The Aquila Report Archives - Page 12 of 942

R.C. Sproul vs The Westminster Divines on the Christian Sabbath

By Ronald William Di Giacomo — 4 months ago

Are we to infer that God commands us not to work on the Sabbath in order that we might enjoy 21st century entertainment on the Lord’s Day? Are all non-work lawful pleasures that are suitable for Saturdays somehow appropriate for Sunday? Did God command rest for one day in seven so that 21st century moms and dads would be free on Sundays to take their children to their soccer games? It should be apparent, the Divines did not base their view of Sabbath recreation solely on Isaiah 58:13-14.

R.C. Sproul cites three so-called “controversies” in church history surrounding the Christian Sabbath. Is the Sabbath obligatory for the New Testament Church? If it is, should the Sabbath continue to be the seventh day of the week, the first day of the week, or is the day of the week up for grabs. Thirdly, Sproul raises a difference of opinion within the church regarding Sabbath recreation and acts of mercy. So, Sproul cites two defeated views, then fastens his wagon to a third. I’ll address them one-by-one.
Obligatory nature of the Sabbath
“Augustine, for example, believed that nine of the Ten Commandments (the so-called “moral law” of the Old Testament) were still intact and imposed obligations upon the Christian church… Augustine was persuaded that the Old Testament Sabbath law had been abrogated. Others have argued that because the Sabbath was instituted originally not in the Mosaic economy but in creation, it maintains its status of moral law as long as the creation is intact.”
There’s no doubt, Augustine was the theological giant of his day. However, Augustine lived 1600 years ago and anyone holding to his theology today could not be ordained in a Reformed Presbyterian church. That speaks to how far God has brought his church.
Many giants have stood on Augustine’s shoulders. Yet today’s Reformed church, with its elevated line to truth on the horizon, repudiates several of Augustine’s theological positions such as paedocommunion, the classification of non-elect regenerate persons, the abrogation of the Sabbath principle and more.
Of course, there are always theological “controversies” in the church but controversy does not lend credence to a defeated view held by an otherwise notable theologian of his day. That Augustine reduced the Ten Commandants to nine merely corroborates the Reformed understanding of the progressive doctrinal illumination of the church. We should expect that doctrine has been refined from Augustine’s day, through the time of the Protestant Reformation, to this very day within the Reformed tradition. Accordingly, any reference to Augustine that gives credence to a non-confessional Sabbath view gives equal credence to paedocommunion and losing one’s salvation, which resurfaced without warm ecclesiastical welcome in the fleeting phase of Federal Vision.
Saturday, Sunday or any day?
“The second major controversy is the question about the day of the week on which the Sabbath is to be observed. Some insist that… since the Old Testament Israelites celebrated the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, which would be Saturday, we should follow that pattern.”
Sproul gives no details of who was embroiled in the controversy, so it’s hard to comment. As for today it’s safe to say that the Millerite movement that culminated in the Seventh-day Adventist sect and the teachings of its former prophetess, Ellen White, have no seat at the Reformed table. Nor do Saturday Sabbath cults like those that embrace Armstrongism and House of Yahwey heresies, or views held within the Hebrews Roots movement.
But back to basics. What is the relevance of citing the defeated side of a settled “controversy” by an appeal to a particular theologian? Would we lend credence to slavery because an otherwise notable statesman owned slaves? That a particular theologian (past or present) disagrees with the church might be interesting but it is neither surprising nor seemingly relevant.
Indeed, if it is one’s intention to lend credence to doctrines that lost the debate by citing notable theologians who were on the wrong side of the church, then how far might we take this approach? Should we revisit the credibility of the “transubstantiation of the mass” because Thomas Aquinas was sound on other doctrine? Where is Sproul hoping to lead us? Controversial debate might create doubt in the minds of the less theologically grounded, but can it lend credence to either side of an issue, especially to the losing side in a progressively illuminated church?
“John Calvin argued that it would be legitimate to have the Sabbath day on any day if all of the churches would agree, because the principle in view was the regular assembling of the saints for corporate worship and for the observation of rest.”
Well, Calvin didn’t have the benefit of the Westminster Divines as it relates to their mature thought on the Regulative Principle of Worship, Christian Liberty of Conscience and Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day, which through theological synthesis overturns the view that the church may determine which day in seven can be constituted as the Lord’s Day. The Divines with good reason rejected Articles XX and XXXIV of the church of England. Again, what’s the point of the history lesson?
How does historical controversy lend credence to, or cast doubt upon, settled error and in this particular case on the church’s alleged right to dictate religious rites and holy days?
Recreation and Acts of Mercy
“Within the Reformed tradition, the most significant controversy that has appeared through the ages is the question of how the Sabbath is to be observed. There are two major positions within the Reformed tradition on this question. To make matters simple, we will refer to them as the Continental view of the Sabbath and the Puritan view of the Sabbath.”
Tagging with an impressive label a non-confessional view might give people a subjective sense of theological backing but it cannot provide objective confessional or ecclesiastical backing. Moreover, as church historian and professor R. Scott Clark has argued, this rejected view, commonly referred to as “the Continental view” of the Sabbath, is thought by some to entail spurious revisionism. Or as Dr. Clark would have it:

“There was no consciousness in the classical period of a distinctly “British” or ‘Continental’ view of anything. There was simply an international Reformed theology, piety, and practice.”

See also the Synod of Dort on sabbath observance:
“This same day is thus consecrated for divine worship, so that in it one might rest from all servile works (with these excepted, which are works of charity and pressing necessity) and from those recreations which impede the worship of God.”
Back to Sproul:
“The Puritan view argues against the acceptability of recreation on the Sabbath day. The text most often cited to support this view is Isaiah 58:13-14…The crux of the matter in this passage is the prophetic critique of people doing their own pleasure on the Sabbath day. The assumption that many make with respect to this text is that doing one’s own pleasure must refer to recreation. If this is the case, the prophet Isaiah was adding new dimensions to the Old Testament law with respect to Sabbath-keeping.”
Read More

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 45

Anxiety: What is Our Hope?

By Austin Kettle — 4 months ago

Our God will carry us, nurse us, and bind up our wounds, even as we feel the loss, and he will get us to where he has promised. Now is not the whole story. But he is with us now, taking care of what he knows we need. This is the kind of gospel that can meet our anxiety when we are widowed, when Parkinson’s comes, in redundancy, divorce, and heart attacks. Do not, Christian, do not be anxious. Not because there is nothing to fear, but because we have a Father, and day by day he will provide.

It is hard to talk about anxiety in a helpful way. At best, I have a shallow, half-understanding of anxiety. I am not a psychologist, and I no longer have the absolute confidence of a person who has only known one story of anxiety up close. A flat, simple story of anxiety is easy to talk about. Sad thing is, the story of anxiety gets more complex with every real person you engage with.
Discussion around anxiety is everywhere. In his recent book, The Anxious Generation, New York University professor Jonathan Haidt offers an interpretation of the overwhelming reports of massive anxiety among teenagers and young people by focusing on the destructive impact of smartphones and social media on childhood.
Lauren Oyler, a young novelist, offers a perspective from within the anxious generation. She wrote an essay in the New Yorker in March 2024 about her own experience of anxiety and uncertainty about the kind of help she might or might not need. It’s a good read if you want to hear someone’s experience of trying to talk about her own anxiety in the context of a cultural deluge. And she points out that we are not the first people to experience a huge uptick in reports of anxiety as we see the world changing around us:
The concept of Americanitis, popularized by William James at the end of the nineteenth century, described “the high-strung, nervous, active temperament of the American people,” according to an 1898 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The causes — advances in technology and accompanying pressures of capitalism — were much the same as they are today.[1]
Please do not think I am minimizing anxiety. I am grateful that it is way less stigmatized than even a decade ago and that good therapy and effective medications are far more widely available. Good people are doing good work to help people in real suffering.
But, or even better said, and whenever we’re faced with something that seems out of control in our current moment, we do well to look beyond our moment.
Jesus knows the anxiety of change. He taught people whose political worlds were defined by hostile occupation, economic volatility, and colonial pragmatism. Their daily lives were lives without refrigeration, without preservatives, without Ziploc© bags. Each day, the question of where food was coming from was as live a question as whether the authorities would crack down on them. In the face of all these unknowns, how could they be anything but anxious?
Matthew 6:24-34 does not provide us with a silver bullet to the whole problem of anxiety. Jesus is not offering a simplistic “stop it!” to people whose brains and bodies play host to generalized anxiety or traumatic responses.
Instead, this passage must be read in context, and when we do, we will see that Jesus is focused on a key tension:
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. (Matt. 6:24-34, ESV)
Step back with me. The thesis that sets up this key tension is this: faced with anxiety about the future, we will be devoted to the one thing that truly gives us hope, and we will consider other sources of hope inconsequential. Jesus goes so far as to say that we will even come to despise them.
And here is the tension: What will that source of hope be? Ultimately, Jesus teaches, in the face of uncertainty, we will either devote ourselves to our own capacity to meet trouble, here represented by money, or we will devote ourselves to the conviction that God cares for us. We will either devote ourselves to our own capacity to meet trouble, primarily through money, but possibly also hustle, worry, politics, and more — power in our own hands — or we will devote ourselves to the conviction that God, our Father, cares for us. Power cradling us in his own hands.
It will almost never feel this black and white, but in those moments of interior crisis we will preach to ourselves one of two gospels: I am alone, or I am a child.

I am alone. If I anticipate and mitigate every crisis that tomorrow might bring, I may be able to take care of myself. I may be able to please the gods. I may be able to future-proof myself.
I am a child. I have a loving heavenly Father who has saved my life and will add to that all I need for each day.

It feels so binary, yet these are the two options everything else boils down to. Mitigating crises might not look like building our bank balance; it might look like surrounding ourselves with capable people who owe us favors or building our positive karma. These options go beyond action and back to identity. And fundamentally, they go back beyond our own identity to the identity of God himself. Does he exist? Does he care? Can he help?
So those are our two choices: Am I alone, or am I loved? Jesus asks us which narrative we will believe. But they are choices offered with a huge bias: come towards love. Jesus beckons us towards God’s love using three reminders.
First, we are to choose our heavenly Father over money.
We cannot begin to understand this text and this teaching without understanding the context. There are two instances of the word ‘therefore’ in this passage, and the first is almost at the beginning, in verse 25. This first ‘therefore’ is emphatic. In fact, it is not the usual word for ‘therefore’: it is more like ‘hey!’ Because of all this, therefore…
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 43

Responding to Hurricane Helene – Part 2

By Geoff Gleason — 4 months ago

Be reminded that the Lord is good, and the Lord is sovereign. Because He rules and reigns, the Christian says with Job: “The Lord gives and takes away…” Because the world is subject to God’s providence, the Christian’s grumbling should be changed to Job’s good confession: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” That does not mean that hardships are not hard anymore. It does not mean that loss does not bring about tears. But it does mean that whether facing easy or hard circumstances, Christians are to give thanks to God, praise His name, tell of His salvation, and rejoice for His steadfast love endures forever.

Last installment the stage was set for a broader consideration of how the Christian should respond to God’s providence using Job 2:9-10. In the midst of tremendous loss, Job maintains his spiritual integrity, event worshiping God who he saw as taking things away from him. This topic is important especially for those who have just suffered the effects of hurricane Helene. And yet it is applicable to all because we are all subject to God’s providence.
The Providence of God
Westminster Shorter Catechism defines God’s providence in this way: “What are God’s works of providence? God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.”[1] In the book of Job the reader is challenged to understand how God governs His creatures and their actions, and how to properly respond to that reality. Since God governs all His creatures and all their actions, that means good times and disaster come from Him. God does not remove Himself from this world after He makes it as the Deists would teach, but continually governs it. He cares for the creation, superintending all His creatures and all their actions.
What Job teaches the Christian is that he should respond with the same level of contentment in both kinds of circumstances. And that is challenging. In some sense easy times make us complacent and hard times make us grumble, but from Job’s lips the Christian is reminded that we should receive both by remembering that it is God’s providence, His governance of his days that has brought these circumstances into being.
God’s Good Providences
In the book of Job the tension is not that he has received too many blessings from the Lord. It is rather the opposite. Job has experienced a shattering of his life and his tragedy is real. Even for those who have experienced this most recent hurricane, it is still predominantly true that those in the United States can sing with the psalmist: “The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.”[2]The vast majority of westerners live under God’s good providences, which are experienced in different ways.
His provision. The Lord provides for His people in a variety of ways. He does so materially by giving food, clothing, housing, and other possessions. He does so emotionally by blessing Christians with friends, family, and most often a spouse with whom to share life. He does so through the technological advancements of our time with vastly improved medical technology, and other inventions that provide ease and comfort in life. There are many others that could be listed here. Most of the time people hardly give these any thought, and even assume that these are their right. And yet because all men participated in the sin of Adam and add to that guilt daily by sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, it is in the provisions that God gives that He demonstrated His kindness.
His protection. In God’s governance of His creation there is security because in it God protects His people. In Job, the only reason the devil has access to him is that God gives him permission. Often in prayer meetings, Christians will pray for a “hedge of protection” around someone. That phrase is derived from the devil’s conversation with God. When the devil responds to God’s praise of Job’s faithfulness he says, “Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side?”[3] The Christian lives with the knowledge that nothing happens to him apart from the permission of his loving Heavenly Father.
Most often, the Lord directs these protections through secondary means. Parents are used to protect their children both physically and spiritually. The elders of the church exercise their office for the protection of faith and practice among God’s people. Governing authorities protect their citizens from evil and promote what is good. These institutions do not exist apart from God’s appointment, but are instances of His tremendous kindness in his good providences.
His pardon. The greatest aspect of God’s work of providence is the way He redeems people from the guilt of sin. All people are by nature guilty before God because of their sin. And yet some are declared righteous and pardoned from the guilt of their sin. It is God’s providence that any turn. None would be reconciled to God on their own. The condition of man is dire. He is “dead in sin and trespass”[4] and even Christians are naturally “children of wrath like the rest of mankind.”[5] There is no possible way to escape the significance of this natural condition. God’s merciful pardoning of sin is His ultimate demonstration of kindness.
It is good to remember and express these acts of kindness which God in His good providence has given to His people. That is especially true while living in the shadow of hurricane Helene. In hard times, people are tempted to think only of the tragedy. But Christians must remember the goodness and kindness of God which is experienced (and perhaps taken for granted) from day to day. Certainly it is easier to praise God when His providence provides for and protects you. It is easy to praise Him for His work of salvation. But there is much to be learned in the book of Job in giving thanks in all circumstances.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 40

The Evangelistic Shift

By Jake Meador — 4 months ago

Once the issue of trans identities arose, an openness to traditional Christian accounts became more costly….The social costs for progressive non-Christians of simply expressing an openness to or curiosity about traditional forms of Christian belief became much higher.

When I first started writing online in the early 2010s, most of what you might term the evangelistic openness I saw in media culture was coming from the political or cultural center-left.
A columnist at the New York Times came to faith.
A religion writer from Vox did as well.
Additionally, there were editors at both Vox and the New Yorker who were part of PCA or ACNA congregations. A number of other prominent writers in elite media seemed open to faith.
I remember hearing one such figure, now at the Times with quite a large platform, interview all three of Rod Dreher, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and Patrick Deneen within about a 12 month stretch in the late 2010s. Hearing some of his questions, particularly in his conversation with Dougherty, had me genuinely wondering if he was close to conversion.
This was also, of course, the tail end of Tim Keller’s ministry at Redeemer. Given Keller’s success as a church planter and ecosystem builder in New York and given New York’s significance culturally, much of this era may well be tied up in Keller’s presence and Redeemer’s ministry.
Yet if you look around today, something has shifted: To my eyes there is very little evangelistic openness in the center-left world. There are still plenty of Christians to be found, but virtually all of them that come to mind for me are not adult converts and came from Christian backgrounds.
But if you look at the right or the reactionary ends of the political horseshoe where right and left begin to converge, the picture is quite different: Jordan Peterson’s wife is now Catholic. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a one-time new atheist who did events with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, is a Christian. So is Paul Kingsnorth and Martin Shaw.
Meanwhile, figures like Tom Holland and Douglas Murray and Bari Weiss all seem, to varying degrees, interested in Christian faith in a way that goes beyond mere intellectual curiosity.
Moreover, as younger Americans politically polarize by gender, with men tending toward the right and women toward the left, those trends seem to also align with young men going to church in growing numbers even as young women continue to dechurch.
It would be a mistake to suggest this is happening because Christianity itself is “right wing.” In the first place, defining “right wing” is itself a fraught project—is it the “right wing” politics of Dwight Eisenhower or Mussolini? The politics of Reagan or George W. Bush or the politics of Orban or Meloni? Or should we range further afield—what about the “right wing” of D’Annunzio or Disraeli? “Right wing” conceals as much as it reveals in such conversations.
In the second place, one can easily think of any number of political positions one could plausibly assign to the right that do not align at all with historic Christianity. (Matthew Rose’s A World After Liberalism is the essential book to read on this.)
So what accounts for this shift and how should Christians respond?
The answer to the first question might be surprisingly simple: The shift dates back to the growing awareness, acceptance, and promotion of transgender sexual identities in mainstream American culture. This shift, dating to the mid 2010s and probably peaking in the early 2020s, did two things that fundamentally changed the evangelistic landscape for Christians in America. (I know some will argue that the real shift has to do with “wokeness” more than it does trans issues specifically. I don’t find this altogether persuasive both because I think one can disambiguate the different parts of the “woke” package and because I think issues of sexuality strike at the vitals of Christian belief and practice in uniquely complicated and challenging ways.)
The Mid 2010s Evangelistic Shift
First, as acceptance of transgender identities became a litmus test for the American left, the conflict between left wing political ideology and Christianity was redefined and intensified. A left wing media figure in 2015 might be able to signal friendliness to conservative post-liberals, for example, both as a sign of sincere desire to understand the appeal of Donald Trump and as an openness to alternative theories of American social collapse. Social breakdown was, after all, a long-standing concern of many on the American left dating back decades and certainly well-established by the early 2000s when works like Nickel and Dimed and Bowling Alone hit American bookstores.
But once the issue of trans identities arose, an openness to traditional Christian accounts became more costly: Christianity was no longer seen as a plausible conversation partner with left-wing political concerns around public justice. Instead, it became regarded as a threat to the lives of transgender individuals that made it impossible for trans people to publicly exist as their authentic selves. The social costs for progressive non-Christians of simply expressing an openness to or curiosity about traditional forms of Christian belief became much higher, in other words.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 37

Further Thoughts on Political Discussions in Christian Forums: A Series of Incomplete, Unscientific, but Hopefully Helpful Reflections

By Tom Hervey — 4 months ago

If you believe a response is justified, let your first aim be to vindicate Christ’s honor, not that of yourself or your preferred candidate, party, or position. It is he who is most wronged when his forums are turned from a concern with his will to earthly affairs which distract from his redemptive kingly reign in the hearts of his people. This means that the main point should be objecting to others being political, not per se how they were political, and that bringing reasons why one might disagree is foremost a means to that end.

In a previous article I wrote about discussing politics in Christian forums, doing so in the abstract and in reference to a rather obscure example; and in so doing I was compelled to violate the very principles I announced. Space prevented further consideration, but there is more to be said, as some correspondents thought that I did not give the subject sufficient treatment. One said that I had said what not to do, but not what to do; an all too frequent problem in popular Christian ethics, to be sure. Another correspondent thought I had almost argued that we are to be silent in the face of the evils that afflict our nation, and before people who have no qualms being political to our harm. It was felt that I had so much made the faith a matter of spiritual concern as to have no bearing on our lives as temporal citizens. Those are serious objections, and I am pleased my correspondents brought them, for I am dependent on such correspondence to know how my thoughts are perceived by others. And how I intend them and how they are actually perceived do not always align, so for a few clarifications.
By a Christian forum, I meant any forum whose stated purpose is to advance the knowledge of Christ, be that forum ecclesiastical or parachurch in nature. I except personal blogs, podcasts, and other more informal things that claim to consider other things besides questions of our faith. By politics I meant the civil (legal, administrative) affairs of civil polities, that is, governments and their citizens. I did not mean ecclesiastical politics, nor comments on civil affairs that are moral in character.
Romans 13 tells us how to interact with civil authorities, which has some effect on our politics. Is a minister who expounds the meaning of that passage being political? Not in the sense that I meant. He is giving doctrinal and moral instruction, and doing so that believers may act in a manner that is conducive to peace, does not invite persecution, and is a testimony to the life in Christ that will hopefully commend it to unbelievers. He declares it for the benefit of the church and for unbelievers as neighbors; it is not an act in partisan political competition. That is different from saying ‘vote for candidate A’ from the pulpit. That would be political and inappropriate. Again, by ‘politics’ I meant a direct involvement in civil affairs – advocating this law or that party – not something that has an indirect effect on it, and whose main character and purpose is moral/doctrinal/faith-related.
I also left exceptions for when we are directly attacked and for moral matters in which there is a clear Christian position. If there is a sickness outbreak and casinos are left open but churches closed by law, an obvious injustice that makes claims of public health so much hypocrisy, by all means protest as Christians, both to the authorities and in Christian forums. And in matters in which there is a clear Christian position, I see no wrong in it being published in Christian outlets or from the pulpit. Murder is wrong, for example, and dueling involves such, hence we have historically opposed dueling. More contemporary examples would be infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
That exception, while appropriate, also invites the question of ‘who decides what is a matter with a clear Christian position?’ Assuming we agree on principles, who is to say whether an agreed principle requires a given application? We all agree the shedding of innocent blood (Prov. 6:17) is wrong. And I think we all agree that commends denouncing dueling, for dueling is indefensible, a matter of personal pride when insulted rather than public or private justice. There is a clear link between principle and application there.
What about when that link is not clear, when things are a matter of tradeoffs between imperfect options that carry both good and bad consequences? There is a clear Christian position on dueling. There is not a clear Christian position on form of government (representative v. monarchical), type of economy (agrarian v. industrial), or many of the particulars of criminal justice (how the courts work, policing tactics, etc.). Our faith has principles that can be brought to bear on that last question, such as that punishment should be proportionate to offenses punished (Ex. 21:23-25), corruption guarded against (23:8), trials fair with suitable evidentiary procedures (Deut. 19:15), etc. But how we implement those principles might vary, especially where our circumstances differ.
I think the legislature should not prescribe the particulars of law enforcement’s defensive tactics (i.e., how they physically restrain combative suspects), and that such questions are best answered by the people who actually have to use said techniques against wrongdoers who are trying to beat them unconscious or flee, rather than by office-dwelling politicians who have never faced such circumstances. The state where I live disagrees, forbidding certain holds to be employed in the restraint of suspects (SC Code 23-1-250). I think that’s mistaken, but I do not conclude that the legislators who profess faith who voted for said law are therefore to be accounted false professors of our faith. It’s a civil disagreement, not a question of orthodoxy or sincerity in the faith, and while it presumably has an effect on how well police are able to do their jobs, I don’t see where it would be appropriate to the mission of this outlet for me to write an extended article arguing why SC Code 23-1-250 should be abolished.
In saying this I touch another thing which some people felt I did not give sufficient consideration before, which is that I take it for granted that it is permissible for believers to engage in politics in general, and in other forums besides the church and Christian outlets. I shouldn’t write an article critiquing SC 23-1-250 for The Aquila Report or ask my local session to petition the state legislature to repeal it. But I can write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper doing so, or can write the head of the state house’s public safety committee to urge him to vote for its repeal. Again, I objected to politics in Christian forums, not Christians in political forums. Most of my action on this is private (direct correspondence), rather than public, but I am somewhat politically engaged myself, though one might not know it from my public writing at this outlet.
But I believe in respecting the proper time and place for such things, and Christian forums are not the right time or place. Political forums (or other means of political action) are. That was the substance of my previous argument, that bringing civil politics into Christian forums represented an intrusion where they do not belong, a trammeling the proper boundaries between faith-based outlets and civil-political ones in which the faith-based was made political much more than the political was sanctified.
(Before proceeding, let me point out that this is not limited to politics, and that many other matters do not belong in Christian forums: this is not the place to advance a critique of this or that school of art, recommend rule changes to college basketball, interject literary criticism, share recipes for chess pie, or otherwise intrude artistic, athletic, entertainment, scientific, or various other matters that distract from Christ’s gospel. Those are all fine things, in their proper place—and this isn’t it.)
Now granting that there are exceptions for moral matters and for when we are directly assailed, and granting that Christian liberty and Christ’s lordship over the rest of our lives permit us to be political in the proper forums, there does arise a further, rather rankling question: what do you do when other people drag politics into Christian forums? May you defend your own position if you disagree, lest people mistake the published opinion for the Christian one? I believe the answer is yes, but with some hefty caveats.
One, there is a time for all things (Eccl. 3), so it is sometimes best to let a matter pass without criticism, even when you think it is wrong. “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Prov. 19:11); “love covers all offenses” (10:12); and “the beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out” (17:14). If you believe the person who did it is a brother, it may be best, for sake of concord, to forebear his wrong in being political (and perhaps being wrong politically too) in a Christian forum (Gal. 5:15).
Two, if you believe a response is justified, let your first aim be to vindicate Christ’s honor, not that of yourself or your preferred candidate, party, or position. It is he who is most wronged when his forums are turned from a concern with his will to earthly affairs which distract from his redemptive kingly reign in the hearts of his people. This means that the main point should be objecting to others being political, not per se how they were political, and that bringing reasons why one might disagree is foremost a means to that end.
Three, recognize that once you engage politically it is easy to get carried away with it. When a Presbyterian elder implied that evangelicals who support Israel were selling their souls, I sought to rebut the slander, both of God’s people and of the Israeli people. In so doing I was compelled to consider technical questions like the blast area of 500 lb. bombs. It doesn’t take too much of that before your initial purpose gets lost in the weeds. Just as reading theology (especially polemics) ought to be abetted by a larger portion of scripture, prayer, and the other means of grace, so also should a political disagreement lead you back to God, lest it loom too large in your mind.
Four, while vindicating Christ’s honor ought to be our main concern, we do have the right to vindicate our own rights. It is best to respect the conscience of the weaker brother where we can (Rom. 14), but it is possible that our interlocutor is not a brother but a sly false teacher trying to subvert the faith to worldly purposes; and even where we think he is sincere (or can’t tell), it is not right for someone else to say that being a believer requires adhering to a debatable position. If a teetotaler says that our faith requires both personal abstention from alcoholic beverages as well as petitioning the government to prohibit them, I reserve the right to disagree, especially when he twists scripture (‘Jesus made grape juice, not wine’), implicitly slanders me for disagreeing, or says things in Jesus’s name that are simply ridiculous and false (‘beer is the devil’s brew,’ which openly contradicts 1 Tim. 4:4-5).
Five, those who are right ought to take the moral high ground and keep above mudslinging. Strong words are one thing; personal nastiness quite another. Even when we call a spade a spade we ought to be as honorable and charitable as we can.
The moral is: be slow to fight (Jas. 1:19), avoid it when you can, and disagree in a measured way that is balanced by other concerns. That said, there is a need for people to insist that politics be kept out of Christian forums at present, for intrusions are frequent and many of those that do it seem oblivious to what they are doing. There is behind this a matter of great import which I have not the space to consider here and that deserves its own treatment, namely that what appears to be only political is at root a clash between competing, all-encompassing worldviews. But a consideration of that requires a future article. Till then render unto Caesar, but not where you ought to render only unto God.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 42

Withholding Nothing

By Bill Elliff — 4 months ago

What are the limits of my faith? Where will I stop when God instructs me to take a hard step?…To even suffer so that His life and sufficiency in me can be more brilliantly displayed for all the world to see?

He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”Genesis 22:12
The great measure of our spiritual life is how far we are willing to trust God.

If we don’t believe in God’s character, we will never trust Him with anything.
If we are tentative or somewhat unsure of His character and goodness, we may trust Him in some areas, but there is a limit. If that is so, then there is a limit to how greatly God can use us.
But if we are fully convinced of God’s goodness, integrity and faithfulness, we will be willing to withhold nothing from Him in faith. These are the men and women who are most greatly used by God.

This was Abraham’s experience. Abraham’s faith was not built overnight. After a long life of walking with God, He came to the ultimate test. God asked him, now over 100 years old, to take the son he’d waited for all his life and sacrifice him on Mt. Moriah (the same mountain, by the way, where God’s son would later be crucified).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 46

Review: “Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield”

By Jonathan Peters — 4 months ago

But even with this, McGever disregards scriptural passages on guilt, justice, repentance, and forgiveness (such as Deut. 19:15, 24:16, Lev. 19:15, Ez. 18:4, Matt. 18:21-35, Luke 19:1-10, Eph. 4:32). He also ignores the fact that while God uses various (and often imperfect) agents to draw men unto Himself, the spiritual genealogy of every evangelical originates with Christ (I Cor. 3:3-23, Eph. 2:8-10), thus bringing a unity to all believers across time and space (Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11).

McGever, Sean. Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2024. 240 pp. $18.00
Sean McGever joins the evangelical deconstruction project[1] with his most recent book, Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield. Like the other books in this genre, Ownership denounces white evangelicals for “their” theology and practice, but not on the basis of Scripture.[2] McGever tells them right at the outset of his book that even if they deplore the black slave trade of the early modern era,[3] they are still mistaken in their view of slavery in general, among other things. If they want to learn the truth, they must listen to and affirm the so-called singular black perspective and their white allies (6-8, 10).[4]
According to this purported position, all slavery is a sin which “God hates” (184). To support this claim, McGever briefly describes early accounts of slavery in Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. He then notes that Exodus 21:1-11 regulates slave acquisition, but he then glosses over the rest of the Old Testament to say that it “imagines slavery as a common component of human societies that is utilized for communal and personal gain and a negative experience that the enslaved person seeks to escape” (34-35; incidentally, McGever does not discuss the stipulations in Exodus 21:5-6 for slaves who “love” their masters and do not want to go free). McGever does not exegete any of the passages on slavery in the New Testament either, but rather cites John Anthony McGuckin (an Eastern Orthodox priest) to say that it has “considerable tension in regard to the issue of slavery: never quite feeling confident enough to come out and denounce it explicitly, since to do so would have been tantamount to a declaration of social revolution” (36).[5] But God, McGever implies, wanted believers to infer that slavery was 1) wrong and 2) to be peaceably abolished.
For the next eighteen hundred years of Church history (from Ignatius to the Puritans), most Christians did not see it that way or seek its total eradication. Rather, to McGever’s dismay, a number of them sought to put limits on slave acquisition and treatment, citing Scripture. The Great Awakening preachers accepted this reasoning and tried to apply it to the African slavery already in their contexts. From this group of ministers, only John Wesley questioned the institution of slavery later in life due to the influence of the egalitarian Quakers, and then, he only used “natural law” to condemn it (141).
In the concluding chapters of Ownership, McGever returns his gaze to modern white evangelicals whose “spiritual genealogy . . . originates” with eighteenth century “enslavers” (170). He exhorts these descendants to own, repent, and learn from the mistakes of the Great Awakening preachers (171, 173).[6] This repentance, he says, must include “a posture of open arms to people of all races who have every right to navigate our open arms on their own terms and in their own timing” (173). But even with this, McGever disregards scriptural passages on guilt, justice, repentance, and forgiveness (such as Deut. 19:15, 24:16, Lev. 19:15, Ez. 18:4, Matt. 18:21-35, Luke 19:1-10, Eph. 4:32). He also ignores the fact that while God uses various (and often imperfect) agents to draw men unto Himself, the spiritual genealogy of every evangelical originates with Christ (I Cor. 3:3-23, Eph. 2:8-10), thus bringing a unity to all believers across time and space (Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11).
McGever continues his admonition to white evangelicals by exhorting them to listen to “unlikely voices (like the Quakers for Wesley)” (181) outside of their formative “religious influences” (176) to bring about change that pleases God. He cites himself as an example of a man who experienced such an alteration:
To question the established norms of my Christian upbringing was something I feared to do out loud. Instead, I had to do it in private, through hushed personal conversations and quietly learning alternate views wherever I could find them. Most often, and even in most of my seminary experiences, I had to guide myself if I wanted to consider a different perspective. Nearly all the Christians I was around tended to provide the best version of their view and the worst (or no) version of alternate views. It took me quite a while to realize that the church past and present has plenty of beliefs about which faithful Christians disagree, and that there are some things that Christians have come to realize they once believed wrongly – most notably (now), the institution of slavery (181-182).
He then asks: “What alternate voices along the shore of my stream should I listen to? How should I navigate my own internal questions and instincts about how to honor God? What are good, less good, and flat-out bad ways to process all of this?” He says nothing about turning to the Scriptures (Is. 8:20; Acts 17:10-12; I John 4:1), but claims: “These answers require the precious and usually decades-acquired virtue of wisdom” (182).
Since McGever’s own faith was built on a mixture of doubt, instinct, and multiple theological perspectives, he eventually began to:
depart from what I learned in my formative years. With all due respect to my formative influences, I changed how I balance my time and focus between ministry, family, and personal health. I changed who I choose to relate to – I have more friends and peers who are women and those who don’t look like me or have the same beliefs as I do. I changed my views on the roles men and women undertake in the home, community, and church. Each of these changes came slowly and after much thought and reflection. Each of these changes represents a departure from what I once believed and how I acted several decades ago (182-183).
McGever now believes that he “cannot predict what specific changes [he] might adopt in the coming decades” (183). Considering where other deconstructionists have gone before him, it may not be too hard to guess what changes could come next.[7]
Jonathan Peters is an administrative assistant at Reformation Bible Church and Harford Christian School in Darlington, MD.

[1] For a listing of some of the books in this project, see Jonathan Leeman, “Defending Sound Doctrine Against Deconstruction of American Evangelicalism,” 9Marks (October 14, 2021): https://www.9marks.org/journal/sound-doctrine-the-foundation-for-faithful-ministry/editors-note/.
[2] See also Jonathan Peters, “Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett, The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It’s Destructive, and How to Respond,” Journal of Biblical Theology & Worldview 5, no 1 (Fall 2024): 109-111.
[3] Many may do so on the basis of Exodus 21:16, James 2:1, etc.
[4] Deconstructionists at times fail to recognize that there is no monolithic black perspective, just as there is no monolithic white, Asian, indigenous, male, or female perspective. There are, however, biblical and unbiblical theologies which anyone may embrace.
[5] McGuckin (and McGever) are more or less saying that Christ and His Apostles were moral cowards, contra John 16:8, Acts 5:29, Acts 17:6, etc.
[6] Interestingly, McGever makes no mention of non-white Christians who count the eighteenth century “enslavers” as a part of their spiritual heritage. One may wonder if McGever would also hold them “responsible” for their spiritual ancestors’ mistakes. Phillis Wheatley, “An Elegiac Poem On the Death of that celebrated Divine, and eminent Servant of Jesus Christ, the Revered and Learned Mr. George Whitefield,” Phillis Wheatley Historical Society: http://www.phillis-wheatley.org/mr-george-whitefield/, Thabiti Anyabwile, “This Black Pastor Led a White Church – in 1788,” Christianity Today (May 3, 2017): https://www.christianitytoday.com/2017/05/lemuel-haynes-pioneering-african-american-pastor/, Sherard Burns, “Trusting the Theology of a Slave Owner,” in A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2004), 145-17, and Samuel Sey, “Cancel Culture and Christian Culture,” Slow to Write blog (July 3, 2020): https://slowtowrite.com/cancel-culture-and-christian-culture/.
[7] Neil Shenvi notes that the “‘deconstructive’ approach to theology is necessarily a universal acid. Even if [deconstructive authors] weren’t explicitly committed to challenging evangelical doctrine broadly, their methodological approach makes such an outcome inevitable. This erosion is, perhaps, one of my greatest fears. I worry that pastors will embrace these books thinking that their application can be confined to, say, race alone. But once a white pastor endorses the view that he — as a white male — is blinded by his own white supremacy, unable to properly understand relevant biblical principles due to his social location, and in need of the ‘lived experience’ of oppressed minorities to guide him, how long before someone in his congregation applies the same reasoning to his beliefs about gender? Or sexuality?” Neil Shenvi, “Sociology as Theology: The Deconstruction of Power in (Post)Evangelical Scholarship,” Eikon (November 21, 2021): https://cbmw.org/2021/11/21/sociology-as-theology-the-deconstruction-of-power-in-postevangelical-scholarship/.

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 32

Who Wrote the Bible?

By Robert Cara — 4 months ago

God did not treat the human writers as inert objects (non-organic) but as living beings (organic) with their own unique traits. Yet at the same time, every single word was what God wanted written down.

Who wrote the Bible? God did. To put a finer point on it, God is the divine author who used various human authors to write exactly what He wanted written. That is, God is the primary author and the humans are secondary authors. This type of dual authorship is assumed throughout the Bible. For example, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord [primary author] had spoken by the prophet [Isaiah, secondary author]” (Matt. 1:22; see also Mark 12:36; Heb. 3:7 with 4:7; 2 Peter 1:21). Traditionally, God’s effecting the Scriptures to be written is termed inspiration, which means that God breathed out the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16).
Primary Authorship
In addition to straightforward passages that declare God as the author of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16), there are other types of intriguing biblical passages confirming divine authorship. Let us look at three.
There are passages where the Scriptures are functionally equated to God. In Romans 9:17, Paul is quoting from Exodus 9:16, where Moses is told to declare God’s words to Pharaoh. But Paul does not write, “God says to Pharaoh,” but instead, “Scripture says to Pharaoh.” Obviously, Paul means that God spoke to Pharaoh, but God’s speaking and Scripture’s speaking are intimately related to each other in Paul’s mind. Similarly in Galatians 3:8, within an argument showing that the doctrine of justification by faith existed in the Old Testament, Paul notes the forward-looking aspect of Genesis 12:3 intended by God. But in referring to this, Paul does not write, “God foreseeing,” but “Scripture foreseeing.” Again, God and Scripture are intimately related.
There are also Old Testament passages where God does not appear to be the speaker, but He is denoted as the speaker by a New Testament writer. Hebrews 1:5–13 includes seven Old Testament quotes. These quotes include passages in which God is the direct speaker but others in which He is not. However, all the quotes in Hebrews are prefaced by some form of “God says” or “he says.” Thus, whether the Old Testament context includes God’s explicitly speaking or not, the author of Hebrews considers all of Scripture to be God’s speaking on some level.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 55

The Honour of Being God’s Servant

By Alexander Wedderburn — 4 months ago

We must not lay stress on our service, as if it deserved our hire. When we have done all, we are unprofitable servants. Indeed, though He say, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” yet our reply ought to be, “When saw we thee hungry, and fed thee?”

Moses, the great leader of God’s people in the Old Testament, was characterised above all by his meekness. His brave leadership in exceedingly testing circumstances was marked neither by harshness nor self-aggrandizing. Although it subverts worldly ideas of what a strong leader looks like, those who want to be the greatest in Christ’s church have to be servants, and serve God by serving others. In the following excerpt from one of his sermons, the godly pastor Alexander Wedderburn explores the huge dignity that belonged to Moses when God called him, after his death, simply, “My servant.”
Commendations for God’s servants.
The great testimony of God to Moses is, “my servant.” It is the highest commendation of a man after his death, that in his life he was God’s servant. It is true, all the creatures are in their kind subservient, and God’s greatest enemies do His work. But to be “His” by way of distinction or propriety, as Moses is said to be, is a man’s greatest eulogy in death.
In Scripture, “servant” is the name given to the most eminent saints as their title of greatest honour. Think of “Abraham my servant,” “Job my servant,” “Jacob my servant,” “David my servant.” The greatest prophets and apostles glory in it; Paul, for example, prefixes it to some of his epistles, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” This name is also given to the greatest princes, such as Nebuchadnezzar, head of the Assyrian empire (Jer. 25:9) and Cyrus, head of the Persian empire (Isa. 45). It is given to the excellent martyrs (Rev. 19:2), to the saints in glory (Rev. 22:3), and to the blessed angels (Rev. 19:10). Lastly, this name is given to Jesus the Mediator, “Behold my Servant …” (Isa. 42:1). When you see all these uses of the name laid together, it shows what an eminent testimony of honour it is.
Many things are fixed on in the world, as things which commend people after their death, according to the diversity of their lives. Some have been commended for their honour, some their courage, some their wisdom, some their riches. Where there is a concatenation of these, how eminently commendable that person must be! Well, in spending your life in service to God, a multitude of these concur. How deservedly then is a servant of God commended!
There is wisdom in being God’s servant.
It is the highest wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and a good understanding have all they that do His commandments. Moses is brief in determining what wisdom consists in. “Keep his statutes, for this is your wisdom” (Deut. 4:6). Yea, where His service is absent, the Scripture speaks of men as fools. Since they have rejected the word of God, what wisdom is in them? (Jer. 8:9) The foolish virgins are foolish indeed, to make no provision for the time to come. Though they should be able, with the philosophers, to dispute de omni re scibili (about every knowable thing), or, with Solomon, to traverse nature from the cedar to the hyssop (1 Kings 4:33), yet he who does not walk circumspectly is a fool (Eph. 5:16).
There is honour in being God’s servant.
There is no trade of life so honourable as to serve God. “The way of life is above to the wise” (Prov. 15:24). There are four things which show how honourable a service it is.
First, they are taken up with the noblest objects. Philosophers call their metaphysics the most noble science, because it deals with the highest beings. God’s servants, like Caleb, constantly follow Him (Num. 14).
Next, they act from the noblest principles. Love constrains them, and indeed, by regeneration, they partake of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1), which elevates the spirit far above what the most famous among the Greeks or Romans could ever reach.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 37

The Church Faces the Challenge of Pro-Abortion America

By Carl R. Trueman — 4 months ago

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
As America’s secularism becomes obvious, we who are Christians and church people need a strategy for the future. Strange to tell, such is nothing more than what should have been our strategy all along: a focus on things above, of the things of eternity, exactly that for which the Apostle Paul called in his letter to the Colossians.

With the Republican Party’s shift on abortion and the exultancy of Democrats concerning “reproductive freedom,” one thing should now be clear to American Christians: Whoever wins in November will represent to some degree a deeper, more significant victory. That victory is not merely the triumph of the sexual revolution, where the popular imagination is gripped by the idea of sex as recreation, free of any obligations or commitments. It is the victory of a deeper vision of what it means to be human—to be radically free, autonomous, and responsible for self-creation. That is one lesson we can draw from the fact that most Americans are to varying degrees in favor of abortion.
It was clear in the aftermath of the fall of Roe v. Wade that the pro-life movement had no real strategy for addressing the way forward from that point. It was caught off guard by the comprehensive nature of the backlash so that in retrospect the victory now seems a Pyrrhic one, followed by nothing but defeats and setbacks everywhere the question has been put on the ballot. American churches now face an analogous question:
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.