friends will insist that Baptism is about your making a commitment to Christ. That is a unworthy view of Baptism. Baptism is instead about what God is doing, promising and has done and not about what the Baptized person is doing or promising.

In Baptism we have the promise that God will be our God and we shall be His people and the command to repent and believe in light of that promise just as in the flood there was God’s promise to be the God of Noah and His family and the command to build an ark.

When we talk about Baptism we understand that it is a sign and a seal of God’s grace in Jesus Christ that has come to us. It is a sign of God’s promise to do all the saving. It is a seal that indicates we belong to God. The fact that Peter can come right out and say that “Baptism Saves Us” reveals the incredibly close relationship between the sign and what the sign indicates.

Because it is a sign and a seal of God’s gracious intentions towards us we must, in times of doubt, always remember our Baptism for in remembering our Baptism we are at the same time remembering God’s promise that He would be our God and we would be His people.

Now returning to the comparison between the Noahaic flood and Baptism we would say that Noah’s physical salvation through the waters of the flood through the waters of the flood was anticipatory of the fact that our Spiritual salvation is through the waters of Holy Baptism.

Just as Noah went through the destruction of the flood unto renewed life so God’s people are buried with Christ through the waters of Baptism into His death only to be resurrected with Him unto renewed life. (Romans 6:4) Noah and His family, as God’s people, were saved through the flood. The Church as God’s people are saved through Baptism. And it is God who used the flood and who uses Baptism as a means of Grace who does all the saving.

This idea of being saved through water repeats itself through Scripture. Not only is it Noah who is saved through Water but later it is the Children of Israel as they pass through the Red Sea who are saved by God through Water. In both cases the waters are at the same time judgment to God’s enemies and grace to God’s people. With the same waters God both condemns and gives life.

So it is with Baptism. The waters of Baptism are judgment to those who will not submit to a Christian Baptism that proclaims that God does all the saving while at the same time being grace to those who will embrace the promises of God found in Baptism.

Now from his emphasis on Baptism Peter turns to clarify the issue.

Baptism is not about the removal of physical filth from the body. The point here is that Baptism, as a means of Grace, is not about the performance of a misunderstood empty bathing ritual. In Baptism it is not the water itself, apart from Christ, that saves. The means of grace is not found in the water stripped away from the understanding that Baptism is the means of grace whereby we have union with Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:4). In Baptism it is not the filth of the flesh that God removes but the filth of the soul.

It is because God has done all the doing in Baptism that Peter can say that the result of this is the answer of a good conscience towards God. Since God has claimed us through Baptism and has done all the saving we have a good conscience towards God.

The fact that Baptism is only to be understood in light of the work of Jesus Christ is seen by how Peter goes on to say that all of this is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Baptism we die to sin and self and are resurrected with Christ.

Peter then reminds us that this Christ is not only resurrected but also ascended and ruling. By bringing this forward Peter gives great comfort to Christians that all that comes their way is through the hands of their sovereign King who has delivered them for His glory.
————-

Sundry unrelated observations on Baptism

In Baptistic thinking faith and the sacraments are not presuppositions but attainments. It is as if man were supposed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Knowledge and Ethics, before he can eat of the Tree of Life. Rationalistic and evidential apologetics, encourage men to approach faith by way of reason. Faith is not seen as the foundation of thought, but as an attainment. Naturally, the sacraments are seen the same way: men are to make a decision, and then be admitted to baptism (the Baptist view). The Bible, however, indicates that faith is presuppositional. The child is to be taught to believe from the beginning. It is not his initial decision which evidences his faith, but rather his perseverance to the end. He participates in the sacrament, in both its forms, from the beginning. The sacrament of God’s grace is not something he must attain by making a decision, walking an aisle, memorizing a catechism, or going through a rite of confirmation; but rather the sacrament of eating dinner with Jesus at His House is the presupposition of the child’s growth in grace. The difference between these two approaches, let me say it gently but straightforwardly, goes back to the Garden of Eden itself.

James Jordan

Baptists, and unfortunately the majority of Reformed folks, confuse being with doing. Faith is understood to be an act–trusting or believing for example–rather than the condition from which those actions proceed. Actions reflect a persons nature. Actions don’t cause a person’s nature. A proper understanding of God’s covenant promises requires that one give the judgment of charity to the regenerate condition of covenant children.

Christopher Hitchens is a well known, well publicized and frequently published Christ hater. He has become a bit of a poster child also for Christian yearning that God might send Reformation and awakening to increasing numbers of people in America who, like Hitchens, hate Jesus Christ.

So here is my prayer for Mr. Christopher Hitchens,

God of all mercy and grace open the eyes of Mr. Hitchens to your wrath against him and your intent to crush him, both temporally and eternally, if he does not find refuge in your expressed love of Jesus Christ for sinners such as myself and Mr. Hitchens. In wrath remember mercy, gracious God, and extend to Mr. Hitchens your irresistible grace that he might be a trophy of your ability to take captive even the most hardened against you.

And most Sovereign and Benevolent God we implore thee that you would also send forth the Spirit of Christ to convert many of the Christopher Hitchens in our own lives, that we meet every day, that your name might be honored among the nations.

Yet Holy Father, whatever you might do, in rescuing or damning, we pray that we would bless you that in all your actions you are pursuing the highest and best love — the love for yourself and the intra-trinitarian love of each person of the trinity for the other.

The below prayer is the invocation given by Rev. Paul Jehle at the Glen Beck Rally held last week in Washington DC. I’ve had an opportunity to hear Jehle speak several times in a close setting and I was impressed with the man’s knowledge on our founding era, though his Charismatic – pentecostal lean gave me pause.

This prayer at this event has my Spidey sense tingling overtime and has raised a multitude of questions in my mind about just exactly Dr. Jehle was doing in this prayer.

The prayer can be accessed at,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47V-dpiLM78

I have transcribed it word for word from Dr. Jehle’s mouth. I’ll give the prayer first and I’ll offer some analysis and questions.

Lord God, Sovereign Almighty, Ruler of the Nations, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, The Holy One, The Righteous One

You are the King of the Earth

All nations belong to you and you are the one addressed in the first 1606 charter that opened English settlements to these shores. It was you that was addressed, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be the central focus of every settlement. It was you our forefathers knelt too erecting a wooden cross on the sandy shores of Virginia. It was you that was addressed in the Mayflower Compact whose first words were, ‘In the name of God, AMEN.’ It was you who the pilgrims knelt too and blessed the God of heaven. It was you that Governor Winthrop wrote, ‘We shall be a city set upon a hill.’ It is you lord gods that brought William Penn and modeled peace with the first peoples. It was you lord gods that brought the black regiment of preachers to all across the continents to preach your words to prepare your people to be able to stand for liberty and it was you who was addressed in the Declaration of Independence as the, ‘Creator,’ — ‘as the Author of all inalienable rights.’ It was you lord gods that was declared as the one who created all equal and it was you lord gods who called us to account when we broke the treaties with the first peoples. You called us to repentance and you O gods called us to repentance when we did not live up to our creed and we did not treat everyone as equal. But Lord we found out that you are a God of forgiveness, you are a God of covenants, you are a God of restoration, you are a God of healing, and you have healed us and you are healing us.

And we come now to the mall in Washington. And we come now to you now in humble repentance for the shedding of innocent bloods. And we come to you in repentance for not modeling marriage among your people. And we come to you once again asking for healing, for restoration, for recovery and for reconciliation and we know you’ll do it because you’re gods and your Son Jesus Christ is the eternal Redeemer, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords and so we honor you for your word declares, ‘you will honor those who honor you.’

We come back to you today and we see you — the restoring gods, the King of Kings. And in Christ’s name and for the advance of your Kingdom, we once again say, ‘May you God bless America.’ May we be one nation under gods.

In Christ’s name — AMEN

1.) I find it hard to believe (though not impossible) that the flip flopping that Jehle has done here between “God,” / “Lord God” and “gods” / “lord gods” is accidental or coincidental. Though I have conceded it is possible that this is accidental, I again say that there is so much flipping back and forth between deities that is not unreasonable for someone to want an explanation. This is especially so since the gathering was an ecumenical gathering.

2.) I can not discern any pattern or reasons for the ongoing switching in Dr. Jehle’s prayer from God to gods. We have the singular God through Winthrop’s desire that Plymouth colony would be a “city set on a hill.” Suddenly with the arrival of William Penn (an anabaptist) we go to lord gods, and we stay with lord gods through the breaking of treaties and the lord gods call to repentance for previous generations not treating everyone equally.

Suddenly though, we revert back to God when it is ascribed to Him that He is a God of forgiveness, covenants, restoration and healing. However, a few sentences later it is gods who are ascribed with the power of healing, recovery, restoration and reconciliation. These (this?) gods apparently have a singular Son named Jesus Christ.

3.) Dr. Jehle finds peroration with an attribution to the “restoring gods” followed by a plea that the singular God would bless America finishing with the desire that we would be “one nation under “gods.”

Look, I understand that the man was praying before 500,000 people. I understand that can make a man nervous, and maybe all the plurals sprinkled throughout this prayer can be attributed to the guy being nervous. Or maybe it can be attributed to something else?

How about this for an explanation beyond being nervous. Given the ecumenical nature of this event (Christian Ministers, Mormon Elders, Jewish Rabbis, Muslim Imams, etc.) it is not beyond belief that some kind of concession was made for the invocation to use language that would satisfy everyone there. Such language, in order to satisfy everyone there would have to be both inclusive (hence the use of “gods) and exclusive (hence the use of “God”). The invocation thus becomes a least common denominator invocation that satisfies all the different religions and offends nobody.

Postscript,

A person called Dr. Jehle’s church and the secretary told him that Dr. Jehle could not hear himself and he was trying to project his voice and the result was that he could not hear himself speak and that led to the added “s’s,” on his words.

Dr. Jehle has not changed his theology. Dr. Jehle’s added “s’s” were accidental.