Sinaiticus

Prayer for Christmas

sinaiticus — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:01:36 +0000

O Christ our God, who chose the most pure Virgin from among all generations and was born of her in the flesh: we your servants offer hymns of thanksgiving to you. As you are possessed of ineffable loving-kindness, O Master, from all manner of misfortunes, free us who cry: O Jesus, Son of God, who became incarnate for our sake, glory be to you!

- Akathist Hymn to the Nativity of Christ

Still Lord of lords

sinaiticus — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:00:31 +0000

Yahoo! News recently published a slide show of photos about the death of North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, including photos of his body on display. Besides the inherent creepiness of the body photos, there was an interesting detail that jumped out at me. At the foot of his bier you can clearly see his birth and death years: 1942-2011. No big deal, right?

Keep in mind, though, that North Korea is the worst persecutor of Christians in the world (according to Voice of the Martyrs) and officially an atheistic state. So how interesting it is that Dear Leader’s life would be shown in reference to Jesus Christ, whom he persecuted! (Anno domini 1942-2011)

Many rulers in history have called themselves lord of lords and king of kings. In Scripture, the Persian king Artaxerxes referred to himself as “king of kings” (Ezra 7:12), and the king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar–who had not shortage of self-regard–was also called “king of kings” (Ezekiel 26:7). There is evidence that Kim Jong Il also fancied himself a god-like figure and mighty ruler. But he is now dead.

And the only true Lord of lords and King of kings is still Jesus Christ (Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:16), who is the same yesterday and today and forever, into the ages (Hebrews 13:8). We will all perish, but he lives forever; kings and generations will rise and fall, but he is forever. May Jesus Christ be praised, especially during this season of his nativity.

The End of the Crystal Cathedral

sinaiticus — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:06:46 +0000

The Los Angeles Times reported that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange will purchase the Crystal Cathedral, the Orange County megachurch founded by the Rev. Robert H. Schuller. The diocese will modify the building and eventually consecrate it as a Roman Catholic cathedral.

While the story is newsworthy in many respects, it makes we wonder about the future of other Protestant megachurches. The phrase that keeps coming to mind is, “What goes up must come down.” Will other celebrity-pastor-centered congregations collapse when their leaders retire, or is there strength in the organizations that will enable them to endure? What about Saddleback? Or Willow Creek? Or Lakewood? Or Oak Hills? Are these churches flashes in the pan, historically speaking? In the coming decades, it will be interesting to watch what happens to churches that have experienced rapid growth. My hunch is that in the future there will be more painful stories like the Crystal Cathedral’s.

The symbolism of the Crystal Cathedral’s sale is also stark: A Protestant stronghold is brought to its knees and is eventually bought out by none other than a group of Roman Catholics. Maybe we shouldn’t make too much out of the apparent Protestant decline and the Catholic ascendancy in Southern California; but maybe we shouldn’t automatically discount it either.

The comparison that keeps coming to mind is the tortoise and the hare. I’m certainly not endorsing the Roman church, because it still has its significant, systemic deficiencies. But in this case, they are the hare, steadily and slowly running the long distance race. And, on the other hand, the Crystal Cathedral represents the hare, impatiently bolting ahead, clamoring for influence and numbers, only to run out of steam before the race is finished. To its credit–and as a lesson for evangelical Protestants–the Roman Catholic Church tends to be driven by stable forces like tradition, doctrine, and the offices (rather than the personalities) of the church hierarchy. Hare-like megachurches and megachurch wannabes, on the other hand, tend to be driven by transient forces like programs, personalities, and trends. Let the hares beware!

UPDATE: Another warning against ambition built on personalities…

Those Almighty Scholars

sinaiticus — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:38:27 +0000

Don’t get me wrong: I deeply appreciate that our Reformed and Presbyterian tradition emphasizes intelligent, scholarly engagement with Scripture and theological tradition. I love it that John Calvin, the fountainhead of our particular stream of Christianity, was a scholar and not a cleric. I appreciate that our colleges and seminaries are populated with biblical scholars who seek to understand and apply Scripture.

But I am disturbed when church members, ruling elders, deacons, teaching elders (a.k.a. pastors), and even church councils mentally place “scholars” at the top of the authority heap. It’s disturbing because our polity gives no formal authority to “scholars” for decision making. We have church councils (sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly) with all their appendages, made up of teaching and ruling elders, who discern together Christ’s will for the church. We also have a body of confessions that articulate our Reformed heritage and provide pretty clear boundaries when it comes to doctrine and practice.

It’s especially disappointing when councils charged with making rulings defer to an amorphous body of unnamed “scholars,” instead of making judgment calls on their own. Such was the case in the Synod of the Pacific’s Permanent Judicial Commission’s (SPJC) ruling in the Parnell et al v. Presbytery of San Francisco case. In their September 16-17 hearing, the SPJC ruled that one of its presbyteries was justified in clearing for ordination a candidate who did not meet constitutional and confessional requirements. Without discussing the merits of the case, it is disheartening to read this in the SPJC’s final decision (p. 3):

Presbytery did not commit doctrinal error in its decision to accept the departure and to ordain the candidate. The record and trial testimony make clear that interpretations of scripture and the confessions, and the conclusions that result from those interpretations, have not been uniform in the history and practice of the Church. Nor are those interpretations uniform among theologians and biblical scholars within the denomination, as witness testimony and the record make clear. (Emphasis added)

This kind of thinking just doesn’t belong in our polity. But it doesn’t happen solely in mainline circles either. I often hear Christians of all stripes appeal to the almighty scholars who apparently know everything and who are the final word on every matter. But what if scholars sometimes err? What if the human intellect (which is subject to sin and corruption and prone to rebel against God’s governance) is actually fallible? What if scholars, just like the rest of us redeemed sinners, start with preconceived attitudes and form their opinions around them? I know that lots of us Protestants don’t have bishops or a magisterium to guard doctrinal integrity, but could we at least stick to our own authority and polity structure? Can we at the very least adhere to our confessional and scriptural tradition?

Contemporvant

sinaiticus — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:05:06 +0000

This has been around for a while, but it’s worth re-posting. Sometimes satire can challenge the church to repentance and new life!

Not So Ecumenical After All

sinaiticus — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:04:16 +0000

Our new Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Order proclaims this:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at all levels seeks to manifest more visibly the unity of the body of Christ and will be open to opportunities for conversation, cooperation, and action with other ecclesiastical groups. It will seek to initiate, maintain, and strengthen relations with other Reformed and Christian entities. (G-5.0101)

In another place, the Book of Order says that,

Division into different denominations obscures but does not destroy unity in Christ. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), affirming its historical continuity with the whole Church of Jesus Christ, is committed to the reduction of that obscurity, and is willing to seek and to deepen communion with all other churches within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. (F-1.0302a)

I would propose that we officially delete those statements as obsolete, because there is little evidence to prove that they are still relevant.

More than three and a half years ago, I warned our denomination’s decision makers that by pursuing our own, narrow denominational agenda, we were jeopardizing, not only our internal cohesion, but our relationship with the larger, universal, big-C Church. Specifically, I said,

I am convinced that our denomination (let alone the rest of Christendom) is not nearly ready for such radical changes regarding sexuality and biblical application. If we persist in our…mentality, we will obliterate the fragile trust that holds our denomination together and marginalize ourselves from the larger body of Christ.

Unfortunately, I was right. Ever since our denomination decided to choose a different path from the rest of the Church this summer (although the drift started decades ago), other Christians are recognizing our departure. Our partners are severing ties with us (and spare me the paternalism that demeans our African and Mexican neighbors as being backward and pre-modern), and those who weren’t our partners before, will likely never become our partners. In short, we have cut ourselves off from the family tree that is the catholic Church and have thrown ecumenical efforts under the bus of sexual depravity.

So let’s make our words line up with our actions and get rid of the ecumenical talk already.

Word and Sacrament

sinaiticus — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:00:45 +0000

Matthew LaPlante provides readers with a fascinating look into the religious landscape–both ecumenical and interfaith–of Ethiopia in his article, “Growing in the Word,” from Christianity Today. The competition and antipathy (I can’t think of a softer word) between evangelicals and the Orthodox Church in Ethiopia encapsulates my frustration with the rank denominationalism that we Americans have exported to other parts of the world.

Don’t get me wrong: the rise of Bible-based evangelical Protestants has been very good to challenge the Orthodox Church and rouse it from its slumber. And the Orthodox Church has been good for “Pentays” (as they are called) to consider their relationship with ancient Christian doctrine and worship.

And maybe I’m just idealistic, but why does there have to be competition between the two groups? LaPlante tells the story of Orthodox believers who have made a clear break with the Orthodox Church to become evangelicals. But why do Christians have to choose and commit to one or the other–a group that emphasizes the Word to the poverty of sacramental life or a group the emphasizes the sacramental life to the poverty of the Word? Why do both groups (apparently) tell their adherents that the other group is illegitimate and that they must sever all ties with them? Why can’t Christians have the Word and the sacraments?

I don’t mean to gloss over important doctrinal differences between evangelical Protestants and Orthodox Christians (especially when the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is even at odds with Eastern Orthodoxy at large), but wouldn’t it be great if Christians of different stripes could get along with each other and cooperate, especially in lands where they are minorities? Wouldn’t it be great if believers could participate in the sacramental and ecclesiastical life of the Church as well as feasting on the Word through strong Bible teaching? In case I missed something, those things are not exclusive of each other.

A New Political Prophecy

sinaiticus — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:54:46 +0000

Four years ago, I made a prediction about the 2008 presidential election. Boy, was I wrong. Four years later–with no President Giuliani after all–I am ready to read the tea leaves again and venture a guess about next year’s presidential election. This time, however, I will try to be more humble in my guesses.

Despite some rumblings from the Left, President Obama will not face a primary challenger from his own party (except for possibly a fringe candidate like Dennis Kucinich). Obama will raise lots of money for his campaign, and he will run–or at least his operatives will run–a Chicago-style, break-your-opponents’-legs campaign. But even if he raises a billion dollars (as promised) it probably won’t be enough to sufficiently move the needle in his direction.

On the Republican side, we are already starting to see the dynamics emerge: Rick Perry (who coincidentally endorsed Rudy four years ago!) looks like he will win his party’s nomination. Polls show he’s already ahead in Iowa and South Carolina, and if he wins those states’ primary/caucus, he will have the momentum to clinch the nomination. Mitt Romney will be shut out again. Sarah Palin will not even get into the race, by the way.

Perry will probably choose a likable, youngish, Washington outsider for his vice presidential running mate who can be groomed into the presidency (contra George W. Bush/Dick Cheney and Barack Obama/Joe Biden). My bet is he will try to shed the GOP stereotype and avoid tapping another white male for the ticket. The VP slot might go to Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez, or Marco Rubio. Apologies to Tim Pawlenty and Paul Ryan. I do not think Michele Bachmann will have a place in a Perry administration (maybe attorney general???).

And despite the angry Left’s contempt for Rick Perry, he will be a formidable candidate against President Obama. They underestimate his political operation, his skills, his positive record, and his appeal to independents disaffected with the current president. In fact, this is my prediction: President Obama will continue to flail throughout 2012, giving up on governing and focusing on campaigning; he will run a mudslinging campaign against Governor Perry, but it won’t be enough. We will inaugurate President Perry in January of 2013.

FOOTNOTE: It’s also a safe bet that Republicans will take control of the Senate and hold the House, giving them control over the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government. Whether that’s a blessing or curse remains to be seen, however; just ask Mr. Obama about having a friendly Congress and how well that has served him!

A Baptist’s Take on NIV2011

sinaiticus — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:57:50 +0000

Here is a link to Dr. Rodney Decker’s review of the updated New International Version of the Bible (NIV2011) that was presented at the Bible Faculty Summit held last July at Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa. As you read it–and I hope you will–it’s important to keep in mind the setting: This is a conservative, evangelical, complementarian Baptist New Testament scholar presenting to a room full of like-minded Bible faculty.

This thoughtful, even-handed (and ultimately positive) review of this updated translation is definitely worth reading, even at 50 pages. It deals as much with the NIV2011 as it does with translation issues, period. And thankfully, Dr. Decker deals with issues and translation philosophy, rather than just rattling off the verses he disagrees with.

Perhaps the most surprising component of the paper is his pushback against the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) and the Southern Baptist Convention‘s condemnation of the NIV2011.

Unfortunately, single-issue groups [he's talking about CBMW here], as helpful and necessary as they sometimes are, run the risk of becoming myopic, one-string fiddle players who view everything through a narrow window of priority. The results can include blindness to legitimate concerns in related areas, misrepresentation of other positions, rhetoric, and invalid arguments. (p. 31)

Ouch. And he agrees with their position!

Also surprising is his concession regarding proof-texts about women in church and domestic leadership. Responding to the NIV2011′s translation of 1 Timothy 2:12a (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”), Decker makes this astounding admission:

Those who want to proof-text certain positions (positions which may well be valid) will not be happy [that is, with the NIV2011's treatment of 1 Timothy 2:12], but we must be honest with the text and acknowledge that this is an issue [that is, women's roles in the church and home] that must be resolved on a much broader exegetical and theological basis. (p. 28)

Astounding.

Definitely worth the read for anyone interested in biblical translation in general or the NIV2011 in particular.

Headline Roundup

sinaiticus — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:09:53 +0000

Presbyterian Office of Public Witness Director Arrested at the Capitol for Civil Disobedience.

If any General Assembly commissioners (or any motivated presbyters who want to float an overture next year) are reading this: please, please, please shut down the Office of Public Witness. This is an embarrassment. This does nothing to enhance God’s kingdom or the Presbyterian Church (USA). It doesn’t even do anything to positively affect the political discourse in America. This is not the 1960′s. I don’t need someone getting arrested on my behalf. If I wanted to make a point, I would spend the 30 seconds it takes to google my Representative’s, senators’, and the president’s e-mail addresses, and then send them an e-mail.

Heartland Pastors Proclaim that Homosexuality Is Not a Sin.

As the second commenter on this article ineloquently stated, “it takes more than 234 confused clergy to overrule the Bible. Not even 234 million.” Truth is not democratic.

Janet Edwards Is Bisexual.

First of all, gross. Second of all, what she is describing is not discovering some latent sexual orientation within herself, but adultery. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, Don’t commit adultery. But I say to you that every man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.” (That’s Matthew 5:27-28 from the Common English Bible, by the way.) Or you could say, “every woman who looks at a woman lustfully.” Gross. Just gross.