Dog bites man

Pa Curmudgeon e-mailed me this New York Times article on the difficulty single pastors find in receiving a call in evangelical circles, thinking, no doubt, of my own experiences when a recent seminary graduate so, so long ago. Back then, I not only experienced the soft discrimination discussed in this piece, but actually lost a potential call due to being single. The elders of an OP Church were inclined to recommend me to their congregation, but decided not to because several members wrongly thought 1 Timothy 3:2 barred me and they didn't want to start a new pastorate with a fight.

If the quotes in this article properly represent Al Mohler's position, he's either ignorant or willfully ignorant. Of course evangelicals discriminate against single people in general and single pastors in particular. This prejudice is often more annoying than substantial, but is nonetheless real. Married Christians who would deny this are an awful lot like white people who don't think race prejudice still exists in America.

My advice to unmarried pastoral candidates: get over it. More precisely, why are you seeking the same sort of positions as your espoused and family-encumbered brethren? Paul, the patron saint of single pastors, wrote "I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is." (1 Cor 7:26) Singleness provides the opportunity to enter into the present distress and take risks for the sake of the Gospel and Christ's Church. Because I was single, I was able to take a relatively risky call which four married men before me had declined. Why would the Lord keep a man single unless he wanted him to take a chance for Jesus, a chance which a man who has to provide for a family really should not?

Ministers of Word and sacrament are in particular called to imitate and participate in Christ's sufferings (Colossians 1:24-27). Ironically, the discrimination into which Christians so easily fall can be a door opening to the privilege of filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body; that is, the Church.

Where sacrifices should be offered

Lev. 17:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Lev. 17:2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the Lord has commanded.
Lev. 17:3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp,
Lev. 17:4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev. 17:5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord.
Lev. 17:6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord.
Lev. 17:7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.

Verse 7 takes things in an interesting direction. Up to this point, it seems we have a straightforward application of the 2nd Commandment, a regulation for worship which requires Israelites to offer their sacrifices only in the manner the Lord has regulated rather than worshiping him in whatever manner might occur to them on their own. Leviticus 17:7, though, draws a connection between worship in whatever random location one might choose and the worship of false gods, taking us firmly into 1st Commandment territory. This passage suggests that once one has decided to go one's own way, it's not one's own way for very long; instead, one ends up following the well-worn way of wickedness and perdition laid out by the evil one.

The lectionary bring us to John 4 this coming Lord's Day. There, Jesus famously pronounces the end of Temple worship and its replacement with worship in Spirit and truth. In conjunction with Leviticus 17, it would be an error to presume one gets to worship however or wherever one might like so long as one feels spirity. Instead, the "truth" bit in John 4:23-24 calls us to worship according to the Spirit's instruction through the Word, which requires Christians to worship on heavenly Zion, in the fellowship of the saints as they are gathered together in the Church's Lord's Day worship (Hebrews 12:22-24).

Heb. 13:15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

The problem with young people these days

(Along with a number of others, I answer questions posted to the OPC's website, a gig I fell into through Mrs. Curmudgeon's maternal grandfather. Last week, I was asked to reply to a person lamenting the casual dress so often seen at worship services these days and, to my surprise, pulled off a fairly decent response.)


This matter does not lend itself to a quick or simple answer, although I hope to be relatively straightforward. I should reveal something of my own prejudices from the outset by revealing I wear a white Genevan gown when leading worship, and I have (at least once that I can recall) talked about dress in worship in a sermon.

First, I should note that we live in a culture which is tending toward greater informality in dress for all occasions. This becomes remarkably evident when one compares a picture of a ballgame from the 1950s to one today. Regional variations are also important. In Chicago a couple years ago, I was struck by how many more suits I saw on the streets there than in the business districts of Denver. To be wildly imprecise, it seems the informality common on the beaches of California a generation ago has now migrated across the country even as far as Boston.

This being the case, many Americans simply have no sense of how formality varies with occasion nor how this might impact dress, and this is reflected by their wardrobes. Especially given the casual way in which worship services are conducted in many evangelical congregations, I think it would never occur to many of our countrymen and coreligionists that they should have a "Sunday best."

You suggest the Scriptures are not silent on this matter. Well, yes and no. I'd be astonished if anyone could draw a straight line from a Biblical passage to "gentlemen should wear ties on Sunday morning" without violating every hermeneutical and homiletical principle known to the reformed. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, the OPC as a body has never spoken to this question. At the same time, I've noticed the Scriptures spend a great deal of time discussing aesthetic matters, particularly in the Law and Wisdom literature, and this discussion tends to support greater formality in dress. I ground my teaching on this matter in the Fifth Commandment: that is, dress is one way in which one shows honor to others, in this case our Lord and Creator (Shorter Catechism #63-64).

Given the extraordinary difficulty one might have trying to prove to, say, one's teenage son that God expects him to wear a coat and tie to services, I think many pastors and elders are reluctant to make too much of an issue of this. Frankly, I'm more concerned that members attend the evening service than that they wear long pants for it. The Church ought never be turning people away solely on the basis of their clothing choices, no matter how infelicitous, and a preoccupation with this matter out of proportion to the Bible's interest in it runs the risk of adding to the Law of God. I think modeling by the session and mature members of the congregation will have the greatest impact: that is, if these dress in an appropriate manner, others will follow suit (no pun intended, although that's a pretty good pun if I say so myself).

Are the clergy to blame? To the extent they are still captive to the misguided spirit of the 1960s which revered the hatless President Kennedy and eschewed formality at all costs, yes. More substantively, clergy who have treated the worship service as little more than an occasion to present a sermon are to blame. Sessions should give careful attention to the conduct of the service as a ritual shaped by Scripture in which reverence and awe in the presence of God are evident throughout. Why would people dress formally for the liturgy when the liturgist's demeanor is informal?

Reverence and awe, honor and duty. I suspect that the more we who shepherd the sheep work to cultivate these attitudes in ourselves and in them, the more we will find everyone's dress being appropriate to the occasion.

grace & peace,
the Presbyterian Curmudgeon

The Church-integrated family, again

(In January of this year, I was contacted by another pastor who thought I might have been unfair to the leaders of the "family-integrated church" movement in my December 2010 Ordained Servant essay. Here's what I wrote in response, lightly edited.)

Dear Friend,

I think a couple points might be helpful in understanding what I did not address in my essay, and where this piece fits in with (what I understand is) Ordained Servant's editorial agenda. To begin with, I am firmly convinced the National Center for Family-Integrated Church's men and I disagree as to the correct reading of the times. The overarching crisis of our day is the collapse of the Church, of which any problems in the nuclear family are only symptoms. I firmly believe the Church is in as bad a condition today as she was immediately prior to the Protestant Reformation, only this time the core problem is schism rather than heresy. (On a cheerful note, I actually think reformed teaching is, on the whole, at a historically high level.) Christians in these United States bear primary responsibility for this sad state of affairs; the Church has been under assault here since before the founding of the Republic.

Hence, when the NCFIC men say "we recognize that the family—and especially fathers—are the focus of a fierce and unrelenting attack by the world, the flesh, and the Devil. This has escalated to the point that Christians must rise up in defense of the church and family in uncompromising biblical defense.", I think they're crazy. The Book of Revelation is clear: the Church is the target of Satan's assaults, and to turn one's attention even slightly in another direction is to give him more rein. These men need to focus their attention on building up the Church first and foremost, and I will believe they are serious about it when they repent of being Baptists and petition to enter a real presbyterian denomination.

Consequently, the very phrase "family-integrated church" is a ginormous red flag to me, as the Church must always be kept the central institution. The problem is not congregations fostering healthy families, but congregations which are organized with that as their main purpose; when, as I clarified in my essay, "by implication (and sometimes by flat-out statement), the church exists to support the family." Thus, my goal was to present a positive alternative to this error by demonstrating "the proper relationship of the family to the church: because the church is eternal, the temporary family must work to make its members better church members." I did not intend to present a direct critique of the NCFIC or its members. I have been told by the editor that a direct critique of the NCFIC is in the offing for Ordained Servant, but I don't know when.

Nonetheless, your suggestion I might be setting up a straw man is a valid one. However, the webernet abounds in testimonies of spiritual abuse in congregations sporting the "family-integrated" label (Mrs. Curmudgeon has made a minor hobby of discovering and forwarding me these sites). These are by definition anecdotes, but I take from them a couple very serious points. While the NCFIC men on occasion offer qualifications, at least a few have a tendency to strong rhetoric which is taken at face value by people impressed by it. (I've read and listened to a fair amount of Kevin Swanson in making this judgment.) This tendency to strong rhetoric can easily overwhelm the less-strong qualifications. Moreover, as a pastor, I am grieved by the damage done by the patriarchy movement to the souls of too many people. And of course, a few is too many. With that in mind, my essay was intended as a positive defense, an innoculation (if you will) against error. Give people a right view of the relationship between Church and family, and they might see patriarchalism for the schismatic and heretical notion it is.

To better understand my thinking, you should also know the OS piece was actually the first of a two-part argument. The follow-up seeks to show how, from the 1647 Directory for Family Worship, one might develop a "Church-integrated family." For editorial reasons, Greg Reynolds chose not to run it, so I will make it available in case you're interested. This might be the kind of constructive corrective you mention. It also shows the direction in which I firmly believe we should be moving: towards a recovery of historic Presbyterian practice in the life of the Church. When Presbyterianism, which is the Biblical religion, is rightly conceived and practiced, Churches will not only be well-ordered but families will (God willing) thrive as well.

In sum, it seems to me your concerns lie less with what I wrote than with what I didn't write. It may be that the NCFIC men and I agree on the relationship between family and Church, but we certainly disagree on how the Church should be organized. I believe that traces back to a defective ecclesiology on their part (whether by commitment or actual practice). I hope the December issue of Ordained Servant will be part of a helpful dialogue in which they learn to reform their faith and practice to the contours of historic and confessional Presbyterianism.

grace & peace,
the Presbyterian Curmudgeon

Why a curmudgeon is an unironic Scouter

From Elizabeth Scalia.

Ten Reasons Ash Wednesday Is Better than Christmas

Stolen from davebarnhart.net:

10. No braving the malls looking for Lent gifts

9. No pressure to send "Merry Ash Wednesday" cards

8. No explaining why using chi-rho isn't "X-ing Jesus out" of Lent

7. No dominionist fundagelicals trying to fight culture wars by putting "Jesus resisting temptation in the wilderness" displays on public property

6. No celebrity holiday albums

5. No Ash Wednesday sitcom specials

4. No saccharine email forwards about "the true meaning" of Ash Wednesday

3. No tacky Ash Wednesday sweaters

2. "Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return" extremely difficult to use in consumer marketing strategies

1. Nobody ever says, "Ash Wednesday is really all about the children."

Merit in the Covenant of Life

Many writing under the Federal Vision banner have objected to the notion that God might have determined to reward Adam for keeping the Covenant of Life. In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 164-6, A.A. Hodge captures their discomfort well.

The word "merit," in the strict sense of the term, means that common quality of all actions or services to which a reward is due, in strict justice, on account of their intrinsic value or worthiness. It is evident that, in this strict sense, no work of any creature can in itself merit any reward from God; because - (a) All the faculties he possesses were originally granted and are continuously sustained by God, so that he is already so far in debt to God that he can never bring God in debt to him. (b) Nothing the creature can do can be a just equivalent for the incomparable favour of God and its consequences.

However, he also answers their objection this way:

There is another sense of the word, however, in which it may be affirmed that if Adam had in his original probation yielded the obedience required, he would have "merited" the reward conditioned upon it, not because of the intrinsic value of that obedience, but because of the terms of the covenant which God had graciously condescended to form with him. By nature, the creature owed the Creator obedience, while the Creator owed the creature nothing. But by obedience the Creator voluntarily bound himself to owe the creature eternal life, upon the condition of perfect obedience.

How to not save newspapers

This week, Candorville is making all the obvious points on the connections between the comics page and the future of journalism, albeit with far more wit than I might.