Category: General

Functional Trinity

It’s useful sometimes to think of the Trinity in terms of the work that they do in the world, so:

  • The Father’s work is primarily Election and Providence;
  • The Son’s work is primarily Propitiation and Intercession
  • The Spirit’s work is primarily Conviction and Empowerment

Of course each one of those jobs is worthy of reams of discussion, and that wouldn’t even cover the more difficult items like how they relate to one another and how they can be “one” and “three” at the same time. But I think it’s interesting to see how the roles that each one does relates to the others. Election, Propitiation, and Conviction kind of go together under the heading “salvation.” Providence, Intercession, and Empowerment kind of go together under the heading “sanctification,” or possibly “building up the church.” At the same time, Election and Proivdence go together in a way that uniquely says “Fatherhood;” Propitiation and Intercession go together in a way that uniquely says “Sonship;” and Conviction and Empowerment go together in a way that uniquely says “Spiritual.”

Two final thoughts:

  1. Can somebody give me some other word than “propitiation” for “Christ’s unique giving of himself in my place as a sacrifice for sins by dying on the cross”? I keep thinking there should be another word, but I can’t think of any.
  2. I really like the above rubric. It ties things together in a delightfully simple, thorough, interrelated way. It also makes me feel cool because I thought it up all by myself. Therefore, I don’t trust it. Can anybody think of any other “works” that God does that don’t fall neatly into these categories, or in any other way punch some holes in the above? I’d be much obliged.

Properly Trinitarian

I once heard a pastor say that the key area to check when searching for a church to join was that church’s position on Jesus Christ. I think his reasoning was that consistently throughout history, but particularly in our age, if a church falters, it falters first over the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Point taken, but when I heard it, it struck me as a little wobbly. There are lots of churches which hold a perfectly acceptable understanding of Jesus Christ, but which I think are still a little less than they could be because of a weakly expressed understanding of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me that the goal of a church should be what I would call “properly trinitarian.” That is, the life and teaching of the church should reflect the actual relationships within the Trinity. All three Persons of the Godhead are equal, and so they should get equal press from the pulpit and on our minds and lips. Nevertheless, there is a hierarchy of precedence within the trinity, and we ought to seek to reflect that precedence in the way we honor and submit to God.

Humility

One of the blessings we’ve had of late has been to be a part of a home group whose leader truly cares pastorally for his little flock. He’s also a reader, which has been to my advantage, because there are a lot of books in the tradition of my church that I’ve never read before and right now I don’t have the cash to buy them, or the room to store them if I did. And so my deacon has become my librarian.

Recently he had lent me his copy of CJ Mahaney’s book Humility: True Greatness (which I highly recommend to everybody) and was asking me if I could share any thoughts on what I had read with our group. I sent him a few notes on what I might say to the group, but there was one thing that I didn’t find convenient to mention there, so I thought I might share it here:

In reading CJ’s book, it occurred to me that much of what I practice in the name of humility isn’t really humility at all, but self-effacement, which is not the same thing. I still think of myself more highly than I ought – in fact, more highly of myself than of you. But I hide my pride, and glory in the fact that I may have impressed you simultaneously with how humble I appear to be.

Quality Tech Writing

I’ve been thinking off and on about moving our site from WordPress to Drupal, which has some more advanced capabilities and would allow me to integrate a few more things on the site. I discovered this morning that, among its other features, Drupal possesses an incredible tech writer. Observe:

Drupal is a Content Management Framework. This is somewhat different from a Content Management System (or CMS) in that it is by nature geared more towards configurability and customization. Picture a range of measurement where the one end of the scale is labeled “specific” and the other end “abstract”. On the “specific” end of the spectrum, you would have something whose form is very specialized because it’s meant for a specific purpose – like, say, a hammer. On the other end of the spectrum, you would have something much more abstracted, that is available to be configured any way you like, for a variety of purposes – like some wood and a chunk of steel. You could make a hammer, or any number of other things with the wood and steel.

Of course, while chunks of wood and steel are more “configurable” than a hammer, they aren’t terribly useful because few people have the specialized knowledge to work with such raw materials. Drupal’s purpose is to sit in the sweet spot between the two ends of the scale, and create a sort of “builder’s kit” made up of pre-designed components that can be used as-is or be extensively reconfigured to suit your needs.

It keeps going on, building metaphor on metaphor like a John Donne love poem. Who knew programmers had such literary talent?

The Main Thing

As Peter Lord has said, “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” And the main thing is Jesus Christ. He is the capstone and the cornerstone; he is the keystone and the touchstone, and every lodestone points to him. He is the rock which followed the children of Israel into the wilderness, and as they came into the promised land, the stone that Joshua raised was Jesus Christ.

He is the pattern by which this world was made, and in the end, all things will be summed up in Him. He is hope of our salvation, and his cross is the only source of our sanctification. He is the gate by which all must enter, and none who enter by any other gate have any hope of eternal life. He is the head into which the church is maturing, and when Samuel set up a stone called Ebenezer, saying “here only by your help have we come,” on that stone was also written, “Jesus Christ.”

Corollaries

* Prayer is more important than Bible reading.
* Prayer is clumsy and ineffective without a sufficient Biblical foundation.

One of my difficulties in prayer the last 7 years or so has been that my theology was changing.

When I was in high school and earlier, I was pretty proficient in prayer. That is to say, I found it relatively easy to pray – frequently, in private or in public, and for relatively sustained periods. But going into ministry school, college, and even seminary, it became increasingly more difficult to pray, because I had a hard time agreeing with the sort of things I was used to saying when I prayed. I would start to pray something and realize I didn’t really think that was the way it worked. To give an example, I might have prayed something highly metaphorical, along the lines of “Lord, I pray that you would pour out your Holy Spirit in my workplace, that your river would flood in and overwhelm them, so that they are consumed by your fire!” And in the middle I would get stuck by the mixed metaphor. Moreover, it would occur to me that I really hadn’t said anything more significant than “Lord, please do something about this,” which of course left me with a very short prayer. It began to occur to me that I really didn’t know what I was talking about and that I therefore really didn’t have anything to say.

As I’ve been becoming more “essentially reformed” in my perspective, my sense of not knowing what I’m talking about has been lifting. I was helped especially last year by teaching Ephesians in my New Testament class. Ephesians has just the sort of big picture perspective that I needed to get into my mind. And that perspective has helped dramatically in my prayer life, as Valerie can attest. But now I have a new problem:

I can again pray now for nearly hours on end, but despite my best efforts, I can really only pray Ephesians.

Babies in the Workforce

I was reading an interesting article via my email on the increase in parents bringing thier children to work with them. I think I disagree with the author and agree with several of the commentators that I would bring David to work given the opportunity. I would much rather have him with me than in a daycare. It would go a long way to help my peace of mind and would definitely make nursing easier. However, I could see how it could be difficult, especially for a first time mom, to bring an infant in to work with her. I would recommend that the mom still take her six weeks maternity leave before trying to get back in the swing of things. That way her body can heal and she and the baby can get into a rhythm together before try tackling addition to her routine.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the Babies at Work website yet, but I will be. And if I feel so inclined, you might see another post later.

B.S., MPH, CNA, Mrs., and M.O.M.

I think I can actually say that I represent the new and improved stay at home mom. I am part of the growing group of young mothers with a good education, mountains of debt, and an intense love for being a wife, mother and homemaker. Even with the occasional fussiness there is nothing that can beat the giggles of a ticklish snugglebug who can be chewing on your pocketbook stap one minute and jumping joyfully the next.
Continue reading “B.S., MPH, CNA, Mrs., and M.O.M.”

Evaluating the Baptist proper rituals standard

###The Controversy###
There is a bit of a controversy going on right now, coming mostly from the Baptists, about baptism. I believe the conversation begins with a sermon series by John Piper, though I first learnt of it via Fide-o. Other comments by Jason Robertson (Fide-o) here. John Halton gives us a take from the Lutheran perspective here and here.

Excluding the silliness of those who don’t take baptism and communion very seriously, the argument as I understand it boils down to a plain reassertion of the traditional Baptist position on baptism. Baptists hold to a particular form of baptism: It must be done by immersion; it must be done upon (that is, immediately after) confession of faith. So it rules out sprinkling, and the baptizing of infants. But the tricky part is the position that *only* credal baptism by immersion is acceptable. For Baptists, properly, there are no sacraments, only ordinances (those things which Christ has ordered us to do) – baptism and communion. So the value of doing of those things is not their direct spiritual impact, but the value of obedience. If you didn’t do it the Baptist way, it’s not just a little whoopsie.

This is where Baptists prove that they are still anabaptists – re-baptizers: The argument goes that if you didn’t follow the prescribed ritual, it isn’t that you didn’t do it wrong. You never did it at all. Sprinkled? Unknowingly “christened” in your infancy? It wasn’t obedience; it wasn’t baptism. You’re unbaptized. And unbaptized people can’t take communion. You are officially excommunicated.

And here I got a little theological education. I had been under the impression that to excommunicate was to say, in effect, that the excommunicated was not a Christian. After all, the scripture says to treat such a person as if they were unsaved. Evangelize them, but don’t offer communion. But Frank Turk informs me that you can still be a Christian even while excommunicated. Even though we should treat you like you’re not.

###The Standards###
Regardless, the traditional Baptist position on baptism boils down to these two tenants:

  1. Baptism must follow a specific set of rules in order to be done **right**.
  2. If it wasn’t done **right**, it wasn’t done **at all**.

The first point usually get’s all the attention, but it wouldn’t carry water without the second coming right behind it. Hence John’s Lutheran response: “I *am* baptized! So there!” And yet, you hear constantly all the arguments for the first point, but never even a hint as to how to evaluate the second. Where does it say that if it wasn’t done right, it wasn’t done at all? I don’t know.

I think I have come up with an interesting criteria for evaluating the doctrine on baptism that if it wasn’t done right it wasn’t done at all: by comparing it to other similar rituals and seeing what happens if a similar rule is applied. I have two such in mind: communion and weddings. Continue reading “Evaluating the Baptist proper rituals standard”