TV & the Cross

How do I know parenting requires death to self? Because tonight, while Mrs. Curmudgeon was at a Bible study, I tried to watch Lost, but Thing Two insisted on yelling, running around, and breaking the blinds while he was supposed to be asleep. And what I was thinking, of course, was "Can't I catch a break? Can't I have a moment for myself, to do what I want to do?"

No, of course.

That's how I know.

Demographics & Depression

If this pastor gig doesn't work out, my backup plan is to move back to Virginia and pursue graduate studies in economics at George Mason University. With economics suddenly becoming a very timely and interesting subject, I listen avidly to the EconTalk and Planet Money podcasts. I've thus heard any number of theories and explanations for the present financial unpleasantness, but none so idiosyncratic or compelling as this from David P. Goldman (until recently, the pseudonymous "Spengler" of the Asia Times):

"Credit markets derive from the cycle of human life. Young people need to borrow capital to start families and businesses; old people need to earn income on the capital they have saved. We invest our retirement savings in the formation of new households. All the armamentarium of modern capital markets boils down to investing in a new generation so that they will provide for us when we are old." He goes on to argue that the demographic decline of young two-parent families in Europe and America has resulted in a concomitant decline of credit markets which, in turn, can only be reversed by an increase in young families.

You can read "Demographics & Depression" in its entirety in the May 2009 issue of First Things, available on better newsstands everywhere.

(Are there any newsstands outside of Manhattan and downtown Chicago anymore?)

More on Presbyterian vows

Anonymous, the most frequent commentator to this blog, asked in response to The Obligations of Presbyterian Membership Vows, "Do you believe that this application would hold true for deacons and elders as well? Or do you feel that they might have a different standard to meet?"

Church officers (and here I include pastors along with elders and deacons) do not have so much a different standard as a different set of obligations. One could enumerate these in any number of ways, but I'm going to cover them under two points.

1) Church officers must remember they are stewards of Spiritual gifts, and have been called by the Spirit to exercise them within a particular congregation. They should ask themselves whether their congregation would be harmed by deprivation of their Spiritual gifts should they go elsewhere, and, at the same time, whether the new congregation would benefit from those gifts. At the same time, no man should think himself so indispensable that the Holy Spirit cannot raise up another to "fill his slot" within a particular congregation. (Pastors, I've observed, are particularly prone to this delusion!)

2) Church officers must remember they are models of Christian conduct and, very often, are fondly regarded as fathers in the faith. Any move out of the congregation in which they serve ought be done so as to preserve relationships on good terms and to show others how they ought to behave.

The Obligations of Presbyterian Membership Vows

I am occasionally asked what constitute Biblical reasons for leaving a particular Church. (I am not here considering occasions such as moving to another state; rather, moving from one congregation to another without moving house.) I think this question wrongly prejudices the matter: it implies only a reason which is clearly grounded in Scripture is sufficiently weighty to leave one congregation for another. This is not the case. Under the general provisions of God’s Word, one’s membership vows create the guidelines for deciding when one should leave one’s Church.

Consider: how does one become a communicant member of an Orthodox Presbyterian (or any other kind of presbyterian) congregation? By being examined by a session which, upon deciding one has a credible profession of faith in Christ, gives one permission to take membership vows in a worship service. Until those vows are taken, one is not a communicant member; after taking them, one is. I’m belaboring this fairly obvious point because it demonstrates how these vows regulate and control one’s membership in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. So what do those vows require of the person who might wish to leave his present congregation for another?

First, we should note our Confession of Faith has a chapter (22, which you can find online, with Scripture proofs, at http://www.opc.org/confessions.html) on oaths and vows. It’s worth your while to read the whole thing; in my opinion, its most pertinent sentence for the concerns of this essay is “[A vow] is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.” In other words, when you take a vow, you are obligated to do what you vowed to do, no less and no more. So what is the presbyterian obligated to do when dissatisfied with his local Church?

Of the four OPC membership vows, the only one which directly governs one’s membership in a local congregation is the fourth: “Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?” (OPC Book of Discipline V,5) This vow obligates you to deal with any concerns you might have regarding your congregation in submission to the government of the OPC. So if you’re unhappy in your local congregation, you should make this known to your elders, and listen respectfully to any advice they might have for you. If you believe there is sin in your local congregation, you should seek to deal with that sin as our Lord commands in Matthew 18:15-20 and as outlined in the OPC’s Book of Discipline.

However, you ARE NOT obligated to remain a member of that particular congregation. I have heard some suggest Church membership is like marriage: that is, one may not leave a particular congregation unless there is unrepentant sin on the part of the session, much as one may not divorce one’s spouse unless he or she is guilty of the sin of adultery or desertion. This is simply incorrect. Marriage vows include the phrase “until death do us part.” There is absolutely nothing like this in one’s Church membership vows.

Here, one might object that Scripture teaches marriage is a permanent union, unbreakable except for adultery (Matthew 19:1-9): that is, marriage’s permanency is controlled by more than its vows. Fair enough, but can the same be said for Church membership? The Scriptures require submission to one’s elders (Hebrews 13:7-17), but they never describe membership in a particular congregation as being anything like as permanent as a marriage. Every Christian is obligated to be a member of a particular Church, but as long as one moves from one congregation to another in a way which honors the elders’ authority, one is not obligated to remain a member of a particular congregation.

What, then, constitute reasons sufficient to leave one local congregation for another? This is not a matter of law, but of wisdom. May a family leave their OPC congregation for a nearby PCA which has a youth group for their children? If that family thinks this sufficiently important, nothing in their membership vows prevents them from doing this. Again, they should discuss their concerns with their elders and respect their advice; but if the family continues to believe this move would be for their Spiritual good, I can see no reason, in principle, they may not.

On the one hand, I am greatly encouraged to see people take their Church membership seriously enough to be willing to put up with difficulties and disappointments; far too many Christians hop from congregation to congregation, utterly indifferent to their Biblical obligation to be committed to a local Church body. I have seen any number of presbyterian Church members decide they’re unhappy, never bring their concerns to their elders, start attending another congregation’s services, decline requests from their elders to meet, and then never bother to ask for a transfer of membership. In light of this overwhelming and discouraging pattern, I am very pleased when a Church member is extremely reluctant to even consider transferring to another congregation.

Nonetheless, I am also concerned when families struggle spiritually because they have to drive an hour for services and have no opportunity for fellowship with other members during the week when there are two or three confessionally reformed congregations nearer their house. (This is not uncommon in major metropolitan areas, such as Denver.) In these and similar instances, I wonder whether fathers and husbands, out of a misguided understanding of their obligations, are doing their families a disservice when a ready solution to their problem is at hand.

I could multiply examples of legitimate reasons to leave one particular congregation for another, and I could similarly multiply examples of really bad reasons. Again, this is a matter best left to sanctified wisdom, guided by Scripture, bathed in prayer, and exercised with submission and deference to one’s elders. If a Church member makes his decisions in this way, then he can be assured he is acting in accord with God’s Word and his membership vows.

Pro-Cross

In conjunction with becoming a foster parent, I've been thinking about how "pro-life" issues can be better framed via a theology of the Cross. To be overly broad, people kill babies and old people because allowing them to live would impose what they perceive to be unbearable burdens upon themselves; in other words, choosing "life" for the baby or old person would mean a death to self, to one's own preferences and ambitions.

Today's "culture of death," then, might better be described as a "culture of death for other people so I might live my life to its fullest." Over against this, the "pro-life" choice is simultaneously a choice to die to oneself; in other words, to take up one's cross.

If and When

In English, “if” and “when” are distinct words with overlapping meanings. We often use “when” to refer to definite events which are certain to occur (“I’ll get out of bed when the sun comes up”), but “when” can be used interchangeably with “if” for uncertain, contingent events (“I’ll buy some new boots when I win the lottery”).

Thus, the Greek word “ean” can be translated into English with “if” or “when;” which term the translator chooses depends, to a great extent, on the certainty of the event to which the term refers. This is why I initially translated John 12:32 as “And I, when I am lifted up, will draw all men to me.” After all, what was more certain than the crucifixion of Christ and the subsequent evangelization of the world? I was surprised any English version would use “if” rather than “when” in this sentence.

But.

Sunday morning as I was preparing to preach on John 12:20-33 from the NKJV, I suddenly noticed the parallel between John 12:32 and 12:24: “...if [a grain of wheat] dies, it bears much fruit.” The NKJV translates “ean” as “if” in both John 12:24 and 12:32 to draw out an implication of Jesus’ analogy: the fruit to be borne by Christ’s death is as certain as the harvest to be reaped from a field sown with grain. Were “ean” translated differently in John 12:24 and 12:32, this point could easily be missed.

Let the record show: the Presbyterian Curmudgeon acknowledges the translators of the NKJV just may, on occasion, have more insight into a given text than he.

We have seen the enemy, and he is us

Ordained Servant is the OPC's journal for, well, ordained officers. It appears online, with an annual print edition. This month, Carl Trueman, a professor of Church history at Westminster Theological Seminary, uses a review of David Wells' The Courage to be Protestant as an occasion to consider, with an impressive amount of historical and sociological insight, the huge challenges facing any attempt to rebuild a robust Church life in the midst of America's individualistic and capitalistic culture.

The short version: Because conservative presbyterians have chosen to become conservative presbyterians, they may be the greatest obstacle to rebuilding confessional presbyterianism. "There is nobody less likely to refuse to meet with the elders, in my experience, than the hardline confessionalist whose monopolistic possession of the truth, combined with an oh-so-sensitive conscience and a Luther complex, places him above the reach of ordinary church courts."

The long version: http://www.opc.org/os9.html?article_id=147