The Aquila Report Archives - Page 19 of 942

What is the Church Militant?

By Geoff Chang — 5 months ago

For Spurgeon, the mark of spiritual life was not perfection, but persistent struggle against sin. In this life, the Christian was, fundamentally, a soldier. “To be a Christian is to be a warrior. The good soldier of Jesus Christ must not expect to find ease in this world: it is a battle-field. Neither must he reckon upon the friendship of the world for that would be enmity against God. His occupation is war.”

Amid these many conflicts, two controversies stand out: the Baptismal Regeneration Controversy in 1864 and the Downgrade Controversy in 1887–1888.[1] In the former conflict, Spurgeon battled the growing ritualism which arose from the Oxford Movement in the Church of England. In the latter conflict, Spurgeon confronted the increasing rationalism led by theological liberals within the Baptist Union. Speaking in 1857 in the “The War of Truth,” Spurgeon foreshadowed these two conflicts:
We have more to fear than some of us suppose from Rome; not from Rome openly… but I mean the Romanism that has crept into the Church of England under the name of Puseyism. Everywhere that has increased; they are beginning to light candles on the altar, which is only a prelude to those greater lights with which they would consume our Protestantism. Oh! that there were men who would unmask them! We have much to fear from them; but I would not care one whit for that if it were not for something which is even worse. We have to deal with a spirit, I know not how to denominate it, unless I call it a spirit of moderatism in the pulpits of Protestant churches. Men have begun to rub off the rough edges of truth, to give up the doctrines of Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin, and to endeavor to accommodate them to polished tastes….There is creeping into the pulpits of Baptists and every other denomination, a lethargy and coldness, and with that a sort of nullification of all truth.[2]
Though the battle against ritualism and rationalism would come to a head in those two controversies, Spurgeon’s willingness to confront these errors characterized his ministry from beginning to end. For his willingness to engage in these conflicts, Spurgeon would sacrifice many relationships, endure much heartache, and in the end, it would “cost him his life.”[3]
Driving Spurgeon’s choice to engage in these controversies was his understanding of the warfare of the Christian life. In this age before the return of Christ, the Christian lives in enemy territory. Therefore, it is no surprise that one of the primary images of the Christian found in Scripture was that of a soldier.
The Christian is engaged throughout his whole life as a soldier—he is so called in Scripture—“A good soldier of Jesus Christ”; and if any of you take the trouble to write out the passages of Scripture in which the Christian is described as a soldier, and provision is made for his being armed, and directions given for his warfare, you will be surprised to find there are more of this character than concerning any other metaphor by which the Christian is described in the Word of God.[4]
The militant church, then, was a company of soldiers, banded together for the truth of the gospel. As evil and error abounded in both the Church of England and Dissenting churches, Spurgeon believed it was his duty as a preacher to be “a voice crying in the wilderness,” even if he was the only voice.[5] He did not face these controversies alone, however. He had the support of the church, the army of God. When Spurgeon encountered slander and opposition, his congregation bore them with him. To be a member of the Metropolitan Tabernacle brought with it notoriety among the many who opposed their outspoken pastor, but this only strengthened the bond between the pastor and his people, uniting them in the fight.
The love that exists between a Pastor and his converts is of a very special character, and I am sure that mine was so from the very beginning of my ministry. The bond that united me to the members at New Park Street was probably all the stronger because of the opposition and calumny that, for a time at least, they had to share with me. The attacks of our adversaries only united us more closely to one another; and, with whole-hearted devotion, the people willingly followed wherever I led them. I have never brought any project before them, or asked them to aid me in any holy enterprise, but they have been ready to respond to the call, no matter what amount of self-sacrifice might be required.[6]
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: 44

Handling Disagreements in the Church

By Rush Witt — 5 months ago

Handling disagreements in the church goes beyond just managing conflict; it’s about truly reflecting Christ’s love and wisdom. When we approach disagreements with grace, humility, and a dedication to unity, we not only build up our church family but also become a strong testimony of God’s reconciling peace to the world.

Introduction
Rodney King offered a plea on the second day of the 1992 L.A. Riots. The plea seared an indelible mark on the minds of a generation—a plea oft repeated in times of rising exasperation over the conflicts we face every day in the fallen world: “Can’t we all just get along?” The simplicity of his question resonated deeply, highlighting our ongoing struggle with conflict and disagreement (James 1:19-20).
Thirty-two years later, we still don’t have a good answer. No, it seems we can’t get along. No one. Nowhere. Not in the Church and not out in the wider society. Conflict and disagreement remain hallmarks of humanity, just as they were in the beginning, at the Fall of Adam and Eve. However, as the people of the Prince of Peace, we know the possibilities and principles of agreement. We believe, “Yes, we can get along,” and through God’s massive, heavenly grace, we can handle disagreements of all kinds. But we need help (Phil. 2:2).
Have you ever found yourself avoiding a difficult conversation or disagreement at church? This second post in our mini-series focuses on handling disagreements in the Church, particularly within our local churches. The better we understand the art of navigating disagreements, the more effectively we can address conflict in our churches (Col. 3:13). And as unity grows among Christians, so does our effectiveness in bringing the good news of Christ to those who need it most.
Handling: Embrace the Art of Navigating Disagreements
Are you typically agreeable or disagreeable? Do you enjoy conflict, or does it make you uneasy? These questions remind us of the serious challenge of navigating disagreements, especially in a church filled with diverse personalities. We need a proactive approach to handling disagreements (1 Pet. 3:8).
Recent global pandemics have taught us that waiting for trouble only exacerbates it. Similarly, if we take a reactive approach to disagreements in the Church, we’re asking for trouble. Most of us handle conflict like driving in rush-hour traffic—reactively and hands-off. We merge without foresight, change lanes on a dime, steer with our knees, and then wonder why the commute is fraught with danger and anxiety. Instead, we need a forward-thinking, careful approach to disagreements (John 13:34-35). We need our hands on the wheel and our spiritual eyes cast down the road to anticipate conflicts.
In addition to proactive awareness, we need warm-hearted sensitivity in our churches. Emotions run high when feathers are ruffled or when leadership decisions don’t meet the expectations of the flock. In these moments, a calm, sensitive, non-anxious presence is invaluable. Every disagreement carries nuances that must be navigated with the warmth and calm of our Good Shepherd. Whether like a gardener pruning a delicate succulent, a sailor navigating choppy waters, or a conductor guiding an orchestra through a complex symphony, we need sensitivity and awareness when disagreements arise. The entire flock, under faithful shepherds, is called to exercise mature care and concern to bring lasting resolutions (Heb. 12:14).
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: 42

The Believer and “Strange Things”

By Bill Muehlenberg — 5 months ago

God did sometimes ask his people to do some rather odd things as recorded in the Bible. It is possible he might ask us to do some strange things as well. But generally speaking, we have the whole of Scripture to give us directions and guidelines as to both proper speech and proper action.

Christians have the Bible to guide us in what we are to believe and what we are to do. The Scriptures offer us helpful guidelines on how God’s people should think, speak and act. But there are many things we may not have specific guidelines on, or clear instructions.
Thus we may not have certain details about a future marriage partner. But certainly, important guidelines are there: a member of the opposite sex; someone who is also a believer; and so on. Some of this has to do with discerning God’s will in various areas.
However, some of the things God asked his people to do have confused believers over the years. A major example would be when God wanted Abraham to be willing to offer his own son as a sacrifice. Of course in the end it does not take place, since God provides his own sacrificial lamb. See my writeup about this difficult Bible passage here.
But often believers will question other believers, including about things such as worship styles and the like. Some think believers are too Pentecostal and charismatic. Some think believers are too cold, lifeless and formal. There can be some truth in both critiques.
Consider just one biblical example of a ‘worship style’ that bothered some others. One time King David was praising God, but not everyone approved of the way he went about it. In 2 Samuel 6:12-16 we read this:
Now King David was told, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-Edom and everything he has, because of the ark of God.” So David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the Lord had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart.
The point is, we are not all the same, and some Christians will do things differently than other Christians. Sure, some things are simply out of bounds. If a Christian regularly resorts to theft, he has violated a clear Commandment—the Eighth. Or if a Christian claims that God told him to dump his wife and take off with the church secretary, that is another obvious no-no.
So in some areas there are clear boundaries, whereas in some other areas there can be some room to move. Some believers might think what others are doing is rather strange, and sometimes it is! But the point of my piece is this: At times God asked his people to do things that certainly do seem to be quite odd and quite weird. Consider just four obvious examples of this:
Isaiah 20:1-4 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it—at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. Then the Lord said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame.
Jeremiah 13:1-11 This is what the Lord said to me: “Go and buy a linen belt and put it around your waist, but do not let it touch water.” So I bought a belt, as the Lord directed, and put it around my waist. Then the word of the Lord came to me a second time: “Take the belt you bought and are wearing around your waist, and go now to Perath and hide it there in a crevice in the rocks.” So I went and hid it at Perath, as the Lord told me. Many days later the Lord said to me, “Go now to Perath and get the belt I told you to hide there.” So I went to Perath and dug up the belt and took it from the place where I had hidden it, but now it was ruined and completely useless. Then the word of the Lord came to me: “This is what the Lord says: ‘In the same way I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubbornness of their hearts and go after other gods to serve and worship them, will be like this belt—completely useless! For as a belt is bound around the waist, so I bound all the people of Israel and all the people of Judah to me,’ declares the Lord, ‘to be my people for my renown and praise and honor. But they have not listened.’
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

It Is Good

By Jacob Crouch — 5 months ago

The promises of God are Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:20). That foundation is one that is sturdy. It will hold us. It is not overwhelmed by the waves. The river may rage, but the bottom remains unchanged. We may feel like the billows go over our heads, but be of good cheer, our great foundation is good.

They then addressed themselves to the water; and entering, Christian began to sink. And crying out to his good friend, Hopeful, he said, “I sink in deep waters, the billows go over my head; all his waves go over me.” Then said the other, “Be of good cheer, my brother; I feel the bottom, and it is good.”John Bunyan—The Pilgrim’s Progress
When we reach the day of our death, what will our response be? That day is coming, don’t doubt it. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). John Bunyan describes this day like crossing a great river. And like he wrote for Christian, for some, the waters of that river will seem deep and terrifying. I’d wager that for most, when we face the idea of our own mortality, we still feel the knee-jerk reaction to fear that old enemy. I’d like to think that I’d handle it better than others, but I know myself too well. I know that apart from the grace of God, I will tremble on that day. And if it weren’t for the strong hand of God that upholds me, I know that I could never make it safely over on my own. I want to highlight the encouragement that Hopeful gives to Christian in his hour of despair: “I feel the bottom, and it is good.”
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: 35

Loving Christ With All Our Minds: A Call for an Educational Reformation

By Ryan Smith — 5 months ago

When educators intentionally omit God from the classroom for the alleged purpose of moral neutrality, another organizing principle and telos will necessarily fill the resulting vacuum. Many Christians have naively accepted what they thought was agnosticism in their educational models, but it turns out to be much worse.

Over one hundred years ago, Abraham Kuyper asserted what he believed to be Christian education’s proper telos: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’” He uttered this battle cry, not in a sermon or political speech, but at the dedicatory address of a new Dutch university. Undergirded by strong Calvinist convictions, Kuyper boldly planted the flag of Christ’s dominion in that domain always under siege by the enemy, the Academy. Weust follow in Kuyper’s footsteps and rededicate ourselves to a similar comprehensive educational philosophy, one that re-centers the proper orientation of educating Christians by embracing a Christocentric model of understanding each discipline’s form and content.
Why is Kuyper’s view of education so urgent? The havoc in academia left by secular humanism, postmodernity, Critical Race Theory, evolution, and the sexual revolutions is too great to ignore. Too many of our covenant children have lost their way. We cannot simply equate a Christian education with Christian teachers who avoid immoral topics. Instead, we must engage students at the appropriate levels using biblical lens. An education that honors Christ trains the student to think connect each discipline to its Creator.
As idealistic as it may seem, this orientation is by no means a radical proposition. Rather, thinking Christianly about every academic discipline exemplifies obedience to first-tier biblical commands. Consider Jesus’ restatement of the Great Commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). Through the mind, we are to love the Lord with all of our mental capacity, with “the psychological faculty of understanding, reasoning, thinking, and deciding.”[1] In sum, we are to love God in all of our intellectual pursuits. In view of Scripture’s teaching, there can be “no square inch” – no realm that excludes this theocentric worldview (Col. 1:15-18).
Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that the Christian life occurs mostly in the mind, which explains Paul’s focus at the climax of Romans (12:2): “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” A constant flesh-fighting, world-renouncing mental regimen must begin early in life and characterize one’s entire educational experience, both in and out of the classroom. Engaging the mind in this way strengthens student’s faith.
The mind’s heightened role in the Christian life explains why our spiritual enemies target educational systems with such ferocity. Once they capture a student’s mind, then they have captured the student’s soul.
Edmund, a central figure in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, illustrates this. On multiple occasions, C.S. Lewis credits Edmund’s school for his flaws. Edmund’s downfall occurs due to his ability to be deceived easily, to lose sight of what is plainly true, and a failure to trust those he loves most.
Lewis most clearly attributes the school’s detrimental impact on Edmund after he becomes a casualty in battle. Upon giving him the magic healing potion, Lucy “found him standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but looking better than she had seen him look — oh, for ages;in fact ever since his first term at that horrid school which was where he had begun to go wrong. He had become his real old self again and could look you in the face” (italics mine).[2] In this remarkable moment, readers learn that Edmund’s affinity for folly was cultivated at school—a powerful warning against the negative trajectory on which an institution of learning can set a young person.
As with Eve in the Garden of Eden or Edmund in Narnia, Satan continues to twist truth, minimize sin and its consequences, and disrupt faith in God’s goodness. Our ancient foe’s strategy has never changed, only his tools and methods have. Unfortunately, relying on a magic potion to rescue a wayward student is not a proven parenting strategy. Students need to be taught what is true, to view sin for all it is while relentlessly holding onto God’s goodness.
Christ as the Reference Point of Academic Disciplines
How does one, then, reclaim an educational philosophy and practice? Simply this: parents and educators must intentionally reference all disciplines back to their Christian center. In doing so, we must reject false dichotomies between , entertaining a certain reverence for all things that Christ has created. We must further reject Postmodernity’s abandonment of objective truth and compartmentalization of philosophy and theology from more “empirical” fields. Adopting this view requires the parent to homeschool or find teachers that actively seek both to understand, ad then to communicate, how Christ’s fingerprints cover all intellectual activity.
Each discipline reveals the Triune God in a different way. The sciences and mathematics become a study in God’s art of creation with revelation, not unprovable theories, as their point of departure.[3] History becomes an outworking of God’s purposes in time, in which He sent Christ in the “fullness of time.” Literature becomes an imaginative retelling of the human experience in light of the creation-fall-redemption patterns, an art that Christ used frequently to deliver truth through narrative. The art of rhetoric becomes a manner of communicating as Christ himself did – with stories, speeches, revelation, and questions. The fine arts become a means of contemplating, enjoying, and creating objects of “glory and beauty.” The study of languages becomes a means of understanding and appreciating other cultures in the aftermath of the Fall of Babel.
This pursuit inculcates wisdom, rather than mere knowledge. And as the Bible teaches, wisdom begins with “the fear of the Lord” (Prov. 9:10). The Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck, who later taught at the university that Kuyper founded, articulated this concept eloquently:
“But what the Scriptures require is a knowledge which has the fear of God as its beginning (Prov. 1:7). When it severs its connections with the principle it may still, under false pretenses, bear the name of knowledge, but it will gradually degenerate into a worldly wisdom which is foolishness with God. Any science, philosophy or knowledge which supposes that it can stand on its own pretentions, and can leave God out of its assumptions, becomes its opposite, and disillusions everyone who builds his expectations on it. [4]
Do any disciplines that are taught in schools include God in their assumptions now?
When educators intentionally omit God from the classroom for the alleged purpose of moral neutrality, another organizing principle and telos will necessarily fill the resulting vacuum. Many Christians have naively accepted what they thought was agnosticism in their educational models, but it turns out to be much worse.
In order to reorient our educational practices, we must reconstruct our philosophical underpinnings. My colleague, Rev. Matt Marino, offers a helpful illustration:
“Imagine a ‘solar system of ideas’ in which God functions like the sun does in our solar system. Not only is He the source of light, but also the center of gravity. All else derives its being from Him, and nothing else can explain itself without reference to Him.”[5]
When the disciplines no longer orbit around God, they fall out of their circuit and lose both their mean and their relation to one another.
Marino’s metaphor also suggests that all disciplines can simultaneously sustain their own orbits while maintaining their collective course around God. He gives gravity, light, and meaning to all arts and disciplines. This model keeps them all centered.
In view of this paradigm, Christian parents must own their children’s education. If we are to obey Deuteronomy 6:4-9, then parents must teach their children to love the Lord and to obey His commands. Parents are responsible to “teach [God’s laws] diligently to your children” and cultivate a domestic culture pervaded by theological conversations (6:7) with ubiquitous reference to the Law (8-9). We make a theological error – one with significant repercussions – when we compartmentalize God’s law or relegate it to Sunday School. We must do the hard work to treat all disciplines, not simply theological ones, in light of Deuteronomy 6.
Objections
Three objections to this proposal come to mind. First is the notion that children must attend public schools to evangelize their classmates. In its immediate context, Christ gave the Great Commission to eleven grown men with whom he invested significant time during His earthly ministry. They were not children. Instead, the child’s vocation is to comprehend the faith (Deut. 6:6-8; Prov. 22:6). One cannot effectively propagate that which he does not understand. Though godly children might be compelling young evangelists (in part because of their simplicity and innocence), the burden of the Great Commission is not yet theirs, any more than it is the average believer to baptize converts. Students need to be equipped prior to being sent out into a dangerous mission field. Let Christian teachers and administrators bear the burden of bringing the gospel into secular schools.
Second, many science-minded people feel that the Bible and science are at odds. I once heard a pastor proclaim, “Genesis 1 has no bearing on the rest of Scripture.” Nonsense. This view increased dramatically in the post-Darwin age; it is not the view of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and other Christian scientists who ushered in the Scientific Revolution. To presume that one knows precisely how the earth was formed, mechanically speaking, is simply fallacious. No one was present to document creation except God Himself. O The tendency to interpret the Bible in view of scientific theories is a post-Enlightenment temptation that leads away from Christ, reflecting a lack of confidence in the God of order.
Finally, some associate Kuyper with radical Christians with some type of theonomic agenda. However, this is not my agenda, and furthermore, recovering a Christocentric view of education does not belong to any single eschatological movement. At its baseline, Christian education is an earnest attempt to be faithful to fundamental passages in Scripture that instruct us how to orient our pursuit of knowledge, particularly in the shadow of the revealed Son of God. In this light, Ryan McIhenny writes, “Christian cultural activity is always done within the context of the completed work of God in and through Christ and the now/not yet completion of his kingdom.”[6] My motivation in writing this article, starting a new college, and devoting my energies to my children is simply this: to be faithful as a father to train my children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Our American system is in disrepair, and we must build new institutions to provide them with what is required of us.
Conclusion
If Christians are to honor the Lord as the creator and source of all true wisdom and knowledge, the starting place for catechizing is as early as possible, and it must extend through the college level. In this way, the answers to the catechism questions “Who made me?” and “Who made all things?” are not theoretical; in fact, the answers to those questions propel me to spend all my days thinking about how and why He made all things, how they glorify Him, and ultimately, why all things remain His today. When such thinking governs our approach to learning, we will begin to see how every square inch belongs to our Savior, fueling generations of exuberant worshippers.
Dr. Ryan Smith, a member of Resurrection Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Matthews, N.C., is the president of New Aberdeen College, a new confessionally Reformed college based near Charlotte.

[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 323–324.
[2] C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Ebook. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010; 125.
[3] The Scientific Revolution was an achievement in Western civilization led by devout Christian men such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Robert Boyle who understood the Creator is one of order. I am indebted to Christopher Watkin in his ill named Biblical Critical Theory for the assertion that only in the Western, monotheistic society could any scientific discoveries exist. With deities who are capricious, unknowable, and disorderly, the Eastern and African peoples had no starting point to make important scientific discoveries. Contemporary Christian thinkers who dismiss Genesis 1 for theories create slippery slopes that eventually result in people not believing that man and woman were made in the image of God, having a divine purpose for the sexuality, or maintaining a biblical hierarchy in church life. [4] Herman Bavinck, “Man’s Highest Good” in The Wonderful Works of God. Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019; 4.[5] Matt Marino, “Theology’s Role in Classical Christian Education.” Conference lecture, Summer Roundtable; June 29, 2024.[6] Ryan C. McIlhenny, Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2012; xxiii.

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

The Trinity Is Not a Team

By Matthew Y. Emerson and Brandon D. Smith — 5 months ago

Written by Matthew Y. Emerson and Brandon D. Smith |
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
The point is clear: the single, perfect, pure communion of love between the persons is poured out on us, as we are loved by the Father because of our union with the Son, whom the Father loves. The love of God is poured out on us by the inseparable work of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Trinitarian Unity in Communion
The word communion might bring to mind the Lord’s Supper that Jesus instituted before his death and has been practiced by Christians ever since (Luke 22:7–23; 1 Cor. 11:17–34). For now we will discuss the idea of communion more generally. Here is a simple working definition for communion in Christian theology: the sharing of fellowship among God and his people.
The eternal communion of Father, Son, and Spirit is the grounds for our communion with him and one another. Our triune God, simple and perfect for all of eternity, has always been the one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Scriptures witnessed to the incarnation of the Son and the sending of the Spirit long before these events were made manifest in time and space. The Father did not “become” a Father at some point in time when he decided to create the Son with some unnamed heavenly mother. No, this would insinuate that the Father changed at some point, which would deny Scripture’s claim that God cannot change (Mal. 3:6). Further, this would insinuate that the Son was created, which would deny Scripture’s claim that he is the Creator, not a creature (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 13:8). Rather, the Father and the Son shared a communion of love with the Holy Spirit in all eternity—indeed, “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).
If God truly is one (Deut. 6:4), then we cannot treat the persons as a “team” of disconnected beings or three “members” of a “divine dance.” This way of speaking hints strongly at three divine beings who are one only by virtue of agreement or a unity of will.
This is basic anti-Trinitarian Mormon theology. Instead, it’s more fitting to speak the way the Bible speaks: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). This verse is simple and yet packed with rich Trinitarian theology. God is love. He’s not a collection of entities or beings who simply love one another, however deeply, which leads them to work together as some sort of heavenly taskforce. He doesn’t love sometimes and not love other times. He doesn’t wrestle between fluctuating emotions. No, it’s much deeper than that—unfathomably so. The best we can make sense of this is to say with John that Father, Son, and Spirit just are the one God who exists in an inseparable communion of love. God loves us as an outflow of his very nature—the one who loves perfectly and eternally.
This one God who is love exists as three persons who fully and truly are the loving God. Do the three persons love one another? Yes. But we say this only insofar as the Scripture gives us language to distinguish the persons from each other. However, if we exaggerate the oneness, we deny that there are three persons who exist in a perfect and pure life of inseparable, mutual love.
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: 39

Process with a Purpose

By Ryan Biese — 5 months ago

Jews to work His glorious purposes to ensure that “all Israel will be saved” and the “fullness of the Gentiles” will come in to the Kingdom of God (cf. Rom. 11). All the unlawful disregard of process inflicted upon our King by the Jews was according to what God’s hand had “predestined to take place” (cf. Acts 4). But we nonetheless grieve for how our Lord was abused and mistreated, denied justice and due process for our sakes. As such, in the PCA we have a firm devotion to observing judicial procedure and upholding due process.

In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), we believe in process. The congregation I serve is about to ordain a new ruling elder, and there has been a process leading up to it and even a particular process we must follow on the night of his ordination.
Judicial process in the PCA is exceptionally rigorous and specific. There are even procedures that must be followed in the PCA before entering into judicial process! There are numerous reasons for this. One is surely the closing verse of 1 Corinthians 14: all things should be done decently and in order (14:40).
While the context of 1 Corinthians 14 deals with worship, the principle nonetheless holds true for the government of the Church more broadly.
The Sufferings of Our King
But there is a more important reason clear, fair, and impartial judicial process is so valued by the PCA: our King was falsely accused by wicked Jews and was finally executed because proper judicial process was not observed.
This has become especially clear to me as I have preached through the Gospel of John:
The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee” (John 7:45–52).
In that brief passage, the leaders of the Jews declare a crowd of their countrymen “accursed” because they follow (to some extent) the Lord Jesus Christ. Many members of the Jewish Senate apparently have already decided Jesus is guilty – of something – and they are ready to condemn Him accordingly.
But the esteemed Nicodemus reminds them of their duty according to the Law: they must give a man a hearing; it is unlawful to condemn a man without due process.
The appeal to God’s word made by Nicodemus has no effect on the wicked and unbelieving Jews. They turn and deride Nicodemus, and they twist the Scripture in order to undermine their colleague’s reminder of God’s Truth: “Search [the scripture] and see…” they retort.
Satanic Disregard of Due Process
We should not miss the satanic undertones in this passage. In the wilderness (cf. Matthew 4 or Luke 4), Jesus rebuked Satan’s temptation by quoting Scripture, and Satan responded in the next temptation by quoting Scripture, twisting it to his own wicked purpose:
And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matthew 4:3–7).
Most commentators believe John wrote the Fourth Gospel assuming his readers are familiar with some of the other Gospels. In light of this, it is hard to believe John does not want us to perceive a satanic undercurrent in the Jewish attempts to disregard judicial process as they try to condemn Jesus in John 7ff.
Following the arrest of Jesus, John’s Gospel bears out the legal gymnastics observed by the Jews in order to secure a conviction against Jesus: e.g. two separate hearings in order to try and condemn him on the same day (cf. John 18:12-23 before Annas and John 18:24 before Caiaphas), the sudden and early morning timing of the Jewish trials followed by the quick referral to Pilate (John 18:28ff).
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: 49

Preachers “Landing the Plane”

By Jacob Toman — 5 months ago

Early on in serving the Lord by preaching (almost 25 years ago) I wrote full manuscripts and stuck to them rigorously. Then I’ve used various tools, manuscripts, outlines, passage overviews, 4-part-paper-fold, PowerPoint slides, and a few others to support the work of preaching. However, I’ve never found anything to replace or replicate the importance of preaching the sermon first to myself. This oral preparation (accompanied by prayerful humble submission to the Lord, asking that even this preparation would be of kingdom use) has always been of benefit in the refining and delivery of God’s Word to God’s people.

Humble suggestion and example for my brothers in the pulpit – I learned from another Pastor’s dissertation (Rev. Andrew Vandermoss) about oral preparation for preaching.
Simply put, a sermon is a message spoken and heard rather than a paper that is written and read. As such, the suggestion that has helped me with the “land the plane” situation of “30 more minutes” is to preach my sermon, orally, out loud, sometime before the service in which it will be delivered. This doesn’t mean you can’t use a manuscript, or notes, or outlines, or passage overviews or any of those tools. By orally preparing you have a weight and a sense of the gravity and flow of the sermon as you prayerfully prepare (and orally practicing is a part of sermon prep).
Much of the time my oral prep is 10-25 minutes longer than my actual preaching time on Sunday.
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: 42

Ideas Have Consequences—Cultural Marxism Has Victims

By Gary Yagel — 5 months ago

Of course, those with power oppress those with less. That is an obvious conclusion from biblical teaching about how the fall corrupted human nature. But the radical fall of Adam’s race transmitted his sinful nature to all humans, not just the rich. Using the oppressor/oppressed lens of Marx to interpret all of history and explain the most basic human motivations is nowhere close to accurate.

The spiritual battle in which Christian men are called to engage is largely a battle of ideas. After Paul devotes eleven chapters of Romans to the glory of the gospel, and challenges Christians that the only proper response is to offer ourselves back to God as a living sacrifice, the very next command is a reference to this battle over ideas: Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind. In Ephesians 6 the list of equipment for warfare begins with the belt of truth and ends with the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, indispensable tools for this battle of ideas.
This reality presents Christian men with an enormous challenge. We are created to be warriors (Gen 2:15). But few of us are philosophy majors. The world of ideas that we know best matches our vocation and avocation. Yet, as warriors in the spiritual battle of ideas and as protectors of our families, WE are the ones God expects to lead the way to destroy arguments, and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:5). How can we possibly do this? The missing ingredient is EQUIPPING. The church must find ways to equip the saints (Eph 4:12). This podcast series, “Election 2024 and Biblical Worldview” is intended to equip men to understand the worldview issues that lie beneath the upcoming election.
As an economics major at Penn State, I got to take an economics class from an expert on Mao Zedong’s take over of China by his Red Guard in 1949, just twenty years earlier. I discovered with horror the Red Guard’s slaughter of millions of Chinese landowners to collectivize farming, and how this experiment led to the economic ruin of China and the starvation of twenty million people. I studied how Mao implemented his unique brand of Marxism and how he deceived the naïve into ceding more and more power to his regime. In his Little Red Book, I read his argument that class and class struggle justify violent revolution making it necessary for peasants and the Chinese people to murder business owners and seize their assets . I saw how Mao played on class envy, enflaming violent hatred in Chinese peasants towards the wealthy, justifying the brutal annihilation of factory owners. I saw how he brainwashed the young and naïve to accomplish his slaughter of farmers through the slogan, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” History reveals that eventually 65 million Chinese lost their lives through Mao’s evil Marxist policies. 65 million! So, perhaps, I am more alarmed than most at the spread of a very similar ideology throughout the institutions of America over the last twenty years. It is called cultural Marxism and is also known as critical theory, a subset of which is critical race theory.
Origin and Growth of Critical Theory
Critical theory is a comprehensive way of viewing society that is rooted in Karl Marx’s dichotomy of society into the oppressed proletariat laboring class and the oppressor bourgeoisie land and business owner class. Italian Marxist Antonia Gramsci extended this oppressor/oppressed lens into every aspect of culture. Thus, not only are laborers oppressed by business owners, but the poor are oppressed by the rich, blacks are oppressed by whites, women are oppressed by men, homosexuals and transgendered oppressed by cisgendered people. Poor nations are oppressed by wealthy nations, immigrants wanting to cross our borders are oppressed by Americans citizens who want closed borders. Palestinian Muslims are oppressed by Israel. Gramsci called the force that enables these oppressors to oppress “unjust, cultural hegemony.” You may remember this term from history class, which usually refers to the influence of stronger nations over weaker ones. Hegemony means the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group.
After the Marxist revolution failed to topple capitalism in the early twentieth century, Marxists, who had gone back to the drawing board, picked up Gramsci’s hegemony concept. One such group, the Frankfurt School, following Gramsci’s lead, expanded Marx’s oppressor/oppressed economic lens to every sphere of social injustice. All inequities are caused by the cultural power of the OPPRESSORS, which these OPPRESSORS cling to through their religious, political, social, and cultural structures. These structures, such as Christianity, the US Constitution, the free market, accurate history, and the structure of the family must be torn down to accomplish social justice. One’s membership in oppressed groups is called his intersectionality rating and determines the legitimacy of one’s truth claim. Thus, a black, female, gay immigrant has more credibility than just a black man. During the last 25 years among Christians in the West there has come a welcome return to a concern for social justice and especially opposition to racism. But tragically, many Christians who lack an awareness of the tenets of cultural Marxism are being seduced into its anti-biblical thinking, including their thinking about politics.
Four Characteristics of Cultural Marxism
1. Cultural Marxism Is Based on a Corrupt, Anti-Biblical View of Justice
Amplification: This view argues, “all inequalities are unjust.” Privilege is evil and the cause of oppression. Equal opportunity is replaced by the call for equity. Whereas equality means that each individual or group is given the same opportunity or resources, equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and, therefore allocates the exact resources needed to reach an equal outcome among all. This is pure Marxism—the redistribution of wealth, i.e. the state stealing from the rich and giving those funds to the poor. After all, why should some have so much and others so little? It is not fair! Mao fomented revolution through his slogan “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” This utopian ideal to force “equality” upon others led ultimately to the slaughter of 65 million Chinese by Mao, and 20 million in the USSR by Lenin and Stalin (cited from Money Greed and God, by Jay Richardson). That this Marxist view of justice is seen in critical theory is obvious. For example, Ibram Kendi, the author of How to Be an Antiracist, and leading spokesman for CRT writes, “As an anti-racist, when I see racial DISPARITIES, I see racism” (Cited by Ted Cruz, Unwoke). Think of it, ANY inequity PROVES racism.
Thinking Biblically:

Inequality is not unjust. It is God who has ordained the exact circumstances of every creature. In Romans 9 Paul gives God’s response to the accusation of being unjust in treating humans differently, Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (vs 14).
There is zero biblical case for the state redistributing wealth. The eighth commandment, which prohibits theft, underscores the ownership of private property while the tenth commandment warns against the covetousness that is at the core of critical theory’s oppressor/oppressed social binary.
The chief obstacle to defining justice as equal outcomes is the Bible. It overwhelmingly teaches that outcomes are a result of numerous factors, including the blessing of God upon righteousness as well as potentially being unjustly oppressed.

The Biblical law requiring landowners to harvest only once leaving the leftovers for the poor needs to be recognized; but to act justly is not just defending the marginalized.
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: 63

The Enchanted Realism of “All Creatures Great and Small”

By Owen Strachan — 5 months ago

The five major characters of “All Creatures” are each a finely-honed individual. None of them are perfect; all of them have flaws; they all fight realistic battles. Though the show is not a Christian show in explicit form, it overlaps significantly with a Christian vision of life in a fallen world. In fact, I think “All Creatures” presents this vision more honestly than Christians sometimes do.

The updated PBS Masterpiece show “All Creatures Great and Small” is the best show on television. I know some of you out there agree. That’s not to pigeonhole you; “All Creatures” may be produced by Masterpiece, but it has fans from across the demographic spectrum. It’s not solely for older types; it’s not merely for families; it’s not only for Anglophiles. It’s for everyone, and it has an audience to match.
“All Creatures” is popular because, in the simplest terms, it is a beautifully made show. (You can buy whole seasons here.) The pacing is measured. The cinematography is lovely. The script doesn’t waste a word. The music is first-rate, and a good bit better than a normal score for a TV show. The plots are compelling, but not uncontained, so the younger family members can stay in the room. The scenes of care for animals remind us that every creature is God-made, no matter how tiny or ordinary.
This last point is important. “All Creatures” is, at base, a study in enchanted realism. It portrays the difficulties of real life, that is, but with hope, humor, an eye to beauty, and a sense of the grandeur of the ordinary. It shows us that the “big life” is bound up with the small things, not what is flashy or exciting (most days).
Beyond this, there are two strengths of “All Creatures” that stand out to me. In what follows, I will unfold them, making reference to ministry and the Christian life as I go.
First, the Beauty of Care as a Craft
“All Creatures” is, at base, a study of craft—the craft of animal care. The practitioners are Siegfried Farnon, James Herriott, and Tristan Farnon. To varying degrees of experience, these men care for creatures with kindness, subtlety, and personal investment. They dress like gentlemen; they carry themselves with dignity; yet they readily put on their high boots, wade into mud, and help birth a young calf after many hours of exhausting effort.
These veterinarians have a craft of care. In this way, they remind me of pastors—at least, pastors as they are called to be. Siegried and James in particular bring a balance of technical knowledge, informed wisdom, a gentle touch, and a firm backbone to their vocation. They do not help animals to draw a paycheck. They genuinely love helping animals, and so they approach their daily work as if it is a privilege to do.
This mindset speaks in a profound way to the character of a congregational shepherd. Pastors should not be men who merely like to preach on Sunday morning, and make all the big decisions, and get thanked by church members. Pastors should exercise a craft of care. They should genuinely like the work of shepherding souls. If they don’t, they should leave the ministry, finding a job that better suits them.
That sobering word aside, we need a recovery of the pastoral vocation today. We need men who, in serving as elders, apply technical knowledge, informed wisdom, a gentle touch, and a firm backbone to their task. We need men to see the work of shepherding not as a job, but as a craft. The pastoral vocation is invested with great dignity and great importance. We need men who tenderly care for the sheep, and men who guard the flock.
I’ll say one final word here. It is particularly rich to watch Siegfried do his work. He is excellent at his job. He sets a high bar for his associates. He attacks his duties with alacrity. He pursues excellence in all that he does. Yet when it comes time to handle a troubled animal, jittery and jumpy, he slows things down. He quietly soothes the frightened creature, relaxing it until he can administer the care it needs.
This too is a crucial part of pastoral work. Pastors must be those who calm the sheep, enabling them to recover calmness and, in due course, a God-centered perspective on their trials. Beyond pastoring, tenderness is what men must minister throughout their life. As husbands, we must listen well to our wives, offering understanding in troubled situations. As fathers, we must draw near to our children, holding them in our arms, hearing them out, calming them in love. The world is cold, but our embrace is warm.
We need men who are tough, to be sure. But in equal measure, we need men who are tender. There is no daylight between these two essential qualities of men; we follow the Savior, after all, who perfectly blended and embodied them (Matthew 18:2-5; John 2:13-17). It is his strength, and equally his tender love, that will soon heal the world, leaving it so restored, so reconstituted, so eschatologically perfect that no one will be able to un-heal it.
Second, the Beauty of Relational Perseverance
There is a second major strength that I find in “All Creatures”: its portrait of persevering commitment. The characters in the show each have their faults, challenges, struggles, and sins. There are various plot devices and twists in each episode, but navigating the fallen humanity of each character makes up the central drama of the show.
In my needfully humble judgment, this is what makes “All Creatures” the best show on television.
Read More

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