First New Wonder of the World: Petra

By Allen Yeh
Scriptorium Daily

It seems no work of Man’s creative hand,
by labor wrought as wavering fancy planned;
But from the rock as if by magic grown,
eternal, silent, beautiful, alone!
Not virgin-white like that old Doric shrine,
where erst Athena held her rites divine;
Not saintly-grey, like many a minster fane,
that crowns the hill and consecrates the plain;
But rose-red as if the blush of dawn,
that first beheld them were not yet withdrawn;
The hues of youth upon a brow of woe,
which Man deemed old two thousand years ago,
match me such marvel save in Eastern clime,
a rose-red city half as old as time.
—from Petra (Newdigate Prize-winning poem) by John William Burgon

History:

One of the earliest references to Petra is actually in the Old Testament. 2 Kings 14:2 calls it “Sela,” the Hebrew word for the Greek “Petra,” both meaning “rock.” This “rose-red city” (located in modern-day Jordan) is actually a series of royal tombs completely carved out of rock. The inhabitants were called the Nabataeans (an ancient Arabic Semitic people) who constructed this city around 100 B.C. There is obviously Greek, Roman, and Egyptian influence in their architecture, and they also were famous for inventing what eventually became the Arabic script. The Nabataeans’ grand kingdom eventually faded away and they lost their distinctiveness as a culture, intermingling with other Arabic and Semitic peoples.

One hundred years before Hiram Bingham stumbled upon Machu Picchu, the Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt “discovered” Petra in 1812. Of course, non-Europeans had known about Petra all along, but Burckhardt was the first Westerner in over a millennium to see it. He disguised himself as a Muslim (in complete dress) which is how he was able to gain access, and later wrote about Petra in his memoirs, bringing it to the attention of the Western world.

My perspective:

You may recognize Petra from the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Near the end of the movie, Indy is traveling through the Canyon of the Crescent Moon and then suddenly a temple carved out of the mountainside is revealed, where the Holy Grail is being kept.

Steven Spielberg actually did very little to enhance it (aside from adding the Holy Grail, that is!). The approach to Petra really is like what you see in the movie. You have to wind your way through a narrow canyon with sheer walls (called the “Siq”). The Nabataeans picked this location precisely because an army could not easily invade since horses would have to approach single-file. Once you get to the end of the canyon, the first thing you see is a building called Al Khazneh (“The Treasury,” as pictured above). It is magnificent, by far the largest and most impressive building in the entire city. It is called “The Treasury” because it was believed that the urn at the top contained treasure, as borne out by the fact that it is riddled with bullet holes (because bandits thought they could cause the urn to crack open and spill its loot). The damage is quite a shame to such an amazing piece of architecture.

One disappointing fact is that the insides of these structures do not really match up to the grandeur of the exterior. But it must be remembered that these were meant to be tombs, so they are shallow. They do not extend deep despite the fact that movies have fired up our imaginations to expect all manner of things inside. Plus, they were not meant to be entered, so great detail was spent on the outside details, but the inside is relatively simple. Of course, the tombs are empty now.

Besides the Treasury, two other things are worth looking for: the amphitheater and another building called El Deir (“The Monastery”). The Monastery is the only other building that comes close to the splendor of the Treasury, but unlike most of the other buildings it was not meant to be a tomb but rather a monument to one of their gods. Petra is not a small place; it involves quite a bit of hiking to get around the whole city, and the Monastery is not close to the Treasury either, so bring good hiking shoes, expect to be covered in red dust, and liberally apply the sunscreen otherwise you will liberally roasted!

Of all the Muslim countries in the world, Jordan is one of the friendliest and most open-minded toward Westerners (Malaysia is another Muslim country which is similarly accessible), so it is a good country to visit. Plus, it is a stone’s throw away from Israel, so many people combine a visit to Jordan with a tour of the Holy Land.

My rank: #1/7.

In my personal opinion, this is the number one New Wonder of the World. What makes it unique is that nothing in Petra was built; rather, everything was hewn out of its natural surroundings, which is what makes it incredible. As the poem above suggests, this “rose-red city” is made of reddish sandstone, and it is quite a sight at sunset, when you can watch everything glow. It is worth spending an entire day there to uncover not just the Treasury, the Monastery, and the amphitheater, but the extent to which an entire city was carved out of stone!

Second New Wonder of the World: Machu Picchu

By Allen Yeh
Scriptorium Daily

History:

The Incas were a powerful and sophisticated empire, but they lacked three things that were common to almost every civilization in the world: a written language; the wheel; and the arch. It’s amazing how they were able to communicate long-distances without a written language, how they could transport huge stones and vast amounts of gold without the wheel, and how they were able to create such monumental architecture without the arch.

Nonetheless, Machu Picchu is stunning accomplishment (all the more in light of the above!). Built in the mid-15th century, it ceased to be a functioning city once the Spanish conquistadors arrived. Because of its remote location, it was one of the few Inca cities not discovered/plundered by the Spaniards.

In 1911, Yale professor Hiram Bingham “discovered” Machu Picchu with the help of some locals, and due to its dramatic locale, surmised that it was the “Lost City of the Incas” (and he wrote a book by that same name propounding this theory). There is still debate about Machu Picchu’s original function, but it was probably a sacred site and definitely not, as Bingham thought, the last Inca capital city named Vilcabamba. (Incidentally, that same year, Bingham also “discovered” another Inca city named Espiritu Pampa, and dismissed it as unimportant. It has since been proved that Espiritu Pampa is, indeed, the lost Vilcabamba. So Bingham did find the last Inca capital but picked the wrong city to focus on! Or maybe he picked the right one, because Machu Picchu is a lot more impressive-looking than Espiritu Pampa.) Bingham brought a lot of the treasures of Machu Picchu back to Yale University where they resided in Yale’s Peabody Museum for 95 years. In 2006, the Peruvian government demanded a return of the artifacts, and Yale finally complied. I was an undergrad at Yale, so I enjoyed seeing the Machu Picchu exhibits, but I can understand why Peru would prefer to have the items back!

My perspective:

It’s not easy to get to Machu Picchu—you have to: 1) fly to the Spanish capital of Peru (Lima), then 2) fly from Lima to the Inca capital (Cuzco), then 3) either hike for three days through the Inca Sacred Valley (tour guide mandatory) or take a train for several hours through the same valley (you have a choice of trains, but I recommend the glass-ceilinged one for spectacular views) to the small town of Aguas Calientes, and finally, 4) take a bus to the top of the mountain to Machu Picchu. But ooohh, how worth it the effort is!!

Once at the top, there are amazing views of the surrounding mountains as well as the Urubamba River flowing far below in the valley. Machu Picchu means “old mountain” in Quechua, and facing you will be Huayna Picchu (“young mountain”). Be sure to see the following: the Condor; the Temple of the Sun; the Room of Three Windows; and the Intihuatana (a marker at the top of Machu Picchu that was the “hitching post of the sun”). Like the Pyramid at Chichen Itza, this Intihuatana stone was in line with the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes.

Check out the stonework. The Incas were primarily stonemasons and goldsmiths, but only the stone remains. Unfortunately when the Europeans came with their “guns, germs, and steel,” they held the Inca emperor Atahualpa captive (eventually killing him), took all the gold, and melted it down into bars and shipped them back to Europe. If you look at all the gold decorating European cathedrals today, most of that is Inca gold. So all that we have left is the stone, but what stones! They are huge, of all different shapes and sizes, but fit together snugly like a jigsaw puzzle, without mortar, yet completely earthquake-proof!

Between Cuzco and Machu Picchu are plenty of other Inca cities worth seeing, such as Sacsayhuaman (pronounced almost like “sexy woman”!), Tambo Machay, Puka Pukara, Ollataytambo, Pisac, and Qenko. You can purchase a combination pass that will get you admission into all of them.

Beware of soroche (the Quechua word for “altitude sickness”)! Cuzco is at 3500m above sea level, and you should drink “mate de coca” tea to offset the sickness, otherwise you will have shortness of breath, nausea, and headaches. Despite the fact that Machu Picchu is on top of a mountain, and Cuzco is in a valley, Cuzco is actually at a higher elevation than Machu Picchu.

My rank: #2/7.

Machu Picchu is endangered. Tourists are eroding it at an incredible rate. If you want to see it, go quickly! There are rumors that they may close off the attraction because of damage to the site. It is Peru’s national treasure, and they are very protective of it. But you must see this before you die! Oh, and bring a copy of the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda’s The Heights of Machu Picchu with you (it’s his magnum opus) and read it while you’re up there. It will enhance your experience immeasurably.

No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth

By Albert Mohler
AlbertMohler.com

The church's engagement with the culture involves a host of issues, controversies, and decisions--but no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle. Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns.

Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident--with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other.

The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?

Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.

Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality--and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.

The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.

Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of so many denominations, seminaries, and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined.

And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.

Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

In far too many cases, the options seem reduced to these--liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love. Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11].

I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.

If we are really a Gospel people; if we really love homosexuals as other sinners; then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, "We want you to know the fullness of God's plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together."

Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.

We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

The Seven Wonders of the World

By Allen Yeh
Scriptorium Daily

Many people are familiar with the phrase “The Seven Wonders of the World” but most could not name what they are. In no particular order, they are:

1) The Great Pyramid of Giza
2) The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
3) The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
4) The Lighthouse at Alexandria
5) The Colossus of Rhodes
6) The Statue of Zeus at Olympia
7) The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus

There are several things to note about this list, however:
-It was originally created by the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.)
-As such, it only included the greatest wonders of the world up to that point in time (e.g. the Colosseum would have been ineligible)!
-The list was also limited to Herodotus’ world (i.e. the Mediterranean) so it really did not have a global scope (e.g. the Great Wall of China would have been ineligible)!
-In addition, it was meant to be a tourist guide for Greeks traveling abroad, so it deliberately left out anything in Greece (e.g. the Parthenon would have been ineligible)!
-And finally, only one of those seven still remains today: the Great Pyramid. All the others have ceased to exist or, as some have suspected, they were merely mythical. (Though, it must be said, one can still view bits of the ruins of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus at the British Museum in London. However, it is questionable whether the Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever really existed).

In light of all of the above, a Swiss corporation decided to take an internet poll and select the New Seven Wonders of the World. Any manmade object built before the year 2000 was eligible, and the initial list included hundreds of candidates. Public voting narrowed it down to a final 21, which included notables such as the Statue of Liberty, Angkor Wat, the Sydney Opera House, the Easter Island statues, the Kremlin, the Hagia Sophia, as well as the Great Pyramid of Giza. Judges made the decision in paring it down to the winning seven (which were announced, appropriately enough, on 7/7/07), and the results can be seen here at the official website.

The winners of the New Seven Wonders of the World were (again, in no particular order):
1) Colosseum (Italy)
2) Christ Redeemer statue (Brazil)
3) Petra (Jordan)
4) Chichen Itza (Mexico)
5) Great Wall of China
6) Taj Mahal (India)
7) Machu Picchu (Peru)

During Easter vacation this year, I went to Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula where I had the chance to visit the Mayan temples at Chichen Itza. What made this visit personally significant was that Chichen Itza was the only one of the New Seven Wonders that I hadn’t previously visited. Now I can say I’ve seen all seven!

Here’s my personal take, now that I can speak from experience:

-In my humble opinion, not all of the seven are worthy. Petra, Machu Picchu, and the Taj Mahal were probably the three greatest manmade objects I’ve ever seen. The Colosseum was just so-so, and the Christ Redeemer statue is totally not worthy.

-Why is the Christ Redeemer statue not worthy? Though it is certainly iconic (but hey, the Statue of Liberty is also iconic!), there is not much else that makes it great—it isn’t that big (the Statue of Liberty is definitely bigger), and I’ve seen more expertly carved sculptures. Only the setting makes it magnificent, on top of Corcovado Mountain in Rio de Janeiro.

-The Great Pyramid at Giza was left out! This made Egypt (understandably) upset, since the Great Pyramid was one of the original Seven Wonders of the World, and this ancient (4500-year-old) structure got dethroned by an opponent as unworthy as a 20th-century statue.

-All six inhabited continents should have been represented. Actually, let me qualify that: to me, Australia doesn’t count as a continent (It’s really just a big island! Continents should have more than one country). So I’m not too bothered that the Sydney Opera House didn’t make the cut. The one continent that is glaringly missing is Africa. How can Africa have no Wonder? I say, substitute the Great Pyramid for Christ Redeemer!

-In addition, there were a few more of the 21 finalists that I thought were unfairly cut: Angkor Wat (in Cambodia, the most amazing archaeological ruins in Asia), the Alhambra palace (far more impressive, though less famous, than the Colosseum—so it’s debatable whether it would have been a better representative of the European continent), and the Hagia Sophia (formerly the Eastern Orthodox Church’s headquarters, then converted into a mosque, and finally a museum). Ah well, you can only have Seven.

All said and done, though, I am glad they chose seven new Wonders of the World. The old list was completely unserviceable (except for historical curiosity), and though I would have tweaked the new list a little bit, mostly I agree with the seven winners. For the next seven days, I will be chronicling each Wonder in detail, based on my order of preference from worst to first. Stay tuned!

Gifted or Determined?

By Paul Spears
Scriptorium Daily

People in general are not born with amazing intellectual or physical giftedness. I continually have to remind myself of this. Most individuals have to work very hard to attain the level of excellence that we admire. Our culture reinforces this belief about natural abilities with language of giftedness—as if some “talent fairy” is throwing around skills in a way that is totally random and completely outside of our power to obtain on our own. It is not that some people are not better at some things than others, but that they too need to work hard at developing their abilities. Even if there are one or two exceptions to this rule and some are born “gifted,” I would like to quote writer Annie Dillard who said, “There is no call to take human extremes as norms.”

Watching someone who is excellent at what they do naturally draws our attention. Whether it is an academic endeavor or athletic competition someone who is outstanding at their work is admirable. One of the odd things about the human condition is that we often desire to be outstanding in what we do without the commensurate effort, and when it does become difficult we look for reasons to excuse our desire to quit, such as our lack of natural giftedness.

We hear from a young age, “She is such a natural at math.” or “He plays the cello effortlessly.” All that this does is categorize certain skills in terms of the “haves” and “have nots.” We say things such as, “I am really not gifted at math” or “I just don’t have the ear necessary to play a musical instrument.” This enables us to have “built-in” excuses to not pursue a skill we don’t find to our liking or takes too much time, and yet it is often this belief in giftedness that falsely determines how we pursue our endeavors.

I find that many of the individuals I come into contact with are far too willing to give up on intellectual pursuit because they don’t have the discipline to stick to it when it gets difficult. How can we encourage our culture to understand that being a responsible human means that we need to not just pursue what we desire, but what is best? We want all the benefits of adulthood without all the accountability. We would like to be as good as Yo-Yo Ma at the cello, but cannot imagine putting in the time to even begin to learn to read music let alone play the cello well.

This pernicious attitude has permeated the halls of higher education. Students falsely believe that some people can just write and others cannot. Even though some of the best writers in the world say that writing is about rewriting over and over again, students think that they should be able to write like Faulkner or G.K. Chesterton on their first attempt. They think that they should be able to understand the complexities of the French Revolution by reading one textbook or the fractal geometry after one lecture and homework assignment. The expansion of one’s understanding of a subject necessitates deep longsuffering attention to a subject—not a cursory look at it. Jacques Barzun, Professor of History at Columbia University, and one of the best intellectual minds of the 20th century, states in his book Teacher in America,

All subjects have their fine points, and letting the careless ride roughshod over them is doing a poor favor to the subject and the students. It is not enough to say that when the subject matter is interesting the pupil will be interested and will attend: every branch of learning involves drudgery and it is there that attention is required. A blunder is harmless; it almost corrects itself, but repeated falling away from precision through scatterbrains is like adulteration of food—less nourishment, possible danger, and invariable bad taste.

Intellectual pursuit demands diligence and responsibility. A couple of years ago world class pediatric neurosurgeon Fred J. Epstein died. What makes his story remarkable is that he had dyslexia. He was told he was told that he was stupid and would be unable to ever make it into medical school. Because he refused to quit and was loved by his family he became a leader in pediatric neurosurgery. He pioneered a surgical technique that enabled doctors to remove tumors from spinal cords and brain stems that before his innovations were considered to be inoperable. Clearly, he was anything but gifted, and, yet, without this determined man many children would not have survived these life threatening conditions.

We need to instill in ourselves and our children that understanding is a result of mining the intellectual subject until our hands bleed from digging into the subject. There is no quick fix, intellectual giftedness or computer program that will replace a refusal to admit intellectual defeat and tenaciously pursue mastery of an idea. It is the only responsible thing for us to attend to.

The Challenge of Islam -- A Christian Perspective

By Albert Mohler
AlbertMohler.com


President Barack Obama has put the issue of Islam front and center on the international stage. His visit to Turkey, and his very public statements to the Muslim world, have raised a host of questions at home and abroad.

In his speech to the Turkish parliament on Monday, President Obama declared: "The United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam." He went on to say that "our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people."

But the President also spoke of his "deep appreciation for the Islamic faith." Here is the statement in context:

I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them.

At a press conference in Turkey, the President made yet another statement:

"One of the great strengths of the United States is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

On CNN with host Roland Martin on Monday night, I said this:

"I think President Obama rightly said that the United States is not at war with Islam. I think that's a very helpful clarification. But you can't take Islam out of the whole civilizational struggle we are in, not only in the war on terror, but, frankly, going back for centuries, coming up with a definition of what a good civilization would look like and how a society ought to be arranged."

I do think that President Obama was correct in stating that the United States is not at war with Islam. This is not only important in terms of international diplomacy, but also in terms of constitutional authority. The government of United States has no right or authority to declare war on any religion.

We can understand the political context, especially as the President was in Turkey. Given the confusions rampant in the Muslim world, that is a crucial clarification. Of course, a quick review of the statements of President George W. Bush will reveal that he said much the same thing, over and over again.

The fact that President Obama made these comments in Turkey is very important. Throughout the Muslim world, most Muslims do see the United States as, in effect, at war with Islam. Classical Islam understands no real distinction between religion and the state, but instead establishes a unitary society. Thus, when a foreign power like the United States invades a Muslim nation like Iraq, most Muslims see this as a war against Islam.

While specific forms of government vary in the Islamic world, this general understanding holds true. Unlike New Testament Christianity, Islam is essentially a territorial religion including all lands under submission to the rule of the Qur'an. The President was in Turkey when he made these statements, and Turkey is usually defined in the media as having a secular government. Indeed, the Turkish constitution even requires a secular government. But, as anyone who has visited Turkey knows, this requires a very unusual definition of what it means to be secular.

Being Muslim is part of what the Turkish people and government call "Turkishness," a unifying concept that goes all the way back to Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Offending "Turkishness" is a criminal act in Turkey. The Turkish government is the steward of every one of the seemingly countless mosques within the nation and it pays the imams. Thus, Turkey is a Muslim nation with a secular government, but its secular character would not be seen as anything close to secular on an American model.

In this light, President Obama's statement that America is not a Christian country is also both accurate and helpful, though he is being criticized by many conservative Christians for making the claim. His clarification, offered in Muslim Turkey, establishes as a matter of public fact the reality that our American constitutional system is very different from what is found in the Muslim world -- and even in Turkey itself.

Furthermore, if the United States is to be understood as a Christian nation in the same sense that most nations in the Islamic world consider themselves to be Muslim nations, then America is at war with Islam.

The controversy over the President's remarks in this context are misplaced. There is indeed a controversy over whether it is appropriate to call America a Christian nation in the sense that Americans would even make such a claim -- but the context in Turkey and the Muslim world is very different. Do American Christians really believe that Christianity benefits by being associated with all that America represents in the Muslim world? To many Muslims, America appears as the great fountain of pornography, debased entertainments, abortion, and sexual revolution. Does it help our witness to Christ that all this would be associated in the Muslim mind with "Christian" America?

Beyond any historical doubt, the United States was established by founders whose worldview was shaped, in most cases quite self-consciously, by the Christian faith. The founding principles of this nation flow from a biblical logic and have been sustained by the fact that most Americans have considered themselves to be Christians and have operated out of a basically Christian frame of moral reference. America is a nation whose citizens are overwhelmingly identified as Christians and the American experiment is inconceivable without the foundation established by Christian moral assumptions.

But America is not, by definition, a Christian nation in any helpful sense. The secularists and enemies of the faith make this argument for any number of hostile and antagonistic reasons, and they offer many false arguments as well. But this should not prompt American Christians to make bad arguments of our own.

I criticize President Obama, not for stating that America is not at war with Islam, but for failing to be honest in clarifying that we do face a great civilizational challenge in Islam. Islam is, in effect, the single most vital competitor to Western ideals of civilization on the world scene. The logic of Islam is to bring every square inch of this planet under submission to the rule of the Qur'an. Classical Islam divides the world into the "World of Islam" and the "World of War." In this latter world the struggle to bring the society under submission to the Qur'an is still ongoing.

President Obama also created his own confusion over these issues, subverting his own main point. If America is not at war with Islam, it would seem unhelpful for the Obama administration to now refer, against previous American practice, to Iran as "The Islamic Republic of Iran." Similarly, some of his words and gestures during his trip seemed overly indulgent toward Islam -- especially as these words and gestures would have been interpreted in the larger Islamic world.

This ambition drives the Muslim world -- and each faithful Muslim -- to hope, pray, and work for the submission of the whole world to the Qur'an. Clearly, most Muslims are not willing to employ terrorism in order to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, it remains the goal.

Islam and the West offer two very different and fundamentally irreconcilable visions of society. While we are certainly not a nation at war with Islam, we are a nation that faces a huge challenge from the Islamic world -- a challenge that includes terrorism, but also a much larger civilizational ambition that remains central. Anyone standing in Istanbul, the historic seat of Ottoman power, should certainly recognize that fact.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and a minister of the Gospel, my primary concern about Islam is not civilizational or geopolitical, but theological. I believe that Jesus Christ is indeed, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and that no one comes to the Father but by Him [John 14:6]. Salvation is found only through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of Christ is the only message that saves.

I can agree with President Obama that Islam has produced cultural wonders, but I have to see it more fundamentally as a belief system that is taking millions upon millions of persons spiritually captive -- leaving them under the curse of sin and without hope of salvation.

For Christians, regardless of nationality, this is the great challenge that should be our urgent concern. Our concern is not mainly political, but theological and spiritual. And, all things considered, Islam almost surely represents the greatest challenge to Christian evangelism of our times.

What Sanctification Is

By R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

“What is sanctification? How is it obtained? What does it do for you?”

Here we have three questions in one and pretty large questions to answer briefly. The questions are answered at length and fully in my book. WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES in the chapter on Sanctification.

To answer briefly, to sanctify means to separate or set apart for God, and therefore sanctification is the process of setting apart, or being set apart for God. This is the primary meaning of the word, but to sanctify means also to separate from ceremonial or moral defilement, to cleanse. In this secondary meaning of the word sanctify, sanctification is the process of separating or the state of being separated from ceremonial or moral defilement.

A man is sanctified when he is wholly set apart for God, when he has made an absolute surrender of his will to God. He is fully sanctified in the second sense of the word when he is delivered from all sin. It is God who sanctified men; He does it through the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2) by the instrumentality of His Word (John 17:17). In the Word Jesus Christ is presented to us as our sanctification, i.e. separation from sin and separation to God are provided for us in Christ. By the appropriation of Christ we obtain this sanctification thus provided, and the more completely we appropriate Christ, the more completely we are sanctified. As Christ takes continually more and more complete possession of every corner of our being we are more and more completely sanctified. Sanctification is something that we must pursue or seek earnestly if we are to obtain it (Heb. 12:14).

While it is God’s work, we have our part in it, viz., to make it the object of our earnest desire and pursuit. On our part we attain unto sanctification through presenting our members as servants or slaves to righteousness and becoming ourselves bondservants unto God (Rom. 6:19, 22). We perfect holiness by cleansing ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, and to this end we are to come out from among unbelievers refusing all alliance with them and touching no unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17; 7:1). The completion by Christ of the work of sanctification in us, i.e. our presentation before God wholly without blemish and unreprovable, is conditioned upon our continuance in the faith grounded and steadfast (Col. 1:21-23 R.V.).

Sanctification takes place the moment any one becomes a member of the church of God by faith in Christ Jesus–that moment he is sanctified. All believers are (not shall be) sanctified (1 Cor. 1:2 R.V.; 6:11 R.V.), i.e. to say by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all we are cleansed forever from all the guilt of sin, we are “perfected forever” as far as our standing before God is concerned in which every believer may be already sanctified. It is the believer’s present and blessed privilege and immediate and solemn duty to present his body to God a living sacrifice, not some part or parts of the body, but the whole body with its every member and every faculty; such an offering is “well pleasing to God” (Rom. 12:1).

As God in the Old Testament showed His pleasure in an offering by sending down fire to take it to Himself, so when the whole body is offered to God, He still sends down the fire of the Holy Ghost and takes to Himself what is thus presented. The moment this is done, the believer so far as the will, the governing purpose of his life, the center of his being, is concerned, is wholly God’s or perfectly sanctified. He may and will daily discover as he studies the Word of God and is illumined by the Holy Spirit acts of his, habits of life, forms of feeling, speech and action that are not in conformity with this central purpose of his life. These when discovered must be immediately confessed to God as blameworthy and be put away and this department of his being and life brought by God’s Spirit and the indwelling Christ into conformity with God’s will as revealed in His Word.

The victory in this newly discovered and unclaimed territory can be instantaneous. For example, I may discover in myself an irritability of temper that is manifestly displeasing to God and confess it, renounce it and instantly, not by my own strength but by looking to Jesus and claiming his patience and goodness, overcome it and never have another failure in that direction, and so with everything in my life I am brought to see is displeasing to God.

Of course, that is not at all inconsistent with the thought that there is a progressive work of sanctification, an increasing in love, an abounding more and more in a godly walk, and in pleasing God, a growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and begin transformed into the image of our Lord Jesus from glory unto glory (1 Thess. 3:12; 4:1, 10 R.V.; 2 Peter 3:18 R.V.; 2 Cor. 3:18 R.V.; Eph. 4:11-15). Complete sanctification in the fullest sense of the word, when the whole spirit, soul and body is preserved entire without blame, is something to be sought in prayer, to be accomplished by God in the future, fully perfected at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23 R.V.; 3:12, 13).

Does Revelation 20:15, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire”, indicate a second probation?

There is not the slightest implication of a second probation in this verse. It simply teaches that at the Judgment of the Great White Throne which is at the end of the thousand years, when the rest of the dead, those who did not have part in the first resurrection, are raised, if any one of those raised at that time were not found written in the Book of Life he was cast into the lake of fire. It does not say that any were found written in the Book of Life, but even if it did imply that some were found written in the Book of Life it would not imply a second probation, for there is to be death during the Millenium and those who die during the Millenium they will be judged at the Great White Throne. There is not the slightest suggestion here that any who had died unbelievers afterwards repented and thus were written in the Book of Life.

Originally from, The King’s Business, “Questions and Answers” by R.A. Torrey
December, 1913, pp. 600-601

He is Risen!

By Matt Jenson
Scriptorium Daily

Christ is risen! This is the day for which we’ve been waiting these long Lenten weeks. We have been fasting and praying and lamenting, thinking so much – many of us would say far too much – about our sin and suffering and death. We entered into Lent with a certain somber joy, but that often lapsed into boredom or depression or at least the desire to say the word “Alleluia.” Well now we can say it: Alleluia! Christ is risen! The night is over, and a new day has dawned. Salvation has come. As Isaiah the prophet said, “It will be said on that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us. This is the Lord for whom we have waited; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.” (25:9)

No one expected the resurrection of Jesus. That’s not to say that resurrection was a new idea. Jews expected and believed in a final resurrection, but it was a general resurrection, a resurrection of all at the last day. The idea that one person would be resurrected in the middle of history was simply unthinkable and, therefore, unthought of. Resurrection belongs to the end of things, not the middle, and it concerns all people, not just one particular person. But here’s the marvelous thing: God has brought the end into the middle; he has carved his glorious future into the present by raising Jesus from the dead. Christ’s resurrection represents the beginning of the fruitful harvest of salvation, which is why he can tell Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life!” Jesus’ resurrection is both the beginning and the pattern of our resurrection, of the Father’s final raising of us to new life in Christ in the power of his life-giving Spirit. Alleluia! Christ is risen!

There’s another reason no one expected Jesus to be raised from the dead. It’s because the whole idea of a resurrection is crazy. It is an impossible, unimaginable miracle, a creating new life out of nothing, something just as new as God’s creating the world out of nothing. There’s no potential in a dead body. Only by the miraculous power of God does that body receive new life. And so, as Marguerite Shuster puts it, “the resurrection lifts the world and all our preconceptions of the possible off their hinges.” The resurrection of Jesus is an impossible thing which can only be embraced as the answer to all our questions. So amazing is this wonderful miracle that, as Karl Barth writes, “Our reason pants for breath when it attempts to follow what the Scriptures say.” Alleluia! Christ is risen!

A crucified Jesus alone is a stirring image of self-sacrificial love, maybe something that would inspire many. But when the crucified one is raised from the dead, we see the death of death, the stripping of sin’s power. All of a sudden, the rest makes beautiful sense. By entering in to the depths of human misery and the consequences of sin – that is, by willingly going to his own death – Jesus defeated the very death which seemed to have beaten him. Death was not big enough to hold him. He burst its bonds. In fact, in his death, Christ swallowed up death forever. It was entirely fitting that God would save us by taking on himself the horrible consequences of our sinning, by dying a shameful, humiliating death. This death was not meaningless, was not contrary to God’s goodness and his love, something we see when the Father stamps his approval on the Son by vindicating him, by raising him from the dead to new life and a place of glorious exaltation at the Father’s right hand.

All that is left now is for us to rejoice, to live in freedom, in gratitude, and in worship of the one who raised Jesus from the dead, the one who will raise us on that last day to new life, the one who will wipe away all our tears and take away the disgrace of his people from the earth. Listen to these words from an Easter sermon by St. John Chrysostom:

Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God? Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival! Is there anyone who is a grateful servant? Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting? Let them now receive their wages! If any have toiled from the first hour, let them receive their due reward; If any have come after the third hour, let her with gratitude join in the Feast! And he that arrived after the sixth hour, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. And if any delayed until the ninth hour, let her not hesitate; but let her come too. And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that toiled from the first. To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows. He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor. The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord! First and last alike receive your reward; rich and poor, rejoice together! Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not, rejoice today for the Table is richly laden! Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one. Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, “You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated! Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down! Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen.

Holy Days

By Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog

Topic: Church Year

This is a joint statement on holy days, approved by the sessions of Christ Church and Trinity Reformed Church here in Moscow.

We believe that the people of God have been freed from all bondage to observing days, weeks, months, seasons or years (Gal. 4:9-11, Col. 2:16). Those Old Testament laws were shadows of Christ who has come (Col. 2:17). And when Christ died we died with Him, and when He was raised and ascended into heaven, we were raised and seated with Him in the heavenly places (Col. 3:1, Eph. 2). This means that together with Christ, the saints are the rulers of time and space. We have all been established in Him as lords of the Sabbath, to rule time according to the wisdom of the Spirit (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 4:6-7). We are not under days, but now the days are under us. And therefore we confess that all celebration of days is voluntary, freely offered, and no one may judge or be judged on this basis (Rom. 14:5-6, Col. 2:16).

It is in this spirit of freedom and victory that we gladly encourage the celebration of the historic church calendar as a glorious testimony of the victory and rule of Christ over time. Rightly understood, His life celebrated and remembered in our days and weeks and months is a continuation of the triumph of Christ over the principalities and powers. He made a public spectacle of them and triumphed over them, and our memorials in time are meant to continue to walk in Him in the power of the Spirit. We recognize the Lord’s Day as the chief glory of these privileges and gifts; it is the Old Testament Sabbath raised from the dead, transfigured, glorified, and grown up into maturity. It is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, our weekly Easter, and the only feast day which must be honored and kept (1 Cor. 5:8).

It is in the spirit of Easter joy that we recognize the wisdom of our Fathers who wanted to put memorials of Christ everywhere (Dt. 6:5-9) so that we might rejoice and give thanks always (Phil. 4:4, Eph. 5:20). Because we want to walk in thankfulness and gratitude, we want to mark our time with regular reminders of God’s goodness and grace in particular events. For this reason, our congregations recognize and commemorate the five evangelical feast days (Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost) as the principal feasts of the church calendar which highlight specific events in the story of Christ which we want to give thanks for and meditate on. We also recognize that the various seasons of the historic calendar are useful for instruction, correction, and training in righteousness as they reflect on many other themes found throughout Scripture.

While commending the general principles of having our lives shaped by the story of Jesus, we nevertheless recognize that this gift has in the past been turned into a bludgeon with which to abuse the flock of God. We stand gratefully in the Reformation tradition which courageously freed the saints of God from those enslaving regulations related to saint days, penitential seasons, and superstitious fasting. In so far as various practices and laws had become obligatory apart from scriptural warrant, or were used to enforce unbiblical understandings of grace, salvation, and forgiveness, or became stumbling blocks for the faithful, we condemn such abuses and warn our people to likewise remember these lessons from the history of the church.

Finally, while we recognize the importance of prayer, almsgiving, and fasting in the lives of all followers of Jesus, we believe that sinners have particular tendencies to turn these gifts into pits to fall into (Mt. 6:1-18). Various forms of fasting and observance of days can have an appearance of wisdom, but it is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col. 2:23). The true fast that God has commanded is to loose the bonds of wickedness and to let the oppressed go free, to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked (Is. 58:5-8). In order to keep the fast faithfully, the warnings of Christ specifically related to hypocrisy in prayer, almsgiving, and fasting must be thoughtfully and consistently applied to practice (Mt. 6:1-18). Nor may believers grieve one another by eating or not eating, celebrating or not celebrating, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:15-17). Therefore we exhort our people to flee all idolatry, and hold fast to Christ who is the substance, the point of all of it. We further exhort our people that if they are going to celebrate certain days and seasons to do so as kings, free nobility, cultivating joyful and thankful celebrations with generosity and open-handedness towards neighbors, friends, and all those in need. And particularly with regard to seasons like Advent and Lent, we commit ourselves to cultivating godly and joyful repentance that is built on the bedrock of Christ’s finished work on our behalf (2 Cor. 7:9-10), and which consistently overflows in joy. We encourage families to use these and all other days and seasons as opportunities for serving those in need, memorizing Scripture, singing Psalms, and giving themselves to and for one another in love.

Co-Everything

By Fred Sanders
Scriptorium Daily

When Paul wants to describe salvation, he tells what happened to Jesus, and then annexes believers to that. We died with Christ, were raised with Christ, and are alive together in Christ.

Paul even found the shortest possible way of making this point: By taking the main verbs of the story of Jesus and putting a “with” prefix on them. We are co-crucified, co-raised, co-seated in Christ in a place above all earthly powers.

In Ephesians 1:20-21, Paul says that God displayed his great power “in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” Then in Ephesians 2:5-6, Paul takes those same actions –raising, seating– and adds the co- prefix to them (actually it’s syn- in Greek). “When we were dead in our transgressions, he made us alive together with Christ” (that is, he co-enlivened us, syn-ezoopoiesen, with Christ) and raised us up with him (that is, co-raised us, syn-egeiren) and seated us with him (that is, he co-seated us, syn-ekathisen) in the heavenly places.

Elsewhere, using the same constructions, Paul says he is co-crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:21), and that we are co-inheritors with Christ (Rom. 8:17).

Salvation is what God did in Christ, and believers co-that. Co-all of that.

The verbs of Jesus and the prefix that annexes your fate to his: The good news. “By God’s doing we are in Christ, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

The Battle for Accuracy: Revised v. Authorized Version

R. A. Torrey
Scriptorium Daily

Question: Which is the more accurate translation of 2 Timothy 3:16, that of the Authorized Version, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” or that of the Revised Version, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness”?

Answer: The translation found in the Authorized Version, on the one vital point, is far more accurate. In fact, the translation of the Revised Version at this vital point is so inaccurate and unwarranted by anything in the Greek text as to be impossible. In the Greek text, as is often the case in Greek, there is no “is,” so in translating into English the “is” must be supplied. The question then arises, shall we supply this “is” before the first of two adjectives coupled together by the most frequently occurring copulative conjunction “and” (which is the ordinary and well-nigh universal translation of it); or shall we tear apart these two adjectives (which are so closely united in the Greek text by this little copulative conjunction) and insert the supplied “is” in between them, as is done in the Revised Version, and translate the little copulative conjunction by “also,” which is a possible translation but comparatively a very rare translation? To ask this question would almost seem to be to answer it.

Of course, we should supply the “is” in the ordinary place, which is a well-known construction, and not between the two adjectives, which is an absolutely unknown construction and of which there is not a single other case in the whole New Testament. The Greek text translated with absolute literalness would read: “All Scripture God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof (or conviction), for correction, for instruction which (is) in righteousness.” Now to complete the sense in English an “is” must be supplied, where shall we put it in?

There is but one place to put it in, before the first adjective, as is done in every other place where this construction appears, and not between the two adjectives, which is not done anywhere else. Not only is the construction absolutely decisive against the Revised Version, but furthermore the sense is against it. The translation of the Authorized Version is full of significance, that of the Revised Version is flat, vapid, and silly. To say that all that which Timothy knew by the name “scripture” is God-breathed, and profitable for, etc., is a statement full of vigor and significance; but to say that the scripture which can be proven to be God-breathed would also be found to be profitable, is altogether flat and unnecessary, and altogether unlike Paul, or any other vigorous writer.

So, even if the Greek text would bear the translation of the Revised Version as well as it would that of the Authorized Version, common sense and literary discrimination and a decent sense of the proprieties, ought to have kept the Revisers from the folly to which they have committed themselves in this wild and fantastic translation. It is no wonder that some of the most scholarly and well-balanced of the Revision Committee publicly disclaimed any responsibility for this egregiously gross mistranslation. It is a striking illustration of the lengths to which the exigencies of a theory will drive even scholarly interpreters of the Bible.

As a rule the Revised Version is a more accurate translation of the original than the Authorized, but this is a very noticeable exception to the rule. This unfortunate rendering has probably done more to discredit the Revised Version than anything else in it. This is very unfortunate; for everyone who desires to know exactly what God has said in His word should study the Revised Version, especially the American Standard Version. Even in the verse before us it will be seen from the literal translation which I have given above, that in some places the Revised Version has translated the Greek more exactly than the Authorized Version, and in the next verse (2 Timothy 3:17) the Revised Version is very much to be preferred to that of the Authorized Version.

Originally from, The King’s Business, By R.A. Torrey, October 1913, pp. 493, 498

The Tolerance Bargain

By Gregory Koukl
Stand to Reason

Do you realize that there are a lot of Christians in this country who, though they love Jesus, they do not see the world through God’s eyes? They should see reality as it is in itself with God as sovereign and the rest of the universe as part of His dominion. This understanding then begins to inform how one views everything in life, whether its politics, economics, law, anthropology, recreation, etc. All of these things ought to be informed by reality, i.e., the truth. Reality is accurately described in the Scriptures because God is telling us what the world is actually like. If we are careful to understand that revelation properly, then we will know what the world is actually like, we will begin to make sense out of things, and live in all areas of life informed by a Christian worldview.

I read an article recently by T.M. Moore titled “From Worldview Programs to Kingdom Movement.” It mentioned that leaders of a movement need to be crystal clear as to what they are trying to overthrow. They must identify their enemy.

Some of you might be thinking that the enemy is those people who disagree with us. You’d be wrong. You might be thinking the enemy is the devil. Well, he is an enemy. There’s no question about that. But I think the enemy, the focus of our efforts, is what the devil is trying to do to change people’s minds so that they believe a lie rather than the truth.

The evil that we are seeking to overturn can be summarized by the words “the lie.” Paul talks about it in Romans 1:21-25. They believed the lie rather than the truth. People suppressed the truth they should have been following and instead believed a lie. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Following that in Romans is an explicit statement against homosexuality and lesbianism, and a whole rogue’s gallery of vice listed there at the end of Chapter 1 of Romans. All of these come from believing the lie.

What is the truth that the lie denies? The truth is that God is king and sovereign over all His domain, which is everything and everyone, because He created everything and everyone, and therefore, all is His.

The lie says that we are our own. We belong to no one. We are masters of our own fate. We are captains of our own soul. Get out of my way. Don’t cramp my style. And when this lie is believed, what follows is the denial of this central truth that God is king and sovereign.

T.M. Moore goes on to say that the lie itself develops into a worldview where truth is relative and pragmatic. Ethics are utilitarian. The cosmos is an accident. Life is a fleeting and meaningless journey into oblivion. The lie becomes a worldview where man is a product of evolution and the principle concern of man is man. Spiritual concerns are merely private. Christianity is a pliable, changeable thing. Christ is one option among many as a way to eternal life. You see, friends, all those things that follow from believing the lie are contrary views to Christianity.

King and sovereign is just another way of saying king-dom. What’s a kingdom? What does it take to have a kingdom? You need a king and a “dom” or domain. The overarching theme of Scripture is kingdom, God as king over that which is His. He is the ruler, and the foundation of rebellion is a rejection of God’s rulership.

The word relativism might come to mind as the ploy to justify the rebellion. This is one reason why Frank Beckwith and I wrote a book entitled Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Midair. Relativism is the single most powerful ideology against the truth, the single most powerful supporter of the lie. Del Tackett from Focus on the Family said, “Relativism is a silly mind game that we play because it allows us to get our own way.” And this leads to what Tackett calls the “unholy covenant of tolerance.” I’ve written about tolerance in the Relativism book and in articles on tolerance on our STR website, most notably one called “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” But Tackett has identified in a clever way what I spend the article demonstrating. He says, “Our unholy covenant of tolerance amounts to this. It’s an agreement we have with each other. I won’t tell you what you’re doing is wrong as long as you won’t tell me that what I’m doing is wrong. We agree, in this unholy covenant of tolerance, to let everybody do what they want to do.”

What happens when a Christian is faced with this unspoken but very real covenant in our culture? If you’re a follower of Christ, you break that covenant. But once you do, you’re going to get the heat from the culture.

Keep in mind this is a one-way covenant. It’s only honored between relativists. That is, they only tolerate other relativists. They will not tolerate anyone else, which demonstrates how shallow their commitment to tolerance genuinely is. If you don’t keep the covenant, we’re going to injure you and do everything they can to keep you from saying what they’re doing is wrong.

Relativism is really at the heart of postmodernism, which is an attack on truth, and any attack on truth is an attack on the character of God. So I think we, as followers of Christ have a singular task to defeat the lie. Notice I didn’t say to get people saved, because if we think we’ve helped people getting them saved, but they do not bring their lives under the rulership of God, then we are fooling ourselves at having the kind of impact that God wants us to have. We are to make disciples, not only believers. And the fact is, most Christians still believe the lie because their lives are more informed by an ethic that is contrary to Christ rather than one that is consistent with the way Christ saw the world.

Now my question for you is: What are you doing in your life and with your life that is combating the lie? What will you do to oppose the lie? Unless you oppose the lie that God is not king and sovereign, then you’re not making much of an impact for God’s kingdom. The way to sharpen your sword and focus your impact is to go fight the battle where the battle is being fought. And right now the culture where the lie has taken hold is where that is.

My commitment and pledge to you is that Stand to Reason will continue to produce materials to help you defeat the lie wherever you encounter it. And I’m asking for your partnership to do what you can do wherever God places your feet and with whomever He’s placed in front of you. Take what you’ve learned from STR and others, and graciously and incisively, as an ambassador of Christ, go after the lie. Go after anything that denies that God is sovereign over all of His domain, which is everything and everyone.

Love, Sex & Mammon

By Russell D. Moore
Touchstone Magazine

Hard Times, Hard Truths & the Economics of the Christian Family

We are not, we pray, on the verge of another Great Depression. Still, we see signs of economic failure all around us. Stores in the strip malls we drive past every day advertise “going out of business” sales. Those of us who are pastors know church members who have lost jobs, and we weekly see the faces of others who fear that the next pink slip belongs to them.

Some Christians, on the Left and on the Right, would tell us that economic matters are of paramount concern right now. They would assert that we’ve no time for the “luxury” of “culture war” discussions about “abstinence” or divorce or “gender roles” or other such matters. Instead, they tell us, we should concentrate on tax cuts or economic stimulus projects or Wall Street bailouts or home ownership.

They’re wrong.

They’re wrong not only because the family is, ultimately, more important than the marketplace, but also because the two are interconnected. They’re wrong also because, as Marxists and hyper-capitalists both correctly grasp (though wrongly apply), man as an economic being cannot be abstracted from other aspects of life.

A time of economic crisis is, therefore, a time for the Church to reconsider—and re-imagine—her priorities. The first step is to recognize that one of the roots of the family crisis all around us—in the pews we sit in or preach to every week—is the wallet in our own back pocket.

Consuming Ourselves to Death

It is no accident, after all, that our Ancient Foe first appears in Holy Scripture as a snake—imagery that follows the devil all through the canon to the closing vision of the Revelation to St. John. As philosopher Leon Kass puts it, “For the serpent is a mobile digestive tract that swallows its prey whole; in this sense the serpent stands for pure appetite.” Indeed he does—and the whole of Scripture and of Christian tradition warns the Church against the way of the appetites, the way of consuming oneself to death.

We are commanded away from the path of Esau, who sells his inheritance for a pile of red stew (Heb. 12:16–17). We’re directed away from the god of the belly (Phil. 3:19). From the Tree in the garden to the wilderness beyond the Jordan to the present hour, the people of God are tempted to turn their digestive or reproductive tracts away from the mystery of Christ and toward the self as god.

This is true in any era, but there is a special danger, it seems, for those of us living in an era of unparalleled affluence. We have become the people Jesus warned us about. Whether Irish Catholics or Appalachian Baptists or Armenian Orthodox, too many of us want desperately to distance ourselves from our blue-collar, economically impoverished roots, and more and more wish to be seen as affluent, upwardly mobile, and politically influential. But this has come with a cost.

Too many of our churches, too many of us, have made peace with the sexual revolution and the familial chaos left in its wake precisely because we made peace, long before, with the love of money. We wish to live with the same standard of living as the culture around us (there is no sin in that), but we are willing to get there by any means necessary.

Why does the seemingly godly church member in one of our congregations or parishes drive his pregnant teenage daughter to the nearest city under cover of darkness to obtain an abortion? Because, no matter how much he “votes his values,” when crisis hits, he wants his daughter to have a “normal” life. He is “pro-life,” with, as one feminist leader put it, three exceptions: rape, incest, and my situation.

Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can “afford” it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship.

Why do our pastors and church leaders speak bluntly about homosexuality but not about divorce? Because, in many cases, they know the faces of the divorced people in the pews before them—and they fear losing the membership statistics or the revenue those faces represent.

Why do we speak endlessly about marital communication and “love languages” but never address the question of whether institutionalized day care is good for children, or for their parents? It’s because pastors know that couples would reply that they could never afford to live on the provision of the husband alone. And they’re almost always right—if living means living in the neighborhoods in which they now live with the technologies they now have. Why do we never ask whether it might be better to live in a one-bedroom apartment or a trailer park than to outsource the rearing of one’s children? It’s because the American way of life seems so normal to us that such things do not even seem to be options at all.

More Than Acquisition

Perhaps it’s time to ask whether Ralph Nader (yes, that Ralph Nader) is right that television advertising is a threat to the family order, since “corporations have decided that kids under twelve are a lucrative market, and they sell directly to them, subverting parental authority.” Could it be that Ronald McDonald and digitalized talking “Christian” vegetable cartoons are as erosive of the family as the cultural rot we are accustomed to denouncing? Could it be that the consumer culture we mimic in our own churches and denominational programs is, in reality, just as hedonistic as a truck-stop peep show?

Perhaps the economic crisis is momentary. Perhaps jobs will return more quickly than we assume, foreclosures will stall, investment portfolios will bounce back. We hope so. A time of economic shaking, however, offers the Church the opportunity to call us away from captivity to the appetites, to reconsider some of our hidden assumptions.

Maybe it will teach us to teach our people to live within their means, to stand by their words, to love their families, and to be content with lives of godliness and dignity. As extended families come together, as churches band together to care for those “reduced in force” from their jobs, perhaps we’ll be forced to abandon the illusions of ourselves as self-contained units of production and consumption.

Perhaps we’ll see that life is about more than acquisition—acquisition of possessions or orgasms or acclaim. Perhaps these times will cause us, like our Lord Jesus in his wilderness temptations, to turn away from momentary satisfaction—whether of our consumer or sexual “needs”—and toward the more permanent things.

Gerhard Tersteegen (1697-1769), Pietist

By Fred Sanders
Scriptorium Daily

Somehow, the words “pious” and “pietism” have been turned into dirty words in contemporary usage. I don’t know how that happened to perfectly good words. Maybe where you live, you are suffocating in a Christian culture that is marked by otherworldliness. Maybe you’re surrounded by people who are so detached from the values system of a sick and dying culture that they seem out of touch with current events and the contemporary mind. Maybe the greatest threat to the church in our day is that Christians are spending so much time in prayer and communion with God that they don’t have enough time to acquaint themselves with the latest fascinations and entertainments. I keep hearing warnings to that effect, but I can’t remember the last time I met somebody “so heavenly-minded they were no earthly good.”

As for pietism, it seems to me that it has been a force for renewal in the life of the church for centuries. Even after the passing of the golden age of the Pietist Movement, the modes of spirituality it introduced have continued to feed christian devotion, action, and reflection across a broad range of traditions. I think the abiding promise of Pietism can be seen in three strengths of the movement which are especially applicable to contemporary evangelical Christianity:

1. Individual Application of Scripture,
2. Spiritual Diligence, and
3. Humility

These things are what Pietism was classically all about, and could be illustrated with reference to almost any major Pietist figure, but the figure who best exemplifies the harmony of all three elements is Gerhard Tersteegen (born 1697, died April 3, 1769).

Individual Application of Scripture

The Pietist ability to bring the power of the Bible to bear on the particular situation of the individual person presupposes that Pietism has a high estimate of Scripture. Historian of Pietism Ernest Stoeffler rightly lists an emphasis on the Bible as one of the four marks of Evangelical Pietism. But the Pietist emphasis on Scripture must be distinguished from the way other groups used the Bible. The genius of the Pietist use of Scripture lay in its application to individuals. Tersteegen exemplifies this tendency in his sermons, when he takes up a biblical theme and shows its meaning for the listener. His sermon on “The Out-Pouring of the Holy Ghost for instance, traces three special manifestations of God: first on Sinai, second at pentecost, and finally at the last judgement. The Sinai appearance, the giving of the law, is binding on all people, as will be the final judgement. Tersteegen exhorts his hearers, in between these two events, to experience “the second Pentecost,” the coming of the Holy Spirit into the believer’s life for sanctification. In this way, Tersteegen sketches out a large perspective on biblical history, and situates the individual within it, showing how God’s historical covenants impinge on present-day life. He goes on to describe in detail how to prepare for this Day of Pentecost; we are to “give place to the first motions of the Holy Spirit,” and yet “not stop short at these first motions, but continually advance further.”

The application of Scripture to individual circumstances, however, is best seen in the letters of spiritual counsel, the voluminous correspondence which Tersteegen maintained with so many people throughout his life. Any one of these letters could be cited to show Tersteegen’s pastoral insight into the complexities of God’s dealings with souls in personal histories. The Pietist attention to the responsibilities of the pastor, and the idiosyncratic reception of grace by each individual heart, comes out very clearly here.

This Pietist distinctive can, when it degenerates, turn into a psychologizing obsession with negotiating the steps in a spiritual process. When this happens, a complex and rigid series of spiritual crises and plateaus are diagrammed, and the spiritual progress of each person is measured against their place in the elaborate ordo salutis. This leads to all sorts of problems within congregations, including the perception that some members are “second-rate” while others are “true saints,” and the forming of spiritual class distinctions.

Tersteegen, like other good Pietist pastors, refused to carry out his work in this way. As he warns,

I have always believed it impossible to draw up any general system of the particular leadings of God, as one might write up the description of a journey. When enlightened souls have written about it, they have generally described their own particular way, for which one can glorify God, but to which one should not conform too rigidly. We must let the spirit of grace have a free hand in us and others.

Thus Tersteegen exemplifies the Pietist use of Scripture; applying it to the lives of individuals, but avoiding its pitfalls by refusing to define a system of psychologized spiritual growth.

Spiritual Diligence

Pietists tend to work hard, both in their outward and inward pursuits. There is room here for the question, which is the cause and which is the effect? That is, are industrious personalities attracted to Pietism, or does Pietism make people industrious? Whichever is the case (and it is probably a combination of both), there is certainly a correlation of some sort between the two. This diligence in all things springs from the awareness that all of life must be lived unto God, and that the claims of Christ on the life of the Christian are total. Tersteegen emphasizes this in his sermon “The Believer, The Temple of the Holy Ghost,” in the section where he describes “The Great Obligation of a True Christian” as contained in the words, “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price.” It is because Christ has a claim to all parts of the human person, body and soul, that the Christian must employ all his energies to no other end than to glorify God. The powers of the intellect belong to Christ, and thus, Tersteegen says, “I must employ my understanding in contemplating God as present.” The mind cannot be allowed to wander or to dwell on vain thoughts.

Tersteegen, whose labors in study, ministry, and medicine are described at length by his biographer Frances Bevan, worked very hard in his spiritual life. In “The Out-Pouring of the Holy Ghost,” he describes how the soul awaiting Pentecost should prepare by “giving place to the first motions of the Holy Spirit.” In sentence after sentence, he hammers home the need for diligence in this task, apparently bent on excluding all notions of quietistic waiting:

…we must not lightly pass over it and think that all this in due time will come of itself; we will wait for it until we have experienced the pentecostal day; we will then be more fit for such virtuous exercises. No, my dearest friend! We must strive, particularly at the commencement, to co-operate with the divine assistance. …we must not lay our hands in our lap, but faithfully, and as far as we are able, co-operate with the grace which prevents us and seeks to carry into effect the divine requirements.

Pietism is synonymous with diligence in devotion; prayer and Bible Study must be pursued alone and in fellowship with other believers.

In the best Pietists, there is no possibility of confusing this spiritual assiduousness with justification by works. Tersteegen is so good at eliminating any such notion from his spirituality that he is often accused of exactly the opposite error; quietism. The charge of quietism is scarcely credible in the case of Tersteegen. The reason some critics would think to accuse him of it can be traced to the many passages in which he describes divinely-given moments of grace. When God in his own timing grants such an experience, he brings about in an instant what no human effort could ever produce. So powerful, healing, and redemptive are these moments for Tersteegen, that he develops a kind of spirituality of patient waiting: “We must stand at the door of God’s grace and wait until we have received what we ask for,” because “such a moment sufficiently repays and rewards a hundred years of waiting.” Tersteegen’s hard work in the spiritual life amounts to patient, active waiting and preparation for the work of God, and thus he guards against any idea that his work merits him anything.

Humility

Closely connected to this understanding of the relationship between our work and God’s work is the Pietist emphasis on humility. It is amazing how consistently the theme of humility runs through Pietist literature, from the first to the last. There are several reasons for this, but chief among them must be that everyone involved has sensed the same truth: Pietism without humility is pure poison. Because Pietists are committed to the pursuit of a very high standard of practical holiness, and work hard to attain it, the temptation to spiritual pride is ever present. The quest for completeness, or perfection, in the Christian life, which Ernest Stoeffler called Pietism’s “religious idealism,” simply must be tempered by profound heart humility if it is not to become the foundation for boasting about spiritual accomplishments. This temptation is so close at hand that countless Pietists latched on to humility as chief among the virtues. Tersteegen is no exception; in fact he may have spoken more eloquently on the subject than any other Pietist. When he describes the observable change in character which Christians can experience in this present life, he insures that no such saint would be able to boast about it, because any Christian who had genuinely been given the grace to make such progress has a heart which is “always deeply penetrated by the words, ‘Which ye have of God.’” In his 62nd Letter, he advises his correspondent to eschew any merely ornamental meekness, and find instead true “heart humility,” which is a safeguard against the snares of Satan, as well as the source of peace with God and with others.

In this same letter, Tersteegen pushes the virtue of humility to a rather extreme point: he offers seven pieces of advice, including the admonition to think of yourself as “topsy-turvy, poor, blind, and unfit in body and in spirit,” especially as compared with those who live with you. Further, you should “desire that they would despise, hate, and forget you…believe firmly that you deserve nothing else.” While this may be very practical advice for people living in close quarters, it is expressed in very strong language, and one can only wonder about the circumstances of the correspondent to whom it was addressed. In its self-negating harshness of formulation, it seems almost to veer toward a psychological aberration which can be observed in spiritualities that take pleasure in self-hatred for its own sake, the kind of mindset that gave rise to flagellants and other such excesses. Pietism has not always been above giving legitimation to such movements.

That Tersteegen’s humility was in no danger of becoming morbid in this way is made clear by the fact that he anchors it at all times to an awareness of the majesty of God. Thus it is not for the sake of self-negation as an end in itself that Tersteegen describes the radical casting-down into the dust of the human soul; it is for the sake of acknowledging the glory of God. When the soul is in such a state, there is no misery or pity, but an all-consuming awareness of God’s presence. This numinous perception is in fact one of the primary effects of the event of Pentecost: “The more the Spirit of Jesus Christ enters into the heart, the more will the world and the creature be cast down in it, by the power, as by a mighty wind.” The laying low of the self in the presence of God is the foundation of Tersteegen’s heart humility. This is far from being a psychological aberration; only a twisted, hardened soul could respond differently.

The promise of Pietism for contemporary Christian life and spirituality has been described with reference to three characteristic emphases of the movement. First, Pietism is committed to applying Scripture to the lives of individual believers. Secondly, Pietism stresses diligence in the spiritual life; and third, Pietism sees humility as one of the most important virtues. Each of these three characteristics can be, and has been, perverted and distorted by becoming overemphasized or ingrown. Tersteegen’s distinctive spirituality exerts a corrective force against any such possible imbalance. Thus Tersteegen uniquely preserves the promise of Pietism, highlighting its strengths and disabling its weaknesses.

On America, Land of Cults

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

An American cult is what happens when radical individualism meets religion and philosophy.

A cult becomes cut off from the mainstream of traditional religion and the global community of faith. It begins to converse only with self. This dangerous isolation is an important topic, as American religious communities such as the Episcopal Church drift in this direction. Mainstream global Christians do not delight in this drift as they recognize the temptations of the cult all too well from their own temptations to isolation.

Extreme stories litter the paper every day that show the consequences of isolation. Cults begin to delight in their edgy behaviors and to call what the rest of the world calls “wrong” something good.

Why is America a particular breeding ground for cults?

The root is in a misapplication of good American ideas.

Americans rightly rejoice in their heritage of legal and political equality, but the usefulness of an idea can have limits. Positive political ideas can be toxic when misapplied to other areas. Treating the ideas of individuals equally is excellent for society in the voting booth, but not so good in the laboratory or the parish.

Liberty is a very good thing, but so is excellence, and there is noteworthy tension between these two goods. American society mostly has done a good job allowing for moral excellence, virtue, while being cautious about imposing too much virtue on dissenters.

There is much to fear when culture gets the balance wrong. Liberty can always devolve into the merely libertine while excellence can become the tyranny of the experts. Humane society cannot survive either extreme for long.

Traditional Christianity asserts the importance of both liberty and excellence. Christianity asserts the essential freedom of human to choose his path. God Himself let Adam and Eve choose and face the consequences of that choice. Christianity also asserts that while human beings are created equally in the image of God, all human ideas are not equal. Some ideas are true and some are false.

No king, rich man, or mob can decide what is true, good, and beautiful.

A cult gets the proper tension wrong in two ways. First, in its relationship to the outside world it is radically autonomous, defying dialogue with the broader community in the name of what it claims to know. Second, internally it often demands a rigid suppression of thought and dissent in the name of community standards.

This is dangerous, because religion, like any field of knowledge, is powerful, complex, and fraught with peril for small communities. Cults have at least two characteristics that make them likely to go bad: they refuse to defend their beliefs using reason and they never or rarely change their minds based on external ideas.

All of us are tempted to talk only to a small group of like-minded folk, but, as recent revelations about left-of-center media lists reveal, such conversations become dull and predictable. Fringe members of the community begin to press the envelope and if the community is not careful then dangerous ideas can be “mainstreamed” in the small group.

Too little dissent can create a groupthink that slowly allows genuinely frightening ideas to gradually gain credence. The lazy tolerance for anti-Semitism that manifests itself in certain leftist web sites is one example of how otherwise sane groups can be hijacked by too much conformity.

Much of the “new” atheism presently suffers from the perils of this intellectual inbreeding. Of course, traditional Christians can give this warning, because they have bitter experience of these dangers.

There is another danger in talking about “cults” for more mainstream religious and non-religious people. We can misuse the term by applying it to any person with strong religious beliefs, especially if they are in the minority. If cults are in danger of close-mindedness, some Americans avoid this error by going to the opposite extreme. They associate any strongly held religious opinions with close-mindedness or cultic behavior.

This is a dangerous mistake that can cut off valuable conversations.

For example, while most reasonable Americans believe in God, it would wrong to say that all strong-minded atheists are in a secular cult. A few extreme secularists may fall into the “cult trap,” as the founders of the American Atheist organization did, but their failure is not because they have unpopular views or express them forcefully.

Cult members are very opinionated, but that does not mean every religiously opinionated person is part of a cult. Thinking you are right is normal, having disdain for everyone who disagrees with you is cult-like. My own strong religious views have benefited by being tested by reading scholars who disagree with me, ranging from Pope Benedict XVI to Michael Ruse. Both the Pope and Ruse hold their views strongly, but reasonably, and are not isolated from a global conversation.

Overuse of the term “cult” in the public square sometimes substitutes for actual arguments with thoughtful dissenting groups. As a traditional Christian I have serious theological disagreements with my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), but it is wrong to label them a cult.* Any quick search will show LDS are willing to defend their views using arguments accessible to non-LDS. These arguments have changed under pressure from counter-arguments from non-LDS scholars and improved. I am not persuaded, to say the least, by these arguments, but LDS willingness to produce careful and responsive scholarship is a nearly infallible sign that they are no cult.

America has long operated with hazy, but generally Christian, moral consensus. America has typically tried to provide maximum liberty to those who dissent in a way that is consistent with social order. For example, the government would not allow polygamous marriages, but would tolerate some types of religious dissent from forced government schooling.

Hopefully, if this consensus changes over time, the tension between religious liberty and social order will be maintained and continue to tip ever so slightly in favor of dissenting views. Today’s cult, after all, might be tomorrow’s received wisdom. The humility to recognize that this is true is also an important part of a good and reasonable society.

*The word “cult” has popular, technical philosophic and theological uses. Some technical theological uses of the word “cult” might apply to LDS, but I am speaking of the use of the term in newspapers like the Washington Post.