BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...

Repenting of parachurch, Baptist childhoods; Home Sweet Romans...

Here's a revealing, Biblically inaccurate interview with another in a long line of Evangelical intellectuals who felt that repudiating--really, really repudiating--their Baptist roots required them to turn to the Roman Catholic heresy. Honestly, what's with these guys? Can I see the hand of a man--just one man--who repents of his parachurch, Baptist heritage without becoming a Sacramentalist (you know, ex opere operato and all that), and then a full-blown Roman Catholic?

This is why I've said to my F-V sympathizing friends that we have to find a way to innoculate our parachurch, Baptist brothers against feeling the need to take the most radical step possible to put the faith of their childhood behind them.

First they embrace infant baptism, and that's not enough; then it's the smells and bells of...

Not to worry, Congresswoman Bachmann's resigned membership in her WELS church...

The Wisconisn Evangelical Lutheran Synod sees the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and raises them one. Or maybe ten.

In my former home of Pardeeville, Wisconsin, the WELS congregation was the dominant religious presence in town. When they called a new pastor, Mary Lee and I decided to invite him with his wife and children over for dinner. After a cordial introduction, we sat down at the table and I turned to him and said, "I've heard lots of things through the years, but let me ask you directly: do you pray, do I pray, or do we not pray at all?"

He answered, "You go ahead and pray and we'll sit by," and immediately his good wife turned to their children and said, "We're going to pray; fold your hands and close your eyes." God bless her.

We had a pleasant evening. During the conversation the WELS pastor told us his grandmothers was a godly Baptist and that he didn't pray with her, either...

Calvin on Baptism: "hypocrites ...glory in a naked and dead sign"

Some noticed my comment under another post, that I do not think men should place their children, wives, or themselves under the care of Lutheran pastors and churches, today. Why not?

Principally because modern Lutherans administer, teach, and write about the Sacraments in a way that leads tender souls to trust in the ritual and the elements rather than Jesus Christ. Here's the opening paragraph from a Concordia Publishing House pamplet distributed at no cost in the foyers of Missiouri Synod Lutheran churches around the country. Titled "What About Holy Baptism," it opens with this paragraph:

Suppose for a moment that there was a doctor who had such incredible talent that he could prevent people from dying, and bring those who had died back to life, never to die again. Just imagine how people would do whatever they could to be treated by this doctor! Now consider that in Holy Baptism, God actually does give us the gift of eternal life! Let's learn more about this marvelous blessing. (The pamplet goes on to make statements about the connection between "the Word" and the water, and once or twice faith is mentioned, but the first paragraph is an accurate representation of the whole.)

This is sacramentalism and it destroys souls. Yet sacramentalism is foundational to much of Christendom today. It permeates Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, and Roman Catholicism, and it is connived at by many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations and pastors. In fact if we're honest we'll admit that the sacramental error is cheek-by-jowl next to every Biblical practice of infant baptism, bedeviling paedobaptist churches just as the sacramentalism of decisional regeneration bedevils credobaptist churches.

It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us...

Luther on the Gospel-grace of the Law...

(Tim) At times, it seems best to promote a discussion to the main page. Readers lose track of discussions in the comments under old posts. Here's one such discussion that I'm promoting for reasons I hope are obvious.

It's my conviction that the endless mantra of grace that permeates our Evangelical/Redeemer/Westminster/Campus Crusade/R2K/Covenant world leads to us knowing little of grace because we despise God's Law and repentance.

In the midst of a discussion bearing on this matter, the historian Darryl Hart asked me to clarify what I meant when I spoke of the grace of the Law--that to preach the Law is Gospel preaching and that the Law is our Gospel schoomaster or tutor? Here I respond:

Scripture says:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24).

This is the great failure of Gospel preaching in our time, and the reason for the absence of fruit within our churches. We fail to preach the Law, instead trying to save unregenerate sinners from the indignities of repentance. We preach grace without leading souls there through the Law. We repudiate the Schoolmaster. It's the habit of pastors only to address the regenerate within the Covenant Community while outside that Community we gag preachers, leaving Gospel proclamation and conversion to Campus Crusade...

Calvin: ministers and Sacraments are dead and powerless labor...

Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)

(Tim) In 1Corinthians 3:4 ff. the Apostle Paul is rebuking the Corinthians' party spirit. Different factions of the congregation were lined up behind this or that minister of the Gospel using this or that man to get a leg up on their opponents. So the Apostle Paul has the dicey job of defending his own apostolic authority and doctrine, honoring the beautiful feet of ministers of the Word while also opposing the hero worship at the heart of the Corinthian division.

He ends up saying, on the one hand, that ministers of the Gospel are the means by which God's people come to faith in Jesus Christ; but on the other hand, that ministers of the Gospel are nothing. So it's both ministers are God's chosen instrument and ministers are nothing.

For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:4-7)

See the careful footwork?

Ministers are "servants through whom (the Corinthians) believed." Ministers are servants who "planted" and "watered as "God caused the growth." And...

Ministers are not anything (which is another way of saying ministers are nothing).

Our hearts are filled with love for the ministers of the Gospel who planted and watered so we might hear and believe the Good News, and be saved. But immediately, the faithful minister, the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit reminds us ministers are nothing at all. It is always God Who gives us the opportunity and causes the growth.

Now stick with me, here. I know it all seems so very obvious as not to need any comment, but follow the logic here, carefully.

Calvin comments...

"Spirituality and sexuality are two separate things..."

(Tim) Craig French writes: Not that you should know who Katy Perry is, but a headline on MSN caught my attention. Apparently Katy Perry doesn't like other people making a living by way of blasphemy... Ironically, she's a former CCM "artist" now known for her overt sexual displays and singing of the joys of kissing other girls. There was a curious quote that reminded me of (a certain well-known Reformed man):

"(People say) I'm a very hypocritical person: 'How do you say that and (sing), I Kissed a Girl?' Spirituality and sexuality are two separate things. When you decide to put it into the same subject, it gets interesting for some people."

It appears Perry and (our well-known Reformed man) have something in common when it comes to faith and practice. A snippet from an Offspring song summarizes it well: "Ya gotta keep 'em separated!" Perry ...seems to understand (these guys') Law/Gospel dialectic quite well.

Should pastors preach evangelistic sermons to their churches?

(Tim) Under "What is Gospel-centered ministry, really...," there's been a lengthy series of exchanges in the comments concerning whether it's proper to preach evangelistic sermons to established churches. This is an exceedingly important discussion and I want to encourage readers to go down and read those comments in their proper context. But knowing some won't go there, here is my most recent response which can, to some degree, stand on its own. Whatever else you don't read, make sure not to pass over the critically important quote from Luther here recorded.

* * *

Augustine said, "Many sheep without, many wolves within." From the founding of the Church, this has been the universal experience of pastors as we care for our flocks. Yes, the Epistles demonstrate a presumption that letters to believers are letters to believers. It's hard to imagine how they could have been written otherwise. "To those purporting to belong to Christ who are a part of that organization purporting to be a true church in Galatia?" It doesn't work.

But do the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles provide evidence that our Lord and His Apostles called the faith of those marked by the signs of the Covenant into question? The answer to that question is an emphatic, "Yes!" How long shall my list be? Think of those Christ contradicts, telling them their father is not God, but the Devil (John 8:38 & ff.). And if we want to let ourselves off the hook by dismissing Christ as our paradigm for pastoral care today under the rubric of His omniscience, let's move to the Apostolic warning given to Simon Magus in Acts 8. Or on to the many exhortations to baptized believers recorded in the Epistles carefully calculated to warn against and expose presumption--including the Letters to the Seven Churches (eg. Revelation 3:1-6).

So yes, we are to preach to our people normally addressing them as true believers. But we also must test ourselves to see if we are in the faith and call our flock to follow us in this discipline...

Two-kingdom's tendentious misuse of the Establishment Clause...

(Tim) One of the lines of error Darryl Hart was pursuing in a recent comment string here on Baylyblog was that emanation from a penumbra commonly referred to as "separation of church and state." Undoubtedly, Dr  Hart and his two kingdom compatriots will judge this correction as an effort to restore those halcyon days of old when women were good looking, men were strong, children were just average, and America was Trinitarian Theist. Nothing could be further from the the truth.

We just don't want bad history to go uncorrected--even if it's bad history in the furtherance of a Lutheran cause. This, then, from a ruling elder named Brian Bailey.

* * *

"...our constitution does not recognize God, requires no religious belief for holding office, and separates church and state. How do you live in the U.S.A.?" -Darryl Hart

Dear Dr. Hart,
 
Which constitution are you referring to? If to the U.S. Constitution, it actually does recognize God: “Done in the Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven . . . .” (U.S. Const. art. VII.) Only one God could fit that description. But let's assume that's mere pious formalism...
 

"He Who sits in the heavens laughs."

(Tim, w/thanks to Bob) Uwe Siemon-Netto comments on his fellow Lutherans' approval of the ordination of sodomites to pastoral ministry and the tornado many Reformed men are quick to say should not be attributed to any Divine purpose communicating any Divine message. Don't miss it.

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009.

(Tim) Father Richard John Neuhaus has passed through the valley of the shadow of death. May God have mercy on his soul. His death is a great loss for Roman Catholics and Protestants, alike. But maybe even more for Protestants since there are few men of his Biblical understanding, discernment, and courage among us. Toll the bell.

From Joseph Bottum, the editor of First Things:

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus slipped away today, January 8, shortly before 10 o’clock, at the age of seventy-two. He never recovered from the weakness that sent him to the hospital the day after Christmas, caused by a series of side effects from the cancer he was suffering. He lost consciousness Tuesday evening after a collapse in his heart rate, and the next day, in the company of friends, he died...

Sleepers awake...

(Tim) If you've read Augustine's Confessions you'll remember his debating the moral status of dreams. Fascinating part of one of the best books I've ever read. More Post-It notes stick out of my copy of the Confessions than any other book in my library, whatever that tells you.

Speaking of dreams, here's a shocker: As best I can tell, a dear friend of mine went to sleep an unbeliever, had a dream, and awoke to find childlike faith in Jesus Christ at the center of a heart that, prior to bedtime, had been vegan, feminist, pro-abort, hardshell, God-hating. Actually, as I think of it, I know two souls who, when they became believers, recounted dreams that had been the critical step in coming to faith.

Speaking of dreams, again, my present wife is the most wonderful wife I've ever had. That's a pic of us with our eldest, Heather, outside married student housing at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary back in about 1981 or so...

The clarity and simplicity of Scripture's doctrine of sexuality...

(Note from Tim Bayly: This message was delivered October 5, 1998 in Riga, Latvia, at a conference titled "Gender Theology: Questions, Problems, Perspectives," held by the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church.)

It is a great joy to be here with you and to think of how impossible this time together would have been just a few years ago. How good it is to be able to cross borders so freely--without even the necessity of a visa--and to be able to join together in fellowship and worship with you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

But then too, I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to you on the subject of Biblical manhood and womanhood. Here it may be appropriate to insert some biographical information, but first please allow me to clarify my own vocabulary:

• 'Complement': "something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect; one of two mutually completing parts" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
• 'Patriarchy': literally, "father rule."
• 'Egalitarian': "a belief in human equality" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

So, when I refer to the different positions taken by Christians today concerning what Scripture has to say about manhood and womanhood, I will use these terms:

First, the words 'complementarian' or 'patriarchal' will be used to indicate the Church's historical position which calls for a distinction in roles between men and women in the government of the Church and home; and particularly to the necessity of men holding positions of authority.

Second, the word 'egalitarian' will be used to indicate the position held by feminists today when they call for women to hold leadership positions of authority equally with men.

Now for some personal history: Although today I myself believe in the Church's historical, patriarchal position, it was not always so. Back in 1976 when my wife and I were first married, both of us were committed egalitarians...

Wheels vs. Motor: A comment on Marcus Borg's "The Character of God"...

This excellent response to Marcus Borg was written by Pastor Dan Reuter, a dear friend who serves Brown County Presbyterian Fellowship in Nashville, Indiana.

Our British cousins commonly speak of automobiles as "motors." We, at least colloquially, tend to call them "wheels," as in "I got wheels, man." Which of us is correct?

It's a ridiculous question, but hardly more ridiculous than Dr. Marcus Borg's sermon on the character of God. Wheels are useless without motive power and the motor is no vehicle without wheels. But Dr. Borg tells us that there are two metaphors for God which are so far divorced that "they virtually produce two different religions."

One metaphor-the bad one, according to Borg-is of God as monarch, lawgiver, and judge. This is the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands obedience, the God who demands, at the very least, faith. And this is the God before whom we never measure up. He is the God who, ultimately, will "get" us because of our failure to do what he tells us. The last word of this God is, according to a colleague whom Borg quotes with approval, "divine ethnic cleansing." The words which Borg associates with the God of this monarchial metaphor are "requirements," "in-group," and "vengeance." Borg's language as much as his argument-actually, there isn't much argument-makes it clear that this God, if he exists, is bad. No right-thinking person today would admit to worshiping a God who has anything to do with vengeance or exclusion, much less ethnic cleansing. And even requirements seem to be a rather dated notion in an era of noncompetitive "sports" with no losers and no winners.

The other metaphor is the one which pictures God primarily as a lover. The bad, lawgiving God "also loves us," Borg admits, but his love is conditional and therefore not to be reckoned on the same exalted plane as the love of the divine Lover who is only that. God, says Borg, "is in love with us." In fact, he quotes another colleague who says that God is "besotted with us." And With this God there are also other words associated: "compassion," "liberation," "justice." Once more the language says it all. Who nowadays admits to being against compassion or liberation or justice?

What do Marcus Borg, Greg Johnson, Zane Hodges, and Gene Roddenberry have in common...

Another exercise in discernment: please join this work. Resistance is not futile.

In the godly, fear and love embrace.

Dear readers, my brother, David, and I have often written here that our work on this blog is an extension of our calling to serve as shepherds of God's flock. And although we recognize this calling is primarily to particular congregations in Toledo and Bloomington, we approach this blog as an extension of our local ministry and work to serve as shepherds here, also. In fact, a high proportion of our readers are present or past members of our congregations. Whether the medium is the telephone, E-mail, church newsletters, or blogs, David and I are working to correct, encourage, and rebuke, with great patience.

At times we give in to the temptation to waste these words on inconsequential matters, but we hope not too often. Seeing the title of my recent post, "The World Cup, racism, and the reprobate," some likely wondered why I was squandering time on soccer? But the post wasn't really about soccer, but rather the sin of racism, and the failure of pastors and elders who connive at this sin in their congregations.

Why this lengthy preamble?

Here is a link to a piece I believe to be terribly dangerous. I've considered whether it's too dangerous to be circulated, but I think we need to read it. It's a sermon by Lutheran scholar Marcus Borg, titled "The Character of God," given at Calvary Episcopal Church in Memphis, Tennessee, on March 24, 2000.

Professor Borg is leading the souls he's teaching in a liberal and academic context to a place that is similar to the place Covenant Theological Seminary graduate and PCA pastor, Greg Johnson, takes us in his piece , "Freedom from Quiet Time Guilt: The Rare Beauty of Weakness Christianity." Sure, Pastor Johnson uses terminology and arguments that would appeal to conservative reformed, rather than liberal Lutheran, academic types. But both pieces, I believe, lead souls to presume on God's grace and allow no place for the fear of God...

Who are you, O man, who answers back to God...

There's been quite a discussion, both at Mr. McCain's blog and this one--particularly in the comments under individual posts--concerning the reformed Protestant, as opposed to the Lutheran, view of God's agency in salvation and damnation.

Although there are many hundreds of texts which could be quoted here, all sides realize the classic locations that must be dealt with concerning this matter are Isaiah 45 and Romans 9. Here, then, are these texts, followed by three expositions (all emphases added).

David and I believe both the Westminster Standards and Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will are faithful to the Word of God. On the other hand, it's clear we could not subscribe to the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church's standards as they deal with these texts.

First, from the Word of God Himself, the passages under debate:

(Isaiah 45:5-10) I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. Drip down, O heavens, from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness; Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit, And righteousness spring up with it. I, the LORD, have created it. Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, "What are you doing?" Or the thing you are making say, "He has no hands"? Woe to him who says to a father, "What are you begetting?" Or to a woman, "To what are you giving birth?"

(Romans 9:18-22) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Second, Martin Luther from his Bondage of the Will:

Respect for Luther, Lutherans, Lutheranism...

In order of precedence, Tim and I affirm our affection and respect for Luther, individual Lutherans and modern Lutheranism.

There is, of course, a significant gap between the second and third items on our list. Yet many modern Lutherans continue to hold to Luther's teaching on justification and the fundamental nature of the Gospel and thus we do not discard modern Lutheranism (especially of the Missouri Synod flavor) from the list of those churches in which we believe the Holy Spirit is pleased to manifest His saving authority.

This might seem a strange affirmation at this point considering the flaming arrows that have come our way recently from Lutheran bows.

But we are no strangers to flaming arrows, and we respect those who shoot from the open a great deal more than those who snipe privately from parapets.

Rev. McCain may regard us as woefully heterodox, even heretical Calvinists. But we regard his manly contention for the truth with respect despite being the subjects of his recent diatribes.

A few further observations:

1) The ongoing series of reflections on the nature of the Second Commandment on this blog was primarily occasioned by Reformed practice and teaching, not Lutheran.

2) I would encourage you to look through our blog to see whether we've dealt fairly with our opponents throughout the recent series of posts on the Second Commandment--and pay close attention not only to the posts, but to our responses to comments. We've changed nothing we've written on this blog at any point in recent days. Yes, we occasionally alter grammar, spelling, and words prior to comments appearing on our posts. But once criticism appears we leave our posts intact rather than tidy them up to escape the weight of criticism.

3) In my post on the difference between Luther's view of the Law and that of modern Lutheranism I was responding to a series of comments published here and on Rev. McCain's blog questioning Tim's and my fundamental Christian faith. Without apology for that post, it was occasioned primarily by respondents other than Rev. McCain, an advocate of modern Lutheranism whom I've held in some regard.

4) While our blog has remained intact without substantive change over the last few weeks, you will not find the same is true elsewhere.

5) It is painful to disagree with brothers. But the use of imagery in worship and evangelism has long occasioned painful disagreement within the Church. And as Scripture teaches, God has established such unpleasantness as one of His methods of establishing truth:

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

A Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor's attack upon the sovereignty of God...

Lutheran pastor Paul McCain has been blowing the steam pressure relief valves on both his and our blogs these past two days, leaving David and me scratching our heads. We've tried to be conciliatory in our responses, and clearly our concerns about the meaning of the Second Commandment were from the first primarily aimed at our brothers in the reformed church--what Pastor McCain would call "the Calvinist church"--not followers of Luther. David and I continued to try to respond to Pastor McCain, pouring thousands of words of reformed fathers' answers to his questions on the blog. But things went from bad to worse.

Yesterday, early in the morning, Pastor McCain posted a comment on our blog which, among other things, said:

Frankly, I'm disgusted by Calvinism's warped interpretation of Holy Scripture, but since it starts with a fundamental misinterpretation of God's essence and nature, I should not be surprised that a great many other things go wrong as well.

Then, over on his own blog, Pastor McCain wrote:

Luther is not merely "one of the reformers." He is the reformer. Zwingli and Calvin were not reformers, they were destroyers and distorters of Biblical truth....

Clearly Luther was right when he looked at Zwingli and said, "You have a different spirit." Indeed, the so-called "Reformed" do have a different spirit. ...I pray that somehow in the fog of error and confusion that is Calvinism the Gospel still manages to shine through.

Then early this morning Pastor McCain posted...

Grace, grace, grace, brace, brace, blace, blase about sin...

I'm struck by the willingness of some Lutherans on this blog to impudently claim grace in the face of potential violations of Old Testament commands. It seems grace covers every failure, even failure to think seriously about the Law. This is not Lutheranism in its original sense, but however far devolved from the teaching of Luther, it does represent modern Lutheran practice and a dangerous trap for the Reformed community as a whole.

What place is there for fear of the Lord in modern Lutheran thought? Is it merely Old Testament legalism, withered to nothing after the Cross?

Perhaps it's time for these revelers-in-grace to heed the actions of the New Testament, post-Resurrection, Covenant-of-Grace, Spirit-filled apostles who held themselves compelled to heed even the non-normative, prophetic passages of the Old Testament....

One of the most remarkable verses in Acts is found in Acts 1:21 where Peter, after speaking of Judas, tells the assembled disciples "it is necessary" that an apostle be chosen to replace Judas simply because David had so prophesied in the book of Psalms.

Acts 1:20-23 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it'; and, 'Let another man take his office.' 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.

It "is necessary" that the disciples choose a successor to Judas, necessary because Scripture ordains it. And in rigorously seeking to heed the Old Testament they are following the well-worn footsteps of their Master. Time after time Jesus acted so that "the Scriptures might be fulfilled"--even in areas of non-normative prophecy, not to mention Scripture's normative commands.

Yet many modern Lutherans think grace covers every failure to take the Old Testament seriously, even the plainest commands of the Decalogue.

Perhaps it's time for modern Lutherans to listen again to their namesake on the fear of the Lord, a man far better acquainted with the salutary effects of such fear than they...

But the people of Sodom are like crags and very hard rocks. In their case brimstone, lightning from heaven, and thunder are needed. Those foolish and lying prophets who maintain that the Law should not be taught in the church and that, in general, no one should be rebuked too severely or burdened in his conscience are not aware of this.

If this is true, however, why does the Lord want the example of Sodom preserved in His very church and taught by Abraham? Moreover, in view of the fact that He adds "in order that they may fear the Lord," do not those who want only the promises to be taught exclude the doctrine of the fear of the Lord entirely from the church? Hence the fanatical spirits who confound the entire system of heavenly doctrine in a pernicious manner must be shunned.

Sexuality: Scripture's Clarity and Simplicity...

(Note from Tim Bayly: This paper was delivered on October 5, 1998 in Riga, Latvia, at a conference titled "Gender Theology: Questions, Problems, Perspectives," held by the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church.)

It is a great joy to be here with you and to think of how impossible this time together would have been just a few years ago. How good it is to be able to cross borders so freely--without even the necessity of a visa--and to be able to join together in fellowship and worship with you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

But then too, I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to you on the subject of Biblical manhood and womanhood. Here it may be appropriate to insert some biographical information, but first please allow me to clarify my own vocabulary:

• 'Complement': "something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect; one of two mutually completing parts" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
• 'Patriarchy': literally, "father rule."
• 'Egalitarian': "a belief in human equality" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

So, when I refer to the different positions taken by Christians today concerning what Scripture has to say about manhood and womanhood, I will use these terms:

First, the words 'complementarian' or 'patriarchal' will be used to indicate the Church's historical position which calls for a distinction in roles between men and women in the government of the Church and home; and particularly to the necessity of men holding positions of authority.

Second, the word 'egalitarian' will be used to indicate the position held by feminists today when they call for women to hold leadership positions of authority equally with men.

Now for some personal history: Although today I myself believe in the Church's historical, patriarchal position, it was not always so. Back in 1976 when my wife and I were first married, both of us were committed egalitarians...

By their fruit...

Those who insist that it is unfair to link the fruit of a professedly Christian life with the theology that life hews to should examine Scripture more closely. Our Lord and Saviour said, "By their fruit ye shall know them."

The LCMS and the Reformed Church

Lutheranism seems to be the newest new thing in Reformed circles, in particular, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS), which has developed a certain degree of cache within elements of the Reformed Church no doubt because of its unique position in the Lutheran world: standing for the inerrancy of Scripture, against the ordination of women and admitting that other Protestant denominations contain at least a small portion of Spirit and Truth.

Is this a good development? Two areas of observation, then several conclusions....

First, though, my credentials as commentator. Over the years I've had a number of more-than-glancing contacts with the LCMS, beginning with my parents sending me to a LCMS junior high and high school--where I went through the pre-confirmation catechetical training required of LCMS students. Moreover, I have a number of friends who have been lifelong Lutherans, the majority of whom were raised within the LCMS. Finally, I have several friends and acquaintances who converted to LCMS Lutheranism later in life: one, a lifelong Roman Catholic entered the LCMS upon marrying a divorcee, several others who have entered the LCMS from Reformed backgrounds.

Home sweet Rome...

Responding to my entry, Not Just Now, Thank You, dealing with the conversion to Roman Catholicism of many of my peers from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Greg Barnes writes:

I suspect that many of those who are converting to Rome are like so many who convert to Mormonism, in that they know very little about what they are getting into. It also shows a defect in the curriculum of whatever seminaries and Bible colleges those preachers attended...

And Pastor Paul McCain writes:

Tim, we've suffered a few diversions ourselves. Not too many though. Perhaps some of the more notorious conversions would include Richard John Neuhaus... and Jaroslav Pelican who headed East. ....What do you think accounts for it? I've identified it as a longing for some sense of "security" which is gladly provided in the "magisterium" of Rome... Your thoughts?

To which I respond:

Without getting too specific, whatever may be said about the rest of the Gordon-Conwell converts, no one would accuse Scott or Kimberly Hahn of being ignorant of what they were getting into. Scott and Kimberly were (and are) both bright ones, and would have known exactly what they were doing. On more than one occasion, I was very pleased to have Kimberly standing with me when I was arguing with Professor Roger Nicole in his advocacy of the ordination of women. And Kimberly's husband, Scott, was the cutting edge of theonomy's entrance into our campus who, like every other proponent of theonomy I've known, was no dullard.

Neuhaus is an interesting and, I think, instructive case. When he converted to Roman Catholicism he sent a number of us a letter explaining his action and I here quote what I found most telling, and have since resonated with:

Protestant quotes on images of Christ...

Several friends have passed on excerpts from fathers in the faith concerning the nature and meaning of the Second Commandment. I'm putting them up here, hoping others will be instructed by them as I have been myself. Thank you to Bob Patterson, Jim Goodloe, Richard Burnett, John McKenzie (and numerous web sites) for calling our attention to these texts. And of course, everyone would do well to start by reading the fourth chapter of J. I. Packer's modern classic, Knowing God.(To save entering lots of html code, none of these excerpts will be indented. Also, other quotes of Martin Luther would support the use of images in worship, but I've chosen to include this earlier quote only since it, at least, agrees with the thrust of the Protestant reformers here presented.)

Mel Gibson's Icon Productions...

In an earlier post, I wrote:

When Mr. Gibson makes a celluloid icon and calls Christians to express their devotion to the Lord Jesus by venerating that icon, Mr. Gibson is doing precisely what we reformed folks have accused his communion of doing for almost five hundred years, now--he is being an orthodox Roman Catholic encouraging the veneration of images of God.

To which another World blogger, Dean Abbott, responded:

When and where, exactly, did Mr. Gibson call Christians to express their devotion to the Lord Jesus by venerating that icon?

There is no citation because I'm not quoting Gibson on this, but only summarizing what is self-evident concerning his motivation in making The Passion of the Christ: this movie is an act of religious devotion to Jesus and the Virgin Mary and through this, his celluloid medium, Gibson is calling his viewers to the same devotion.