When we look to the promises concerning our children, we must remember that this really means looking to Christ, the one in whom all the promises of God are “yea” and “Amen.” the promises are not understood rightly if we understand them in separation from the person of Christ. We look to Christ because the Scripture tells us that in Him “all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (2 Cor. 1:20). The importance of this should become obvious when we consider the details of covenant nurture below. But for the present, if we treat our covenant relationship with the person of Christ as impersonal, this will necessarily corrupt our application of the covenant relationship we have with our children. This is how covenant nurture deteriorates from following Christ into following the instructions on child-rearing paint-by-numbers kit. Simply “following the procedures” is not covenantal faithfulness.

So we look to Christ in the promises. But what is the content of these promises of God with regard to our children? God’s promises to parents are ably discussed elsewhere in this volume, and so I will limit my references to them to just this paragraph. God promises that the children of his servants will continue (Ps. 102:28). He says he will show mercy to thousands of generations of those who fear Him (Deut 5:9-10). Our God keeps covenanted mercy over the course of thousands of generations (Deut. 7:9). God promised that in the days of Messiah He would bless us, our children, and our grandchildren forever (Ezek. 37:24-26). According to Isaiah, we will no longer bring forth children for trouble (Is. 65:23). And our Lord’s mother knew that the Son she bore was not to be the one in whom all generational blessings cease, but rather the one in whom all generational promises are fulfilled (Lk. 1:48-50). These promises are important to mention here because we face the constant temptation to have faith in our faith instead of having faith in God who promises Christ to us and to our children.
(Douglas Wilson, Covenant Nurture: Faith at Work through Godly Parenting)

Both quotes from their respective essays in Benjamin K. Wikner’s, “To You and Your Children.”

What do I mean by this? For many, church is merely a place where individuals meet to hear a sermon. It is manifested when people ask questions like, “how was church today?” and expect an answer concerning the sermon.  When this mindset is amplified, a good church is judged by the preaching skills of the primary pastor.  While there are elements of truth to this, church is more than a sermon and a good church should initially be judged by her doctrine.

As I have later embraced all of the means of grace, the Lord’s day has become much more enjoyable and conducive for worship. I no longer judge a good day at church by the 45-minute sermon.  If the Lord’s day is an objective day of worship set apart by God and the church you attend honors this day then there can never really be a bad day of Church.

As long as church in the minds of men is centered around any one man apart from the person of Christ it will always continue to be a hit or miss experience.

In case you missed my subtle use of the word “experience,” yes- I meant to use it along with all of its subjective individualistic baggage. The church at large has already done away with the objective view of the Lord’s day. It’s no wonder we join all of society and seek out personal experiences in worship as well.

“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” they say from their pulpits across the nation. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom and false humility, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.  They are after-all based on human commands and teachings (Col 2:20-23).  This all to often characterizes the fundamentalist preaching that adds to the conscience- man made laws and commands absent from scripture.  In fact these human commands even oppose scripture themselves.

Some have argued that the American culture of drinking has rendered alcohol sinful. But drunkenness, drinking parties and consciences who are stumbled over wine are not foreign to the culture set in scriptures.  Paul even tells us that if wine makes a brother stumble it should be avoided (Rom 14:21). This did not stop our savior from making wine (John 2:1-11) or commanding its use in his feast (1 Cor 11:25-26).  In fact the scriptures are full of commands and celebrations that make use of wine and strong drink even in worship. Take for example Deut 14:26, “and spend the money for whatever you desire-oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

Some have attempted to argue that the wine in those days was actually grape juice or some watered down equivalent.  This is a gross historic fallacy that can be refuted even in light of scripture.  Lets not forget the rebuke to those at the Church in Corinth for getting drunk off of the communion wine (1 Cor 11:21-22).  It is the aged fermented wine (Luke 5:39) also described in vivid detail concerning the Kingdom blessings (Is 25:6) that men are rightfully to enjoy. As Christians we should never be guilty of employing the tactics of false religion to explain away clear biblical precepts to our man-made traditions and hang-ups.

There is no universal command to avoid wine or strong drink.  In fact, select groups that did abstain were worthy of mention as acting differently than the accepted biblical practice. For example those under the nazarite vow (Numbers 6:2-6) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).  Interestingly, in contrast to John the Baptist Jesus did come eating and drinking and his doing so resulted in many falsely calling him a winebibber and glutton (Luke 7:33-35).

In the final analysis we must be able to distinguish between the use and abuse of fermented drink. While scriptures contain strong warnings concerning the abuse of wine (Prov 23:21, 30; Deut 21:20; Eph 5:18; 1 Tim 3:8; Titus 2:3) they also contain strong warning concerning sexual perversion.  We do not however condemn all sexual activity, only its abuse.  While any of God’s gifts can be abused, we must avoid the ascetic temptation to deem them as evil. Instead we are called to address the heart issue rather than being a source of legalism.

I will conclude with an excerpt from G.I Williamson’s “The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes” (pg 195) who concludes:

1. that God alone has legitimate authority over the conscience,
2. that his Word alone is the rule thereof,
3. that the doctrines and commandments of men which are either contrary to or additional to God’s Word in respect to worship have no authority to bind the conscience,
4. that to permit the conscience to be bound by such is sin, betrayal of true liberty of conscience, and a denial that God alone is one’s Lord, and
5. that Christian liberty must be distinguished from antinomianism (which means “freedom to sin”).

In its essence, of course, Christian liberty is spiritual. It consists of freedom from the bondage of the law and restoration to voluntary obedience to the will of God. Since we are free from the law as an instrument unto salvation, we respond as children to the service of God with joy and alacrity. Liberty is enjoyed in the way of faith and it ought to animate us to virtue, but slavish minds, who would use it to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, have no part in it.

Since Paul makes all external things subject to our liberty (Rom. 14:14), there is nothing unclean in itself, provided we use our freedom before God and not before men. God’s good gifts are abused if they are too ardently coveted, too proudly boasted, and too luxuriously lavished. However, unto the pure all things are pure, but all that is not out of faith is sin, and “unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience
is defiled” (Titus 1: 15) .

The Christian, who is God’s freeman, uses this world in faith, that is, in obedience to the commandments of God unto his glory. He must observe moderation lest he abuse God’s good gifts; he must be patient and submissive when deprived of earthly blessings. He is called to exercise love and forbearance in the use of his liberty, so that his neighbor may be edified. But since the things of this world are not sinful in themselves he may possess them, but must guard
against being possessed in the process. The pursuit of cultural achievement and the attainment of wealth are not evil in themselves; the enjoyment of food, drink and luxury are not to be despised or condemned, but God’s curses fall upon the rich because they are immersed in sensual delights and their hearts are inebriated with present pleasures while perpetually grasping for new ones (Inst. 111, 19, 9 & 111, 6-10). In his meditation upon the future life Calvin says we must learn to despise this present world because it draws us away from our calling. In that sense the things good in themselves become evil to us; hence we must learn to look upon all things in the light of eternity.

Here is the crux of the matter. This is the decisive issue! For Calvin one’s cultural striving is good or bad, depending upon one’s faith. All that is not out of faith is sin. All apostate culture is selfseeking in which man saves himself by his works and exalts his own glory. But the doctrine of justification by faith with its appendix of Christian liberty sets man free to serve God in his cultural calling. Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, signalizes this point when he reminds us that it was this liberation of the medieval man from the burden of gaining salvation by works that set free the energy and interest which produced our modern world of science, industry, and invention. For, by Calvin’s emphasis on the proper use of this world, the gaze of the believer was directed to this beautiful cosmos in which God calls us to be his cultural agents, and to have dominion over the earth, to replenish it, and to cultivate the ground.

(The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Henry Van Til)

<snip>

To conclude, religion and culture are inseparable.  Every culture is animated by religion.  A religion that is restricted to the prayer-cell is, in light of the above definition, a monstrosity and historically has proved unfruitful.  True religion covers the whole range of man’s existence. The basic covenantal relationship in which man stands to God comes to expression both in his cultus and his culture. Hence culture is never something adventitious, the color added as in the case of oranges and oleomargarine, to satisfy the eye. Kroner’s suggestion that the story of the fall belongs in a category with that of Prometheus, who stole the divine fire and thus began man’s cultural achievements, for which he was punished, is wrong.  This would make man’s cultural striving a doubtful addition to the divine intention.  This is surely an egregious misinterpretation of the biblical narrative, which presents man as both creature and of co-worker with God to fulfill his creative will from the beginning. The first sin of man consisted of an act of disloyalty in accepting Satan’s interpretation concerning the cosmos and man’s place in it, instead of living by the word of God’s revelation. Kroner is right in holding that man never regains paradise by his own efforts, but he is most certainly wrong in holding that culture as such is to be blamed for man’s tragic fiasco.  In the final analysis Kroner cannot reach an integration of culture and faith because he sees the antithesis between God and Satan as a tension immanent in “creation” from the outset.  This is not only theologically reprehensible, since reconciliation is changed from an ethical transaction centering in the vicarious atonement of Christ on Calvary to an ontological (that which pertains to being) one, thereby shifting the central message of the Gospel to the “incarnation.” but on this basis, no Christian culture is possible, since then all of man’s works are under the judgment of God on the basis of their creatureliness. However in Christ man is restored to God as cultural creature to serve his Maker in the world and as ruler over the world for God’s sake.

My view has changed considerably.  Today I’d really like to see more Christians running businesses, writing books, involved in research, establishing institutions and influencing culture to the glory of Christ all without loosing that boldness to proclaim the true Gospel.

I have been seriously enjoying our recent (May, 2009) studies through the book of Micah.  OPCLI, Sermon Audio

In an answer to one of my questions, “how can we better engage the culture” Douglas Wilson responds, “We are not currently in a culture war, but we do need to get into a culture war.  But there are prerequisites.  Before you can have a war, you need weapons.  And before you can have a culture war, you need to have a culture.”  This is clearly a long-term goal.

Today’s Christianity has made peace with modernity as Wilson says.  This brief manifesto has quite a bit to chew on.  This has helped me make better sense of my discontentment with modern Christianity and what (at risk of sounding pragmatic) practical things we can do to combat it.  I think however that if we will make any headway in this area of establishing culture we MUST see to it that our children understand and carry with them the same mindset… and we must see to it that we truly understand the heart of the issue as well.  If this battle is to be a sustaining success it will not be won in or by a single generation.  While we ought to be expecting and desiring the Lords return, this dispensational ‘rapture ready’ mindset has crippled Christians to live for the now and forsake the future.  It’s no wonder modern Christianity is in such shambles.

Manifesto on Psalms and Hymns

James 1:27 “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

 Often I read verses such as Galations 2:10 and James 1:27 and wonder whether or not we, the church, correctly apply them.  I have been involved in more than one church function where we as a whole cooked up a meal and served it at a local soup kitchen, or gathered old clothes for use in a clothing drive for the, unsaved, needy.  Of course we took part in sharing the gospel and that was a good thing.  But is this what the scriptures are getting at when we are exhorted to take care of the poor, visit orphans, widows, etc…?  This one time acts seem all to easy and are perhaps an excuse for neglecting the consistent and true application of the word in this regard.

I have attended inner city churches for the past six or so years, living in NYC.   Church attendance in Manhattan is never limited to its surrounding and so you would find a diverse crowd of both rich and poor.  Allow me to define rich as those who worked for a living and could afford the necessities with excess; and poor as those who were struggling day to day.

Of the poor you had:

• those who were capable of working for a living but did not for one reason or another (sluggard)
• single mothers who worked for a living with several kids and struggled
• men with mental deficiencies who weren’t taught how to work
• men who have recently repented of a life that rendered them temporarily useless

It was often the case in many situations that the men who had mental deficiencies, or were legitimately poor were treated as a burden.  They lacked social skills and were for the most part left out of many clicks, conversations, social gatherings.  They were perceived as leeches, always needing money for the train or a ride home from church.

But are these the types of people we should be remembering?  Reading about the sympathy John Calvin had for the poor and indigent I am convicted of the way I have treated them in the past myself.

Jeannine Olson’s able historical volume Calvin and social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Francaise is an eye-opening study of Calvin’s impact on Reformation culture, focusing particularly on the enduring effect of his thought on social welfare through the church’s diaconate. (“Celebrating Calvin: Ten Ways Modern Culture Is Different Because of John Calvin”, 2009 Vol 18, No. 1 Modern Reformation)

The deacons cared for a large range of needs, not wholy dissimilar to the strata of welfare needs in our own society.  They provided interim subsidy and job training as needed; on occasion, they even provided the necessary tools or supplies so that an able-bodied person could engage in an honest vocation.  Within a generation of this welfare work, Calvin’s diaconate discovered the need to communicate to recipients the goal that they were to return to work as soon as possible.  They also cared for cases of abandonment, supported the terminally ill who, in turn, left their children to be supported, and also included a ministry to widows who often had dependent children and a variety of needs.

Today’s church could learn from the past; particularly a man who is still hated to this day for his work of Reformation.  The false sladerous report propigated by the enemies of his day are still told by the ignorant today.

Refuting the misconception of biblical election, commonly labeled “Calvinism.”

No need to be legalistic: the reading plan allows for 15 spare weeks which can be used to either take two days a week off or as a buffer during your busy schedule.

Do not fit to page when printing otherwise it will be too big.  It’s 3.4 x 4.8 inches once trimmed.

DOWNLOAD: Through the bible in a year bookmark