Friday, December 30, 2011

New Year's Resolution

I am not a big fan of New Year's resolutions in general, but those of you who know me know that I am a big fan of Jonathan Edwards. Trevin Wax of Kingdom People adapted a New Year's prayer  from Jonathan Edwards' resolutions (the first 21). (Thanks to Stand to Reason for pointing it out.) Enjoy:





Lord God Almighty,
I understand that I am unable to do anything without your help,
so I ask you to enable me by your grace to fulfill your will.

Give me grace to do whatever brings most glory and honor to you,
pleasure and profit to me,
and life and love to others.

Help me to number my days,
spending my time wisely,
living my life with all my might while I still have breath.

Humble me in the knowledge that I am chief of sinners;
when I hear of the sins of others,
help me to not look upon them with pride,
but to look upon myself with shame,
confessing my own sins to you.

When I go through difficulties and trials,
remind me of the pains of hell
from which you have already delivered me.

Place people in my path who need my help,
and give me a compassionate and generous spirit.

Fill my heart with such love
that I would never do anything out of a spirit of revenge,
nor lose my temper with those around me.
Hold my tongue when I am tempted to speak evil of others.

Thank you for the gospel and for the hope of glory.
Help me to live in light of these truths every day of my life,
so that when the time of my death arrives,
I will rest assuredly in you,
and you will be most glorified in me.

In Christ’s name...

By His Grace,
Taylor

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas!

Thank you, God, for being born,
You who first invented birth
(Universe, galaxies, the earth).
When your world was tired and worn
You came laughing on the morn.

Thank you, most amazing Word
For your silence in the womb
Where there was so little room
Yet the still small voice was heard
Throughout a planet dark & blurred.

Merry Christmas! Wondrous Day!
Maker of the universe,
You the end, & you the source
Come to share in human clay
And, yourself, to show the Way.
~ Madeleine L’Engle, Most Amazing Word

Merry Christmas! What we have been anticipating in Advent has finally arrived. Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus. The greatest King born in the humblest of circumstances. Christ did not come with an army, though He could have. He did not take over Herod's kingdom, though He could have. He did not replace Caesar Augustus, though He could have. He was not even born into a wealthy family. He chose an insignificant girl to be His mother. He chose an insignificant man to be His earthly "step-father". He was born next to barn animals. The greatest King born in the humblest of circumstances.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

That God would take on human flesh defies all logic. That He would take on human flesh in the lowliest of circumstances is even more incredible. Yet He did so that we could know the joy of being in relationship with Him. Merry Christmas!

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 19, 2011

The Fourth Sunday of Advent

"The astounding truth is that in Jesus Christ, humanity encountered God in a real, personal, historical, and tangible way." ~ Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt

Yesterday was the last Sunday in Advent. The time of anticipation is coming to an end because the celebration is near. When we truly reflect upon what we celebrate in Advent we cannot help but be astounded. Listen to the expressions of wonder from a couple of the greatest minds in Church history:
He by whom all things were made was made one of all things. The Son of God by the Father without a mother became the Son of man by a mother without a father. The Word Who is God before all time became flesh at the appointed time. The maker of the sun was made under the sun. He Who fills the world lay in a manger, great in the form of God but tiny in the form of a servant; this was in such a way that neither was His greatness diminished by His tininess, nor was His tininess overcome by His greatness. ~ Augustine, "Sermon 187"
The next thing that I would observe concerning the incarnation of Christ, is the greatness of this event. Christ’s incarnation was a greater and more wonderful thing than ever had yet come to pass. The creation of the world was a very great thing, but not so great as the incarnation of Christ. It was a great thing for God to make the creature, but not so great as the for the Creator himself to become a creature. We have spoken of many great things that were accomplished between the fall of man and the incarnation of Christ: but God becoming man was greater than all. Then the greatest person was born that ever was or ever will be. ~ Jonathan Edwards, "Of Christ's Incarnation" from A History of the Work of Redemption
Soon we will celebrate the birth of the "greatest person... born that ever was or ever will be", God "great in form... but tiny in the form of a servant." It truly is the "season to be jolly", but not because of presents, time off work, or even family celebrations. Those are good things, but they all pale in comparison to the celebration of He who made joy becoming like us so that we could experience joy in Him.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Friday, December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens has Died

"He didn't want to leave behind his rebellion against the One whom he saw as 'a celestial dictator,' and in truth, it’s literally a miracle that anyone does. Without God’s grace, none of us would see Him as He is." ~ Amy Hall, writer for Stand to Reason

When I woke up this morning and saw the news--Hitchens has died from pneumonia as a complication of his cancer--I was not sure how to really feel about it. In many respects Hitchens was a pain the neck for Christians as well as other religions. He was one of the "new atheists," an atheist evangelist, a man who made it his life's work to draw people away from belief in God. That would make it easy to hate him and to be happy when we hear about his death, but is that how we should react? Not at all.

In many ways, Hitchens and I are a lot alike. He firmly stood for what he believed; I stand for what I believe. He loved his family as best he could; I love my family as best I can. He had issues with rage; I have issues with rage. He was hated and loved by many; I am hated by many and like to think I am loved by some. His heart was rebellious against God; my heart is rebellious against God. In fact, the only substantial difference between Hitchens and I is that God replaced my heart of stone with one of flesh by His grace through faith that is not even my own, so I cannot boast (Eph. 2:8-9). We are a lot alike, Hitchens and I, and only by the grace of God is there any substantial difference. We should not be happy about his death. We should grieve that an image-bearer of God with a towering intellect was blinded by his heart-rebellion until his death. We should hope and pray that his death will be used by God to draw others to Himself and not drive them further away.

Pray... that brings up another thing that struck me this morning. I must confess that I never once, that I can remember, prayed for Hitchens. That is sad. In all the time I have spent debating his thought with people who followed him, I never once prayed for him. Hearing about his death this morning was a wake-up call. Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matt. 5:44). Hitchens was never a personal enemy, but he was an ideological enemy. Hitchens never personally persecuted me, but he did persecute Christians. And I never prayed for him. Now, I will not go the route of saying, "What might have happened if I had prayed?" because God is sovereign, even over my sinful lack of prayer. However, this does remind me that I need to be praying for his peers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.

May the death of Hitchens cause all of us who are Christians to think, "There but for the grace of God, go I." May it also wake us up to pray for others like him. What would happen in the world if God changed Dawkins' heart and he became a Christian? Do not think it far-fetched to imagine. He changed me.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 12, 2011

The Third Sunday of Advent

  "Go back eighteen centuries before that. Who could have cared about the birth of a baby while the world was watching Rome in all her splendor?... Palestine existed under the crush of Rome's heavy boot. All eyes were on Augustus, the cynical caesar who demanded a census so as to determine a measurement to enlarge taxes.... What could possibly be more important than Caesar's decision in Rome? Who cared about a Jewish baby born in Bethlehem?
  "God did. Without realizing it, mighty Augustus was only an errand boy for the fulfillment of Micah's prediction... a pawn in the hand of Jehovah... a piece of lint on the pages of prophecy. While Rome was busy making history, God arrived. He pitched His fleshly tent in silence on straw... in a stable... under a star. The world didn't even notice. Reeling from the wake of Alexander the Great... Herod the Great... Augustus the Great, the world overlooked Mary's little Lamb." ~ Charles Swindoll, Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life (43)

Yesterday the third Sunday in Advent. The Church continues the age-old tradition of celebrating Advent so that we do not make the same mistake the Romans and Jews made 2,000 years ago. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of Christmas and forget about the reason behind Christmas. There is nothing wrong with celebrations, presents, and family traditions. In fact those are good things, but it is easy to get caught up in them and forget about the good news of Christmas.

Luke 1:31-33:
"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
Luke 2:10-11:
"Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Book Review: Telling Secrets

"I not only have my secrets, I am my secrets. And you are your secrets. Our secrets are human secrets, and our trusting each other enough to share them with each other has much to do with the secret of what it is to be human."

Recently I finished a book called Telling Secrets by Fredrick Buechner. It is a kind of spiritual memoir similar to Augustine's Confessions (though not nearly as good as Augustine's work). Below is my review of the book:

In 1992 a crime drama with Robert Redford called Sneakers hit the box office. It is one of my favorite movies. There is one scene in the movie where Redford’s character, Martin Bishop, a man with many secrets, is playing a game of Scrabble with friends when it hits him that a mysterious phrase whose meaning he has been trying to ascertain is really just an anagram. He dumps all the Scrabble pieces off the board and pulls out the letters of the phrase: “setec astronomy.” He begins to arrange and rearrange, and he goes through a number of iterations. Then, in one of the watershed moments of the film, he discovers the anagram decodes to “too many secrets.” This movie is about secrets and a mathematician’s computer program that allows him to decrypt any encryption protocol so that he can read anyone’s secrets, any of the “too many secrets.”

Buechner’s book is about the many, many secrets that we all carry. He tells us about our own secrets by telling us about his. In one of the most salient statements of the whole book he says, “I not only have my secrets, I am my secrets. And you are your secrets. Our secrets are human secrets, and our trusting each other enough to share them with each other has much to do with the secret of what it is to be human.”  In the book, Buechner candidly talks about many secrets, but there are two main secrets that weave throughout this memoir—the secret of his father’s suicide when he was 10 years old and the secret of his daughter’s battle with anorexia. He turns to these secrets, particularly the secret of his father’s suicide, again and again to gain insight into who he is as an old man and what God is doing in his life.

The secret of his father’s suicide weighed especially heavy on his psyche because it was not just his secret; it was a family secret. It was not just a secret his family kept from outsiders but a secret they kept from each other. They never talked about his suicide and even avoided speaking of him. Soon, Buechner’s father was almost completely forgotten along with the secret. Buechner writes, “Our secrets are not hid from God… but they are hid from each other, and some of them we so successfully hide even from ourselves that after a while we all but forget they exist.”  The lies we tell to ourselves and others in order to cover up the secrets eventually begin to look more and more like the truth. Yet, the secrets are still there, buried far beneath the surface, and they define who we are (“I am my secrets”) in ways we cannot understand because we do not tell them. Not only do we not understand ourselves when we do not tell our secrets, but we also do not understand truly how God is shaping our lives. “[I]t is precisely through telling these stories in all their particularity… that God makes Himself known to each of us most powerfully and personally…. to lose track of our stories is to be profoundly impoverished not only humanly but spiritually.”  In this book we learn of many of Buechner’s secrets, but it is especially in the telling of the secret of his father that we see Buechner begin to understand himself and God’s work in his life.

There is one section of this book that often returns to my mind. We learn early on that Buechner is an ordained minister. As he talks about this aspect of his life, he probes deep into the affect that secrets have on the ministry of a preacher. Pastors are supposed to be a witness to the presence of God in their lives as well as in the lives of their people, he holds—“a major part of their ministry is to remind us that there is nothing more important than to pay attention to what is happening to us….”  Yet, as ministers become more involved in the lives of the people they shepherd, they begin to neglect their own. They harbor secrets, for many reasons, which prevents them from seeing God’s work in their lives. Sadly “they tend to become professionals… who speak on religious matters with what often seems a maximum of authority and a minimum of vital personal involvement. Their sermons often sound as bland as they sound bloodless.”  I found this challenging as one who is an intern at a church, teaches regularly, and preaches on occasion. Preachers must not only convey the facts about the truth but show that it is active in their lives. Not to pretend that they have everything figured out but to show that they can feel it working in them, changing them, doing what they say it will do. In another work I read recently, The Pastor as a Minor Poet, the author Craig Barnes says, “As odd as it may sound, it's the scars on the pastor's soul that make it attractive.... What we pastors present with our lives is an incarnated version of the healing and redemptive work of the Gospel.... We simply speak to our congregants as a people who have existential knowledge of truth.”  Buechner and Barnes remind young seminarians like me that pastors need to tell their secrets. Of course they must be wise about when and what they reveal and to whom, but the truth they preach must be truth through their personality, which means telling personal things—telling secrets.

This book is a memoir similar to Christian classics like Augustine’s Confessions in that it is not just one man’s story. Certainly it is Buechner’s secrets that are being revealed but, as he says himself, “My story is important not because it is mine, God knows, but because if I tell it anything like right the chances are you will recognize that in many ways it is also yours.”  As we read Buechner keeping track of his story, we cannot help be drawn to the events that have shaped our lives. Some of the events we read in his book may be similar to experiences we have had, others may be completely foreign. All of them, however, will cause of to think of our story and I believe that is the goal of this book. By reading Buechner’s secrets we start to think of our own and we are encouraged to tell them. When we start to do that we begin to understand ourselves better and the great work of God in our lives.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 5, 2011

The Second Sunday of Advent

"When we open the package of Christmas we find that God has given us many gifts--vulnerability for intimacy, comfort for suffering, passion for justice, and power over prejudice... In the gift of Christmas, the unassailable, omnipotent God became a baby giving us the ultimate example of letting our defenses down... There is no way to have a real relationship without becoming vulnerable to hurt. And Christmas tells us that God became breakable and fragile. God became someone we could hurt. Why? To get us back." ~ Tim Keller, Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus: Experiencing the Peace and Promise of Christmas (36-38)

Yesterday was the second Sunday in Advent. If you attended a church in almost any Christian tradition you probably saw the second candle of the Advent Wreath lit and heard one of the prophecies about the coming Messiah read. Many of us who have been "churched" for most of our lives have heard these before so it is sometimes difficult to remember how incredible the subject of Advent is. The "unassailable, omnipotent God became a baby". "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14a) The Word that was God became flesh. When we really stop and think about it that is an incredible. The sovereign God became a vulnerable baby. Why? "To get us back." To redeem the relationship. That is the celebration we anticipate with Advent.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Book Review: "A Grief Observed"

Yesterday was C. S. Lewis' birthday (thanks Adam for reminding me). He was born November 29, in 1898. Recently I wrote a short review of one of his best works (in my opinion): A Grief Observed. If you get a chance, buy it and read it, even if you are not dealing with grief right now. It is short, honest, and will bless your soul. Enjoy the review...

Many books have been written on the subject of grief but none quite like this one. Most books on the subject of grief are written about how to deal with grief. This book, however, talks indirectly about dealing with grief by doing exactly what the title implies: observing a particular grief. This book is not about grief (in general) observed for such a book would have to be, as Douglas Gresham says in his introduction to this work, “so general and nonspecific as to be academic in its approach and thus of little use to anyone approaching or experiencing bereavement.”  This book observes C. S. Lewis’ grief after having lost his wife, Helen Joy Gresham (referred to simply as “H.” in the book). It was originally written simply as the journal of a man who was struggling with God and the loss of part of himself. Lewis had no intentions of publishing it until a friend of his read it and begged him to publish it because it would help so many people. It certainly has done that.

This book is especially near to my heart because I have grieved in a way similar to Lewis. I did not lose a wife but I lost my two closest friends in the span of a few months. I struggled mightily with God for a long time after that. There were many days where I shook my fist at God and said, “God, I would leave you if I had anywhere else to go.” Unfortunately, I did not know about A Grief Observed at the time. I know it would have helped me to know that “real” Christians actually do struggle with God when they grieve.

What a “real” Christian thinks, feels, and says when they struggle with grief is possibly the greatest contribution of this book. Often in the Church we spiritualize grief in such a way as to make it seem trivial, which is very unfair to those who are experiencing it. Lewis expresses this frustration, “Talk to me about the truth of religion and I’ll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.”  The truth of the gospel is foundational in all things, especially death, but many people who have not experienced such grief try to use it as a magic wand to make those who are grieving instantly “feel better.” They apply it with the hopes of making the grief go away. Yet, they do not understand that the gospel is not meant to keep us from mourning. It is meant to help us mourn as those who have its hope (1 Thess. 4:13). All of us who grieve must be allowed to grieve and struggle with God during these hard times. The struggle is normal and okay for God knows that we are dust (Ps. 103:14). In my estimation, the greatest contribution that this book makes is simply showing that “real” Christians struggle with God during grief. Lewis is one of the giants of the modern Church. His polemical works were ahead of their time and second to none, yet during the grief of death even the man who wrote The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity asked the question, “[W]here is God?”  Even Lewis struggled with feeling that when “you go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain… [you find] a door slammed in your face, and a sound of a bolting and a double bolting on the inside.”  The Church needs this kind of honesty and permission to struggle with God in grief.

Probably the second greatest contribution that Lewis makes with this work is the fact that he does not let the struggle consume him. This work chronicles his move from feeling like the door to God was slammed and locked in his face to realizing, “It is not the locked door. It is more like a silent, certainly not uncompassionate, gaze. As though He shook His head not in refusal but waiving the question. Like, ‘Peace, child; you don’t understand.’” This may not seem like a large step to one who has not grieved, but those who have felt the cold pain of the closed door know that this is a long way down the path of recovery. If Lewis had left us with the pain of the initial struggle, it would not be helpful to any grieving Christian. However, Lewis honestly chronicled the struggle from deep pain to the point where he could say, “How wicked would it be, if we could, to call the dead back!... Poi si torno all’ eternal fontana.”  The last section translates, “Then back to the eternal fountain.” In this work he showed us that “real” Christians struggle with grief, but also that “real” Christians continue to struggle until they can say to God, “Praise in due order; of [You] as the giver, of her as the gift…. by praising I can still, in some degree, enjoy her, and already, in some degree, enjoy [You].”

The third and final contribution of this work that I would like to mention (there are many more outside of the scope of this short review) is the honest way he struggles with the way others treat him. Those who have a friend who is bereaved can learn a lot of how to treat that friend from this work. For example, he acknowledges that he wants to be around others but wants just to be able to be while around them—“I dread the moments when the house is empty. If only they would talk to one another and not to me.”  During grief, especially the initial stages, you do not want to be alone but you also fear being around others because they will try to get you to “talk about it” when you just need their presence. If only people could understand that you do not want them to make you happy; you just want to know that others still are. I think this is what Lewis is expressing here. Another example: “An odd byproduct of my loss is that I’m aware of being an embarrassment to everyone I meet…. I see people, as they approach me, trying to make up their minds whether they’ll ‘say something about it’ or not. I hate it if they do, and if they don’t.”  I hated this too. People simply do not know how to be around you. They do not want to treat you like “normal” because they feel that would be insensitive but they also do not know how to talk to you about it, so they end up making you feel like an invalid. Most of the time you do not want to talk; you just want to be treated like normal so that you can bring it up when you are ready to talk. For all those who have not experience such grief, A Grief Observed is very helpful in learning how your grieving friends want to be treated.

This book is one-of-a-kind. I am so thankful that Lewis’ friend convinced him to publish it for it has helped so many grieving Christians and will continue to help them for many years to come. I have described the three greatest contributions that I think this book makes but there are so many more that I simply could not fit into the scope of this review. Whether someone is grieving a great loss, knows someone who is grieving a great loss, or simply wants to understand Christian grief better, this book will be invaluable to them. As Douglas Gresham says in his introduction, “…at least this book will help us to face our grief, and to ‘misunderstand a little less completely.’”

By His Grace,
Taylor

Sunday, November 27, 2011

The First Sunday of Advent

"The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father's will Jesus Christ became poor and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross." ~ J. I. Packer, Knowing God

Today is the first Sunday of the Advent season. The season begins four Sundays before Christmas and ends on Christmas Eve. Advent tradition has its roots deep in Christian history that can be traced as far back as the 6th century AD with certainty (possibly as far back as the 4th with some question). It is marked with anticipation and preparation for the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. It is anticipation and preparation for the celebration of the coming of "hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory" that came with Christ.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
~ Isaiah 9:6-7
We are entering a time where we celebrate the coming of the Messiah who did establish and uphold His kingdom "with justice and righteousness." The justice was God's wrath poured out on Christ on our behalf. The righteousness is Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us by grace through faith. Both come from God and both are necessary so that "He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:26)

By His Grace,
Taylor

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

History and God

"The greatest proof to me that God exists and this [Christianity] is all true is the history of the Church. With all the scandals and sin, if God's hand wasn't on it, it would have fallen apart a long time ago." ~ Dr. Frank James

Dr. James is a professor at RTS Orlando (one of the sister seminaries of my own). He is a brilliant scholar, knowledgeable historian, and a great professor. I had him for both of my Church History courses.

I really like this quote because it reminds me of the wonder of God's providence. If we look at the history of the Church, there are some triumphs and moments we would love to emulate or relive, but for the most part, the history of the Church has been God saving us from one predicament after another. Without His providential hand on the Church, protecting it, it would have died a long time ago. Do not get me wrong, I love the Church, but that is because she belongs to Jesus and He makes sure that I do.

Think about the history of Israel, for moment. Israel is one of the most ancient cultures still in existence, and they certainly were not a dominant one for the majority of their history. All it takes is a cursory look at the history of the Old Testament to see that most of the time Israel was botching things up and bringing on the judgment of God. They were conquered by many nations much greater than they, and yet, they are still around while most of those nations are long gone. Why? Because God made a covenant with Abraham and promised him that He would make him into a great nation, and God is faithful to His covenants, even if we are not. From a human perspective, the Israelite nation should have died out long ago and yet they lived on. Why? Because God's providential hand was on them.

Consider the persecutions of the early Church in the first few centuries. There were many Roman emperors who were intent on wiping out the pesky Christian religion, but they could not do it. Why? Because God's providential hand was on the Church, sustaining it and refining it in the fire of persecution. "Caesar and Christ had met in the arena and Christ had won."

Think about the Church scandals and fights of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. Once Christians did not have to fight the Roman Empire any longer, we started fighting among ourselves. But, God used these controversies to help the Church define itself by determining the bounds of orthodoxy, now written down in the ancient creeds. However, from a human perspective those scandals and fights should have destroyed us, yet they did not. Why? Because God's providential hand was on the Church, sustaining it amid its own internal turmoil.

You know what this tells me? That God does not really need us. I knew that already, of course, because God is sovereign and independent. Looking at the history of the Church, however, makes this clear to my heart as well as my head. He does not need us to do anything. Yet, He chooses to use us--a sinful, broken people. Why? To answer that, let me tell you a story about a friend of mine.

In order to protect his identity on the Internet, I will change the names. This friend, let us call him Ryan, has an autistic son, let us call him Jack. Jack is 23 years old but has the mind of a seven-year-old, according to Ryan. Ryan, of course, loves Jack with all his heart. If you ever had the privilege of hearing him talk about Jack, that would be readily apparent to you. One day Ryan needed to replace a door nob in his house. Now, by his own admission, Ryan is not very handy, so what would be a 10-minute job for some people is an hour-long job for him. But, this time, Jack wanted to help Ryan replace the nob, and Ryan loves Jack, so he let him help. Now, when you add Jack into the picture, an hour-long job becomes about three hours because Jack makes mistakes or disturbs the process by doing something like playfully picking up the screws and running around the house hoping Ryan will chase him. It tried Ryan's patience, but he loves his son, so he continued to let him help. When Jack's mother got home, Jack declared to her with a huge smile on his face, "We fixed the door nob, Mom!" Ryan's heart was filled with joy at this moment. He knew he could have done it better on his own, but he also knew that Jack needs to be about the business of his father because that brings him joy.

I think this is how God views us. We are the broken race of people who really want to help but are constantly messing things up that He could have done much better on His own. In His providence, why does He let us help? Because He knows that we need to be about our Father's business because that brings us joy. So, He lets us help, and when we screw things up, He puts His providential hand on them and fixes them. This is the story of the history of the Church.

By the way, the image above is the cover of an excellent summary of Church history. If you are interested in getting the highlights of Church history in a single book, I would recommend Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Heavens Declare

1The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2Day to day pours out speech,
   and night to night reveals knowledge.
3There is no speech, nor are there words,
   whose voice is not heard.
4Their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.
~ Psalm 19:1-4

I just recently ran across this beautiful time-lapse video of the earth from the International Space Station. In it you can see the lights of our cities, lightning flashing in storms, the Aurora Borealis, and so much more. It is glorious reminder to me of the beautiful design in our universe and how the heavens truly do declare the glory of God.



If you want a reservoir of images, check out my Space Images Picasa Web Album. I have collected images and captions from all over the web. I add to it anytime I come across an image I find particularly striking.

Also, one of my most popular posts has been "Mote of Dust in a Sunbeam," which is a size comparison to show you just how small you really are in this universe of God's handiwork.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Faith In... What?

"It doesn’t matter how much faith you have, if the object of your faith is not valid you will go straight to hell. The value of the faith is not in the one trusting, but the one in whom you are trusting. … It is not the faithfulness of the one who believes, but rather the faithfulness of the one who is believed in." ~ Josh McDowell

This is a very important point that McDowell is making. It is often thought today that faith saves you. "It does not matter what you believe, just believe in something," you may hear people say. Even Christians sometimes think that it is our faith that saves us, but that is, to quote a friend, "a lie from the pit of hell and it smells like smoke." Our faith is useless if it is not placed in someone who is faithful and deserving of that faith. Faith is foolish if it is not directed at one who is faithful and deserving of our faith. And, that kind of faith is nothing more than the proper response to the faithfulness of what we are looking to. Faith does not save us. It is the work of Jesus Christ that saves and when we place our faith in Him He gives us the gift of the salvation He won for us. Christian faith is objective (meaning dependent on the object faith looks to) and not subjective (meaning dependent on the subject who has the faith). Thank God for that because my faith would get me nowhere fast.

Another important point about this is that this destroys all notion of faith being "a work." It is clear that we are not saved by our works but "grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Some have tried to claim that this is inconsistent because faith is a work. Not so. If salvation were dependent on our faith, then yes it would be a work, but salvation is dependent on the work of Christ. Our faith is merely the proper response to His faithfulness to His promises. Faith is merely empty hands where the gift of salvation that Jesus won for us is placed by God. Faith does not add anything to salvation but only the conduit on which is flows to the believer.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Sunday, November 6, 2011

John Calvin and Missions

"If it is true that all branches of the Christian family might have done more for missions, it is also true that this branch [Calvinism] has been 'in harness' as long as any expression of Protestantism."

I just finished up a paper for a class on Calvin and missions, which I thought I would share since he and the Reformed tradition have often been accused of not being involved in missions and not caring about missions. Though my paper does not address the Reformed tradition as a whole, it does refute this charge with respect to John Calvin himself, who is generally at the center of this accusation. Below is the introduction to the paper:
John Calvin and his doctrine, the so-called Calvinism that has lived on until today, have continued to be highly controversial in the Church. They were in Calvin’s time and they still are today. One of the constant debates that goes on in the Church today is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism (a debate that serves to divide Christians in a way that neither John Calvin nor Jacobus Arminius would approve). Within this debate one of the consistent charges leveled against Calvin (and Calvinism) is that he and his doctrine are completely counter-evangelism and counter-missions. The Roman Catholic historian, Joseph Schmidlin, held that all the Reformers, including Calvin, “were not conscious of the missionary idea and displayed no missionary activity.”  Others have echoed this charge. A. Mitchell Hunter, in his book on Calvin’s theology, claimed, “Certainly [Calvin] displayed no trace of missionary enthusiasm.”  Professor of missions William Hogg wrote that Calvinism “worked effectively to throttle missionary endeavor.”  Others have claimed that the Reformers “did not even talk about missions outreach.”  It is said of Calvin that his “horrible doctrine” of divine election makes the missionary activity “nonsense.”  This charge, however, is completely unfounded. 
Those who take a honest look at Calvin’s doctrine and history are forced to conclude that John Calvin was truly a director of missions during the Reformation and the Reformed tradition has produced some of the most active and passionate missionaries this world has seen since the apostolic period. N. Carr Sargant, a Methodist (Arminian) missionary to India, did take a good look at Calvin and wrote, “To praise Arminianism and to reproach Calvinism is the conventional judgment. In respect of missions, however, rigid Calvinism and the warm Arminianism of Wesley were in substance the same.”  He even went so far as to admit that while the Calvinists “had gone to the heathen,” his own tradition only sent preachers to places where Christians were abundant.  In this paper we will look at Calvin’s teaching as well as the Reformation period and show that, while some may have misused Calvin’s teachings as an excuse for evangelistic indifference, Calvin was a director of missions and a man committed to the spread of the gospel throughout the world.
If you would like to read the rest of the paper, you can access it here.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, October 17, 2011

What is Sanctification?

"Union with Christ in his death and resurrection is the element of union which Paul most extensively expounds...if we are united to Christ, then we are united to him at all points of his activity on our behalf. We share in his death (we were baptized into his death), in his resurrection (we are resurrected with Christ), in his ascension (we have been raised with him), in his heavenly session (we sit with him in heavenly places, so that our life is hidden with Christ in God), and we will share in his promised return (when Christ, who is our life, appears, we also will appear with him in glory) (Rom. 6:14; Col. 2:11-12; 3:1-3). This, then, is the foundation of sanctification in Reformed theology. It is rooted, not in humanity and their achievement of holiness or sanctification, but in what God has done in Christ, and for us in union with him. Rather than view Christians first and foremost in the microcosmic context of their own progress, the Reformed doctrine first of all sets them in the macrocosm of God's activity in redemptive history. It is seeing oneself in this context that enables the individual Christian to grow in true holiness." ~ Sinclair Ferguson

If you want to get a great summary of the Reformed, and I think correct, view of sanctification you can find it in Sinclair's article in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. His article is worth the price of the book alone, but it is also great to see other traditions' views presented by their best scholars and critiqued by each other. In a nutshell, below is how I would explain sanctification:

What is sanctification? From the Reformed perspective sanctification can be defined as the life-long process (Philippians 1:6) of our whole man being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) through the work of God’s grace (John 1:16; II Corinthians 9:8; 12:9) by the agency of the Spirit (Galatians 3:1-5; I Corinthians 6:11) applying the blessings of our union with Christ (John 14:20; 15:5; Ephesians 5:25-32) to us through the means of grace—the sacraments, the Word of God, and prayer.

When does this happen? In the logical order of salvation sanctification begins after our justification and adoption and continues until our glorification. One might ask, “Why is this important?” It is important because we must understand that the foundation for the transformative process of sanctification is our forensic standing before God. We are declared righteous and adopted into the family of God by being united to Christ through the Holy Spirit. Only on the certainty of this foundation can we truly understand the way of sanctification. The principal means of the believer’s sanctification is union with Christ. As Paul reminds the Galatians, this foundation assures us that sanctification is not by human effort—it began with faith in Christ, it will end with Christ, and in between it continues with faith in Christ (Galatians 3:1-5).

The key focus that needs to be brought out is that Christ Himself is our sanctification (I Corinthians 1:30) and it is only by our union with Him through the agency of the Spirit that we can “bear fruit” (John 15:5) in our Christian lives. Paul reminds us in Romans 6:5-8 that we were united with Christ in His death, we were united with Christ in His burial, and we are united with Christ in life. It is because of this union with Christ that we can “consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to God” (Romans 6:11). Being united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection broke our chains of slavery to sin and made us “slaves to righteousness” (Romans 6:15-18). It is only because of the blessings of this union with Christ that Paul can pastorally say to his Roman audience, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body” (Romains 6:12) for it does not and cannot depend on “human effort” (Galatians 3:3).

If we are united to Christ and can have victory over our sin by this union why, then do we still sin? To understand this we must remember that God has replaced our heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and created in us a new, inner man—we are a new creation in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17)—but since we have not yet been glorified with Christ the old, outer man still persists (Ephesians 4:22-23). The flesh has been defeated, but the loser still fights. We will not be completely free of sin until we are glorified with Christ and the old man is completely done away with.

How does the Spirit reshape us into the image of God? It is not by works that the Spirit molds us into the image of Christ. Good works do not produce holiness. It is the grace of God working in us by the Spirit through faith in Christ that produces holiness. How then do we receive this grace? The Spirit applies this grace to our lives through the use of the means of grace—the Word of God, the sacraments, and prayer. This is contrary to our normal was of thinking. We feel like we have to do something—that we must bring something to the table. However, we do not bring anything to the table, we rest in Christ. Sanctification, like justification, is by faith in Christ. We do this by letting the Spirit minister to our hearts through the Word of God (the reading, study, and especially the preaching of the Word in public worship), the observing of the sacraments during worship, and prayer (private and corporate). By the Spirit’s work through the means of grace we can respond with works of thankfulness to the unconditional love of God shown in the gospel. By the Spirit’s work through the means of grace we draw near to Christ and let the Spirit sanctify us in Him.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, September 26, 2011

A Summary of Persecutions

"There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians scorned or oppressed by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials by a fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the sword with the Word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has ever know. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena and Christ had won." ~ Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol III: Caesar and Christ (pg. 652)

Back in February I wrote a post called "The Drama of Persecution." Since then, it has continued to be one of the more popular posts on my blog and has sparked some good discussion with friends. I thought it might be helpful to summarize the persecutions that the Church went through in the first four centuries.

The early Church historian Eusebius claims that there were ten persecutions of the early Church from the time of Christ to his time (fourth century)—those under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Decius, Valerian, Gallienus, Diocletian, and Galerius. This is not entirely accurate. This does not include the persecution by the Jews or the persecutions of the emperors after Constantine like Licinius and Julian, but it certainly covers the majority of the persecutions. Modern historian Philip Schaff suggests that this traditional number was proposed because of an allusion to the ten plagues of Egypt or the ten horns of the Beast making war with the Lamb. Later Church fathers like Augustine also rejected this number. Augustine rejected the attempt to number the persecutions at all: "When I think of these and the like things, it does not seem to me that the number of persecutions with which the church is to be tried can be definitely stated." I think Augustine is right in that it is difficult to establish lines defining persecutions in compartments of history. I think, however, when looking at the persecutions of the early Church it is helpful to think of them in five major sections—the persecution by the Jews, persecution by the Empire before 250 AD, persecution by the Empire after 250 AD, the Great Persecution under Diocletian, and, finally, persecution after Milan.
                           
The Jewish Persecution
The first mode of persecution that the Church encountered was not from the Roman Empire but from the Jewish people, which lasted from about AD 33 to AD 64 (though there were residual persecutions of the Christians by the Jews after this time). At this time the Christians were still considered a sect of Judaism and therefore the Romans were content to leave the situation up to the Jews. The Jews persecuted the Christians because to the Jews the Christians were blasphemous and their blasphemy was spreading quickly. The Jews could not counter the Christian movement with debate and turned to physical persecution, as is shown in Acts 6 with Stephen, the first martyr.

When the Jews accused Stephen, they twisted his words and the words of Christ to make it seem like he was malevolent towards the Jews. Stephen responded not with malevolent words but with a reasoned argument. The Jews hated what he said and stoned him. While they were stoning him, he did not respond with a vengeful spirit but instead asked God to forgive him. Such was the reaction of many of the martyrs in the early Church.

Another that the Jews martyred was James "the Righteous," or James "the Just." He was the brother of Christ and one the elders at Jerusalem. He was also martyred for blasphemy but not in the same way. He was taken by the Sanhedrin and questioned before many people. The Sanhedrin tried to coax him into saying that Christ was not the Messiah knowing, since so many respected James, if he did deny Christ many would follow. He did not do as they wanted, in fact people were beginning to listen to him so they threw him down and stoned him. As they were stoning him, he was praying for them and one person watching even shouted, "Stop! The Righteous One is praying for you." At that, they busted his head with a club.

Most of the Jewish persecutions were designed to eliminate the competition of Christ. They saw Christ as blasphemous and to make matters worse, many were becoming Christians. They tried to scare people away by persecuting the Christian leaders. There were others killed by the Jews but these two descriptions show their plan in persecution and the way that the persecuted responded to their assaults.

Persecution by the Romans
There were several reasons why the Romans persecuted the Christians but they all were related to the fact that the Romans viewed the Christians as disloyal and just very odd. The Romans considered themselves generally very tolerant. There were many religions in Rome that were sanctioned; they did not have a problem with almost any religion as long as it did not come between the religious followers and the Roman state. They tested this loyalty and united Rome in one common religious practice by instigating a state religion—emperor worship. If you complied with this, you were generally okay in the eyes of the Romans.

The Christians were seen as disloyal for four basic reasons. First, God is not content to be one of many gods so the Christians would not sacrifice to the emperor. They were not fulfilling the one Roman religious request—emperor worship. Second, the Christians would not serve in the military because of an aversion for blood shed. This made it appear that they did not care about the protection of the state. Next, the Christians would not normally hold a state office, again making it appear that they did not care about the good of the state. Finally, the Christians met at night or early in the morning! No one was allowed in their secret meetings except the baptized! This kind of secrecy did not sit well with the Roman government. The Christians had a higher allegiance than the emperor and they were very secretive. This made it appear to the Romans that the Christians were trying to form a state within the state.

The Christians were also viewed as just plain odd. There were rumors of incest in their secret meetings. This was probably just the "Kiss of Peace" or "greet one another with a holy kiss," but if you had never been to a meeting, already were a little suspicious, and heard about brother kissing brother you might construe this to be incestuous. They were also accused of being cannibals. The Christians got together in their secret meetings and ate the flesh of their leader! They drank His blood! This reaction is, again, somewhat understandable if you were not allowed to go to their meetings and heard someone say that their leader said to eat His body in remembrance of Him.

Barry Baldwin makes an interesting statement about one other possible Roman motivation for their distrust of Christians. He asserts that since Christ was a Jew, the Romans were more suspicious. The Jews were tough adversaries. Like the Christians, the Jews believed in one god, while the Romans accepted many. According to Baldwin this did not help their reputation in the eyes of the Romans. He says, "The Romans respected tough enemies and none came tougher than the Jews. This allied with their uncompromising religion—a source of puzzlement and resentment to the more theologically complacent Romans—had an important consequence. The Romans would have been much less worried by Christ and his message had He not been a Jew."

All of the above gave the Romans reason to hate the strange Christians. It also allowed the Romans to use the Christians as scapegoats. The times and levels of persecution varied throughout the early Church's history but the reasons for each persecution were not very unique. They mostly stemmed from suspicion of the Christians and their perception that the Christians were just very different, too different.

Persecution by the Empire before 250 AD
The reason that 250 AD was chosen for a dividing line is that before this time persecution was sporadic and not empire-wide. There was a great deal of persecution and it was very brutal at times, but it was localized and not all-encompassing.

Nero was the first emperor to persecute the Christians. His persecution is often portrayed as the worst, but this was not the case when one considers the breadth of later persecutions. While Nero himself was particularly brutal and did initiate the first persecution of the Christians, his persecution was localized mainly to the city of Rome itself. It appears that he first instigated persecution in order to take the focus off himself. There was a fire in Rome in 64 AD that destroyed much of the city and it was rumored that Nero had set the fire himself. (This we know from Tacitus.) Since there was already a great deal of mistrust of the Christians, Nero saw them as a perfect place to shift the blame. He accused the Christians of setting the fire that destroyed much of Rome and instigated persecution of them. No one really knows whether or not Nero set the fire, but it is fairly clear that he instigated the persecution to take the blame off himself, whether this blame was deserved or not. It was at this time that it became officially illegal to be a Christian in Rome. Nero had Paul executed by beheading and had Peter crucified. It is also said that Nero burned Christians as lights for his garden. Fortunately, Nero did not live much longer after he instigated persecution—he died in 68 AD.

Domitian ruled from 80 to 96 AD. Persecution did not break out under his reign until 95 AD and the motive is not completely clear but we can infer a few things. At this time, Christians still would not sacrifice to the emperor and swear loyalties to him. This was particularly an insult to Domitian because he, unlike most of the other emperors before him, actually thought of himself as a god. He even had the senate address him as one. Therefore, the Christians denying sacrifice to him was probably a great personal insult. There is also evidence of a coup around this time. This made Domitian very paranoid. That combined with the insult of the Christians not worshiping him could have been his motive for persecution. He instigated a reign of terror, but it was mostly confined to the city of Rome. Many Christians were killed during this time, but again, it did not last very long since he died in 96 AD.

Trajan was the next emperor of Rome to persecute the Christians. His was unique because he was the first emperor to initiate an organized persecution of the Christians. We can see this in a letter from Pliny, governor of Bithynia. He wrote to Trajan detailing the way he was handling the very annoying Christians in his area. The tone of his letter suggests that he was looking for a "pat on the back," as if he was adhering well to Trajan’s policy. Trajan did not want Christians to be actively hunted, but if they were accused then they were to be brought to trial. At their trial the Christian was to be asked three times if he was a Christian. If he answered yes to all three, he was convicted and sentence to execution. Many Christians died under the reign of Trajan, but they died proudly, standing up for their faith in Christ. Eusebius mentions that when Simon, the Bishop of Jerusalem, was asked if he was a Christian he immediately answered yes three times. He did not seem to see the point in hearing the same question multiple times and made it immediately clear that he was a Christian. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was also executed during the reign of Trajan. Ignatius welcomed martyrdom and actually spoke out against anyone trying to save him. Trajan’s persecution lasted from 110 AD to 115 AD.

Marcus Aurelius ruled about 50 years after Trajan from 161 to 180. It is possible that Christians would not have received much persecution from Aurelius had it not been for Fronto, Aurelius’s stoic teacher. (There is evidence in several manuscripts discovered in 1815 that Fronto and Aurelius were lovers, which, if true, would add passion into the motive.) Several key figures were martyred under Aurelius’s reign including Polycarp and Justin. Polycarp met his martyrdom with dignity and honor and never once dishonored Christ. It is reported by Eusebius that when Polycarp was set upon the pillar and burned that the flame flowed around him like a sail. A soldier had to stab him in order to kill him. In 177, there was a massive execution in Gaul. More than 100 men, women, and children were rounded up and sent to be executed in an amphitheater. Many of those apostatized, and those that did not were brutally tortured and killed. Eusebius describes the torture and death of a slave girl, Blandina. Blandina was first tortured for more than a day until her torturers were exhausted and could think of nothing else to do to her. She was then placed on a cross as food for beasts, but they would not touch her. She was then tortured again beside a young boy whom she encouraged to keep the faith. She was then thrown to a bull. None of these things killed her or made her deny Christ. She was finally executed having beaten those who tried to get her to apostatize. Another man was made to sit in a red-hot iron chair and baked to death. While he was in the chair he said, "Look, you say we are bloodthirsty but you are cooking me." Clearly, the charge of cannibalism was probably on his mind. During this persecution there were many who turned away from Christ, but there were many more that stood firm for the Lord and, in the face of horrible torture, never denied their Savior.

Severus ruled from 193 to 211. Severus’s policy against the Christians was not personal, but he did not do much to hinder the populace from enforcing the laws on Christians that had existed long before his reign. It is said that Severus actually had some Christians in his household and protected them but this is uncertain. There were many executions across the Empire during the time of Severus—in Alexandria, Thebaid, Lyon, Eqypt, Madaura, and several other places. Eusebius describes the numbers by saying, "untold numbers were being wreathed with martyrs' crowns." Leonides, thought to be Origen's father, was martyred under the reign of Severus.

Persecution by the Empire after 250
It was in this period that persecution was no longer localized in small areas but empire-wide as a matter of policy. It was often the deliberate policy of the emperors to persecute the Christians in all areas of the Empire. This was the darkest time in the persecution of the Church not only because the persecutions were so harsh but also because many apostatized because of the harshness.

The first to make a deliberate, empire-wide persecution of the Church was Decius, 249 to 251. Decius believed that Rome could only survive if the classical culture was restored. Christians were a constant menace to this because they refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods, particularly the emperor himself. Decius issued an edict that all had to offer a sacrificeto the Roman gods for the well-being of the emperor before the local magistrate and receive a libellus (a proof of sacrifice). This had to be done once a year. If you could not present a libellus, then you were sentenced to death. Many Christians would not sacrifice and a great deal of persecution followed. The Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem were executed as well as many others. Not all Christians, however, withstood this storm. Many bought their libellus on the black market. They did not actually sacrifice but told the government that they did. Others went even further and actually sacrificed. This persecution was the first to actually weaken the Church. The estimate of martyrs during this time is high, in the thousands. The estimate of apostasies, however, is even higher than that. Soon after this started, however, Decius met an early but providential demise. His edict died with him.

The next emperor to issue and empire-wide persecution was Valerian. In 258, he issued decrees that all bishops had to sacrifice and forbade Christians from assembling. Many bishops, presbyters, and deacons were martyred during this time—Cyprian of Carthage, Fructuosus of Tarragona, Lawrence of Rome, and many others. Death was not the only punishment. Many Christians in the imperial household were sent in chains to perform forced labor on the imperial domains. These edicts were hard on Christians, but taken in comparison to some of the others of the past this was not the worst persecution the Church had suffered.

The final emperor in this section is Gallienus, 260 to 268. Under Gallienus persecution actually seemed to die down. There were still persecutions and martyrdoms throughout the empire but not to the scale of the recent past.

The Great Persecution
It is said that the sea is always the most calm right before the storm. This could be applied to the relationship between the Christians and the Roman state until Diocletian,287 to 305.

In 297, the Great Persecution began. It was a result of a few Christians and a pagan ceremony gone bad. The ceremony produced a bad omen after several Christians had made the sign of the cross at the ceremony. The pagans blamed the Christians for the bad omen and thus started the Great Persecution.

Diocletian was pressed by Galerius to issue official persecution and in 303; he did in the form of four edicts. The first edict in 303 was to terminate Christianity. During other persecutions up until this point there had been an element of toleration, however small, but with this edict any idea of toleration was crushed. Christian churches were burned and many Bible texts were destroyed. Later, the second edict was issued that called for the imprisonment of all clergy. So many clergy were imprisoned that the jails ran out of room. Then, in the third edict, Diocletian decided to offer amnesty at the price of a sacrifice to the Roman gods. Very few took him up on this offer. So, Diocletian issued the death penalty for any who would not sacrifice or any Christian caught in any kind of religious activity. His goal was to destroy anything and everything associated with Christianity. Some Christians reacted as boldly and heroically as those who had come before them. Some faltered and sacrificed. Others fought back. In particular, some Christians in Nicamadea burned one of Diocletian’s palaces. Diocletian prompted responded by rounding up 268 Christians and executing them.

When Diocletian retired, in 305, Galerius took his place in the East and Constantius took the place of Maximian in the West. Galerius continued the heavy persecution of the Church but Constantius was less brutal. He seemed to be content to simply burn a few churches.

In 311 Galerius was struck with a severe illness. Under pressure from his wife, he issued an edict of toleration to all Christians. He even asked Christians to pray for him. This edict continued until Maximus replaced Galerius. He tried to reinstitute the persecutions but had little success. Thus ended the Great Persecution.

Persecution after Milan
This dividing line was chosen because of the importance of the Edict of Milan. After Constantine defeated Maxintius at Milvia, in 313, the Edict of Milan was issued. This edict declared Christianity to be a legal religion. The Church thought this would be the end of persecution but it was not quite yet.

Linsinius, Constantine’s ally, reinstated persecution in 314. Constantine would not have this and attacked Linsinius and defeated him. Strangely enough, however, Constantine allowed Linsinius to keep the region of Thrace under his control. Linsinius, again, reinstated persecution. Constantine came back in 324 and crushed Linsinius, keeping the entire Empire for himself.

Finally, in 360 Julian the Apostate tried to bring back the supremacy of the pagan religions and reinstitute persecution of the Church. Julian is called "the Apostate" because he was supposedly a Christian and converted to paganism. However, from private letters sent to Libanius we can gather that Julian was never really a Christian. Upon his "conversion" to Theurgy he tried to re-emerge the Hellenistic culture of the old Roman Empire. His persecution was not designed so much to destroy Christianity but to drive it out of public office and put the power of Christianity back into the pagan hands, the state that it was in before the Edict of Milan.

The Early Church and its Martyrs
In the beginning, the early church gave a great deal of respect to its martyrs and it was rightly deserved. Their veneration for the martyrs and their faith was natural for a culture that was growing up in persecution. There was a battle between Christ and the state and every time a martyr was made Christ won. Martyrdom was viewed so highly that it was even sought by some as a goal. It was often said of martyrs that they "found fulfillment" in their death. Eusebius tells the story of Origen's childhood and tells how his mother had to restrain him from following his father's footsteps and plunging head-first into martyrdom. Soon, however, the laud rose to an un-Scriptural level and eventually degenerated to worship of the martyrs and their relics.

In a letter from Polycarp in 155, he shows the initial respect for the martyrs. His letter does not really show signs of an unhealthy admiration but this was still early on in the Church. Polycarp says, "...we can neither ever forsake Christ, who has suffered for the salvation of the whole world of the redeemed, nor worship another. Him indeed we adore as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as they deserve for their surpassing love to their King and Master, as we wish also to be their companions and fellow-disciples." During this time, not only the martyrs were paid particular respect but those who were imprisoned or tortured were also admired. Those who survived persecution had an equally greater respect for those who were martyred. Eusebius reports that when they returned to their church, if people tried to call them martyrs they would rebuke them saying that they did not deserve such admiration. Once they were reintegrated into their church their voices carried much more weight than the average member. This shows the hero view of the martyrs and the sense of respect that was given them by the Church. Soon this respect turned into a kind of deification.

Soon the Church not only began to regard the martyrs with high respect but also their remains and any kind of relics they left behind. Polycarp's bones were considered of highest value to the church in Smyrna. Other martyrs' remains were treated the same way. Their possessions were viewed as relics and eventually were thought to contain healing powers. The British historian Bede relays a story of the Bishop of Gaul going to Britain and performing miracles by the power of bones from a martyr.

The regard of the martyrs as heroes evolved into viewing them as superhuman but sub-deity. In the third century, the blood of the martyr was thought to be a cleansing substitution for baptism. Their own blood and the fire of the stake were thought by some to atone for the sins of the martyr. Later it was thought that the grace that the martyrs received was ample and that it could be shared with others for atonement, thus almost replacing Christ with the martyr. It was even thought that, much like the saints, the prayers of martyrs carried more weight than those of the normal Christian. Respect had grown so great that the Church could not see flaws in its own doctrine.

Well, that is a relatively brief summary of the early Church persecutions ("relatively" brief because, though this is one of my longer posts, it does cover 350 years fairly quickly). I hope it has given you a better idea of how God spread the Church in the midst of, even because of at times, persecution. It was said that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church. I think that is true.

This has been a historical overview. If you want my theological overview, see my earlier post on the subject.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Unity Amid Diversity

"[Unity] is not achieved by hunting enthusiastically for the lowest common theological denominator, but by common adherence to the apostolic gospel, by love that is joyfully self-sacrificing, by undaunted commitment to the shared goals of the mission with which Jesus’ followers have been charged, by self-conscious dependence on God himself for life and fruitfulness. It is a unity necessarily present, at least in nuce, amongst genuine believers; it is a unity that must be brought to perfection (v. 23)." ~ D. A. Carson

This past Sunday I was given the opportunity to preach before my church family. I decided to speak on something that all Christians need to hear and that is difficult for all of us--unity. The passage I preached from is John 17:20-23 where Jesus prays for the unity of His Church.

I could say more but the sermon pretty much sums up what I know on the subject. You can read my manuscript here or listen to it here. I pray that it encourages and challenges you on this important subject.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, September 12, 2011

Tragedy, Sovereignty, and Hope

"In the midst of the panic and the fear, there is a people who belong to the God of the Covenant... and in His arms, there is security and in His sovereignty, there is trust." ~ Steve Brown

Yesterday we remembered the tenth anniversary of 9/11, a date that for my generation will live in our memories as long as Kennedy's assassination or Pearl Harbor did for previous generations. A lot has been said about this tragedy--some good and a lot bad. The big question is, "Where was God during 9/11?" He was on His throne as King of the universe, where He has always been since before there was time. He never left it during 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, Virginia Tech, WWI, WWII, or when two of my closest friends died a few months before 9/11. He was not somewhere else in the world and somehow missed it. He was not surprised by it. He has always been and will always be in control of all things. We cannot say He "did not cause 9/11" and yet also hold to Ro. 8:28. He cannot work all things together for good unless He controls those bad things that He works together, along with the good things, to accomplish good for His people. Why did He ordain 9/11? I have no idea. I could give a few possible reasons like bringing together a nation or opportunities for the gospel, but anything that I could come up with would surely not be close to a complete account of God's plans for 9/11 and would cheapen the lives lost in that tragedy. We must leave it up to Him and acknowledge that sometimes when the darkness surrounds us we cannot understand why. Yet, we cannot doubt in the dark what we have known to be true about God in the light. He is sovereign over all things, even 9/11, and He promises to work all things, even 9/11, together for the good of those who are His. If you deny the first you cannot trust in the second. If you deny the first you cannot have the hope of the second.

I recommend reading one of Piper's articles that he wrote shortly after 9/11: Why I Do Not Say, "God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good". I also recommend listening to Steve Brown's broadcast that he aired on 9/12/2001: Tragedy, Sovereignty, and Hope.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Adam and Eve: A Tale of Two Cases

A couple of months ago I wrote a blog post about the historicity of Adam and Eve called "Who Was Adam?". In it I posted an excerpt from a blog of a friend of a friend and my response to her post where I showed that it is not the scientific data that calls into question the historicity of Adam and Eve but an evolutionary interpretation of the data. Since then, my post has been published on The Aquila Report, a Reformed news service, and I have talked about the issue at length with many people. I wanted to follow that post up with some clarification on the issue and further defend the biblical view. When the pertinent data is looked at from the two points (an evolutionary or biblical) of view we get a "tale of two cases".

First, I think we need to clarify a few things when it comes to the use of terms that one might hear thrown around when this issue is talked about. There have been several Christian scientists who deny the historicity of Adam and Eve because they claim that it "would be against all the genomics evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all..." (Dennis Venema, Trinity Western University) Some have flat out said that, "genetics convincingly shows that there was never a time when there were just two persons." (Darrel Falk and Kathryn Applegate, BioLogos) Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project says, "Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and ancestors of all humans do not fit the evidence." But what do they mean when they say, "genetics convincingly shows" or "against all genomics evidence"? What genetic evidence are they referring to? This is a very important question because a lot is riding on this evidence.

The problem with this generalized claim is that genetic evidence has four components to it. There are four types of DNA that gets lumped into the phrase "genetic evidence" and some of it makes the interpretation of Collins, Venema, et al. very uncertain (we will get to why that is below). The four types of DNA are as follows:
  • Autosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up most of your genome and is a random combination of both of your parent's DNA. Since this autosomal DNA (atDNA) is a random combination of your parent's DNA (and their's is a random combination of their parents, ad infinitum) everyone's is completely unique. (This may also be referred to as "nuclear DNA" but that term is less precise.) For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.
  • Chromosomal DNA Types -- At the genetic level, what determines our sex is our chromosomes. Males have a X and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. Each contains DNA: 
    • X Chromosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up your X chromosome (X-c) that you get from your mother. It is a random combination of her two X chromosomes, so, like the autosomal DNA, it is unique, though it does not change as quickly as autosomal DNA. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video
    • Y Chromosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up the male Y chromosome (Y-c) and it is only passed from fathers to sons. Since there is only one Y-c, there is no random recombination of genes so the only thing that can cause change in the Y-c is mutation. This means it often not unique and changes very, very slowly. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.
  • Mitochondrial DNA -- This final form of DNA comes from the mitochondrial of your cells and it only comes from your mother. Male or female, it does not matter, your mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only comes from your mother. So, like the Y-c, there is no recombination of genes so the only thing that can cause change in the mtDNA is mutation. This also means, like the Y-c, it is often not unique and changes very, very slowly. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.
We need to demand specificity from anyone making the claim that "genetic evidence" shows something. What kind of genetic evidence are they referring to? This will become important below.

Another term that gets used by scientists that often confuses people is "human". Now, you might think should be simple but it is not. An evolutionary biologist will use the term "human" to refer to any type of hominid from the homo genus like homo erectus or homo rudolfensis, not just homo sapiens (the taxonomic name for what species you and I are). This confuses the matter because scientists may refer to an ancient "human" fossil, footprint, or gene and they may not be referring to our species at all. This term also gives rise to the phrase "ancient modern human" used to refer to a homo sapien that lived in pre-historic times. This phrase not a contradiction in terms, but a further specification biologists use to refer to homo sapiens--a modern human species that lived long ago. I say this to make sure you aware of what is really being talked about when you read a science article in the popular news. If they say "human" they may not mean the species that you and I belong to and it may require more investigation on your part to figure out what they are really referring to. You can be sure that when I use the term "human" I mean a human like you and me, not any kind of animal that may have walked erect.

Second, we need to clarify that data that is being referred to by these scientists quoted above and that I will refer to below. There are two important types of data that come into play. The first I have already talked about in my previous post on this subject, and it is the mtDNA and Y-c data that shows that the entire human race can be traced back to one single mtDNA sequence for females and one Y-c sequence for males, a single pair of humans. (For a more detailed explanation of this see my first post on the subject.) As I just mentioned above, the mtDNA and Y-c change very slowly because the only mechanism for change is mutation. Therefore, scientist can trace the mutations of DNA take from all types of people throughout the globe back to a single first sequence for males and females. It is the single method of change--mutation--and the slow rate of change that makes this possible. (This would be impossible with atDNA, which is why it is important to know what kind of DNA someone is referring to!) The second type of data looks at the genetic diversity of humanity in the atDNA in humans. This data is drawn from mathematical models and attempts to take the present diversity of human atDNA and calculate how long it would take to get to the present state of diversity. These models have showed that in order for humanity to get to its present state of genetic diversity, it would have to have started out from a small population of humans (on the order of thousands) and not a single pair. These two sets of data appear to be in conflict, which is where our tale of two cases begins.

There are two possible ways of looking at this data. In these two interpretations different types of genetic data are given priority, which, again, is why it is important to know what genetic data someone is referring to when they say, "the genetic evidence says...".

Case #1 -- The Interpretation of Venema, Collins, et al.:
The mathematical modeling from the atDNA is given priority and it is assumed that humanity could not have originated from a single pair. This assumption is then imposed on the data that comes from the mtDNA and the Y-c. The question is then asked, "How could we have one ancient modern human mtDNA sequence and one Y-c sequence for all of us when humanity did not arise from a single pair?" Their answer is the "one lucky mother" hypothesis. They hold that there was originally thousands of mtDNA sequences and Y-c sequences in the first ancient modern humans but somewhere along the way all lines of these types of DNA died off except the one mtDNA and one Y-c that exist today in the present population. These sequences were from the "lucky" man and woman whose DNA was passed on while all other lines of DNA died out.

Case #2 -- The Biblical Interpretation:
In this case, the mtDNA and Y-c evidence is given priority because of the faults in the mathematical modeling and because of highly improbably "one lucky mother" hypothesis. In this case, the model is assumed to be incomplete (see below) and so it cannot be given the weight of mtDNA and Y-c tracking (which, remember, is a much slower process and much easier to trace backward). These ancient sequences are taken to actually point to a single man and single woman who were the progenitors of the entire human race. No special hypothesis is necessary for this interpretation, simply an acknowledgement of the limits of mathematical modeling with atDNA.

So, which of these cases seems more likely? It should be obvious by now that I choose case #2. Why? Well, I would like to expound upon the faults in the mathematical modeling and the "one lucky mother" hypothesis that I mentioned above:
  • First, the mathematical models, while sophisticated, do not take into account very important data and therefore the results are unreliable. Remember, with atDNA, there is a random recombination of parental genes so there are many more things coming into play than just mutations--many things which the model leaves out. For one, it assumes that environmental factors do not drive genetic diversity. Environmental factors are things like location, food supply, isolation, diseases, and anything else that can drive a population to change. Recent studies (like this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/) have shown this this is a dangerous assumption and can greatly skew the data. These models also assume monogamy throughout human history, and we all know that this is not a valid assumption. Now, before you think the scientists are just being sloppy, consider how difficult it would be to include these factors into a model. How many sexual partners do you assume each human has? How do you know what environmental pressures were on an ancient human population for which we have no historical record? You cannot and so these models cannot realistically include these things. However, this just goes to show that their results should be used with great reservation. 
  • Second, the "one lucky mother" hypothesis has a critical flaw in it. If one assumes that ancient humanity began with a small population of thousands, then for this hypothesis to work one has to find a catastrophic yet very selective mechanism that will kill off all genetic lines except for one male's and one female's. It must be catastrophic enough to kill off thousands of lines and all their progeny and yet it must also be selective enough to kill off all but one for the females and one for the males. What event or process could be so terrible that it would kill off all genetic lines and yet also so selective that it would leave one and only one genetic line for each sex? Even theorizing about such a mechanism is nearly impossible. 
So, we must choose between case #1 and case #2. Case #1 puts more weight on mathematical models that are incomplete (see above) and must come up with a complicated mechanism for killing of all genetic lines but those of one male and one female. Case #2 acknowledges the issues with mathematical modeling and takes the mtDNA and Y-c data at face value without having to postulate extraordinary events to explain the data. If Ockham's razor means anything at all any more, we must acknowledge that case #2 is likely the correct explanation of the data.

What would keep intelligent men like the ones mentioned above from acknowledging that case #2 is more likely the correct explanation of the data? Presuppositions. We must remember that all of us look at this data with our bias that we bring to the table. I look at the data having faith that what Scripture says is historical and theologically important and therefore I choose case #2. Theistic evolutionists, like the Christians mentioned above, look at the data already believing that evolution is a fact and therefore choose case #1 because it fits that presupposition better. Am I any different from them in this regard? No, I readily admit that my bias influences my decision, but the point is that case #2 is 1) an equally valid interpretation of the data and 2) fits the data well with fewer complications and less reliance on incomplete modeling.

Scripture is my highest priority and I make no apologies for that, but it is also true that the data itself does not go against Scripture. It actually fits quite well with Scripture. This is what we should expect if we truly believe that God is the author of all truth, whether it comes from the infallible authority of Scripture or the scientific realm. For, as Paul says in Romans 11:36, "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

It Shall Be Provided

"When you are tempted to doubt the faithfulness of God, cry out, 'Get thee hence, Satan.' Though you cannot now harmonize God’s mysterious dealings with the avowals of His love, wait on Him for more light. In His own good time He will make it plain to you." ~ A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God


In agreement with the quote of Pink above, Spurgeon once said, "If you can't trace God's hand trust His heart." That is difficult to do but it is so important to the Christian life. This world is broken and sometimes it is difficult to see why God would ordain the events He has. Sometimes it is really hard because we are right in the middle of the tragedy, the darkness is closing in, and we cannot see how God is in it. Yet, we should never doubt in the dark what we have known to be true about God in the light. We must take hold of Him and "wait on Him for more light."

Back in July I preached a sermon at my church, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, on Genesis 22, which dealt with this very subject. If you are going through a rough time or have gone through one recently, perhaps it might be helpful to you. You can listen to it here or read it here. I pray that God will use it to encourage you and magnify His glory in your heart.

By His Grace,
Taylor