Sammy Taylor

As you may know, I am a fan of reading theological works by important men throughout the centuries. I have read many of the words of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Charles Spurgeon, and many other important dead guys. From modern times I enjoy the works of great men such as John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Micheal Horton, and perhaps the greatest social theologian of them all, the all important, Sammy Taylor. It is the great Dr. Taylor I wish to discuss today. 

In Sammy Taylor's masterful work The Status we find this quote that seems to be a brief commentary on 21st Century life and culture.  

"You can be intimate and honest and bare and even brash when you're blogging. Why? Because nobody on earth actually reads blogs. Sorry to burst your bubble."

This simple remark has spurred a revolution within the minds of not only the pajama-clad twenty-somethings who live in their parents basement, but has moved people of all walks of life from middle aged cougar mothers who attend Twilight premiers, to the wise elders of the community who meet nightly at the American Legion to toast life and change the world’s problems. On a personal note, I was traversing the jungles of Brazil and came across a small village of indigenous people who, as far a local stories told, had never seen a white man before. I was anticipating many questions regarding my appearance and lifestyle in their native tongue, but no. On the side of the chief's hut, scrawled in goat's blood, in English no less, was the aforementioned quote by Professor Taylor. They also spoke a few phrases in English, in addition to Sammy Taylor's passage, which when recited had a distinct southern Georgia twang. They also asked me, in perfect English if I knew Dr. Sammy Taylor and if there was anything they could do to serve him and gain his favor. Clearly it can be seen that the importance of the works of Sammy Taylor have been far reaching and quite profound.

I would also like us to meditate on this passage from The Status and see what can be divined from his wise words. Firstly, he begins this passage with the word "You", with a capitol "Y" indicating not only the beginning of a sentence, but the importance of the people group he is addressing, by making the "You" into a proper noun. Next we see Dr. Taylor discussing various ways in which a person "can be". This "can be" phrase, having the connotation of "having the ability to do something" or the immortal phrase brought to us by William Shakespeare, "Yes we can!" We then see Sammy Taylor using a series of four words that give deep meaning to the ways in which one can express themselves in blog form. Before we look at the words themselves we must first understand the reason in using four adjectives. In the study of numerology we see that the number four brings with it many meanings.

• Time is the fourth dimension, which of course is an illusion. Perhaps he is indicating the illusion of importance of which blogs hold. 
• Some have suggested he making reference to the four directions of a compass rose, (North, South, East, West) indicating that direction should be found outside the realms of the blog-sphere. 
• Still others have perpetuated that he is referring to the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) indicating that blogging is not truly the totality of the universe
• Four is seen as the first solid number, thus indicating the validity of his statement by making it a solid.

The first of these words he uses is "intimate" a sexually suggestive adjective. When he made this remark, in his early thirties, he had only been married three months and was obviously concentrated on his sexual relationship with his new wife.

The second word Dr. Taylor shares is the adjective honest, coming from the Latin honestus, meaning "honorable". 

Thirdly, we see Samuel Periwinkle Taylor being so bold as to give us the liberty to be "bare" in our blogging. Strangely this is the second overtly sexual reference he uses. Some scholars have suggested he is again focused on his sexual relationship with his new wife; however one notable scholar on the complete works of Dr. Taylor explains it thusly:

While the true origin of the modern English word "bare" remains a mystery, what is know is that it began its use roughly 900 years ago, during the time when Middle English was the common tongue of the west. It can then be inferred that Samuel Periwinkle Taylor actually had in mind the Middle English poem The Corpus Christi Carol  which contains the lines "He bare him up, he bare him down,/He bare him into an orchard brown." Thus, bringing to light not only his love of Middle English poetry but also the faith of his childhood. 

The fourth and final adjective Dr. Taylor ascribes to blogging is perhaps his most controversial, "brash". Here he clearly can be seen as exhorting his readers to be "brash", some would argue "harsh" would be a better translation from the original English.

Dr. Samuel Periwinkle Taylor then makes a rather bold move, he allows for conversation and critique, or so it would seem. He asks the question "Why?" only "why". Some would argue he did this because he was a humble man, not wanting to flaunt his vast intellect, but still others would argue the near opposite, that he was asking such a question so as to perform the final blow. I hold to the latter position because he then responds to his own ponderance.

To answer his historic "Why" question he stated "Because nobody on earth actually reads blogs." This has been a prayer uttered, probably not in vain, by more than one pajama-clad conquistador of the internet upon venting their frustration of the new World of Warcraft patch. Again in this verse of the notable Professor Taylor we see yet again another "to be" phrase, "Because nobody...", which, of course has a negative connotation. The negative connotation not withstanding, some authorities on Periwinkle Taylor have suggested this is actually a positive remark overall, because, they argue, he is thus championing for the human experience. This proposition is probably not as far off as some may think. It is a well known fact that Dr. Sammy Taylor went on, after having three children with his wife, to adopting over seventeen babies from third world countries the world across. Each of his twenty children he raised well, put though private schools and payed for their undergraduate studies, at his Alma Mater, Princeton.  It was actually the first time in the history of the university that an alumni had more than five children attend the Ivy League school and all graduate with honors. 

The esteemed Dr. Taylor goes into yet another explanation of the uselessness of blogging; this one did not sit well with those outside of academia. He gave evidence that there is not a single person "on earth" who bothers to read blog posts. I would argue that this phrase came later in his career, after the loss of his second wife, and 17th adoptive child when he was at the darkest place in his life. While what he may be saying on the surface is that there isn't a single person who wastes their precious time reading obscure posts on the internet, it would seem more likely, to me, that he is making a more profound statement. I have often pondered what I would go though after suffering such a tragic loss, and I think I have grasped the deep emotions of the late Dr. Taylor. He is expressing his grief in such a way that he can demonstrate his belief that there is "nobody on earth" in whom he can find such a deep, romantic, love again. We can know this is his belief in the lack of capitalization of the word "earth". Clearly, had he been speaking of the people of the planet Earth not reading blogs, he would have used the standardized capitalization for the proper noun, however he was angry with the world and did not see if fitting to give it a capitol letter.

     His closing remarks are perhaps the most telling, as he provides a heart-felt apology for a global problem that is clearly not his fault. Some have argued, and rightly so I believe, that Samuel Periwinkle Taylor had a "messiah complex" and felt the need to constantly take the blame himself and fix the world’s problems. Perhaps it is was the realization that he was unable to manufacture a cure for sorrow that he took the blessed life he had been given, and at the age of seventy-three, became a pop star. But the possibilities of analysis do not end there, as his apology states, "Sorry to bust your bubble". As we have already discussed his "messiah complex" we will move on the two word clause "bust your". This clause in interesting in that it is yet another sexually suggestive term, that of course being "bust", another term for a woman’s bosom. This thought, when coupled with the final word of the historic verse, "bubble" does certainly suggest he may have had his first marriage on his mind, yet again. This thought has led to some thinking he wrote the end of his great work earliest in life and moved on from there to provide a darker social commentary later in life. Therefore the sections dealing with overt sexual behavior and body parts were written first. 

We Don't Need Anymore Jeremiah 29:11 Christians

     Context is everything. Have you ever been around somebody on the phone and you know, you just KNOW they are talking about you. Perhaps your mother is talking to one her friends on the phone the day after Mother's Day and you had gotten her a stone frog shaped water sprinkler for her garden that you thought was the coolest, but you here her talking to her friend about this "weird thing she just got but has no idea who would ever want something do ugly and stupid, let alone who would want that around them". She is really talking about the atrocious sweater your well meaning but slightly off grandmother made her from wool with little felt-bedazzled flowers all over the front. But you just knew she was talking about you. 
     Maybe you remember when you were little, playing tee-ball, and thinking you were the most important player on the team because it didn't take you fifteen swings to hit the ball sitting on a pole three feet in front of you. But, the day after one of your "big games" you overhear your dad at the barbecue with all the other neighborhood dads about that "incredible" hit at the "big game" yesterday. Then you hear all the neighborhood men agree with excitement and rowdy toasting of their soda pop, because your mom doesn't allow them to drink "adult beverages" around the kids. Never mind you know all the other dads have kids in the older leagues and certainly wouldn't had had the time to come to yours, but maybe they heard about the big star on the 7 and younger league and wanted to come to see YOU play. 
     Clearly your mom really did love the frog water sprinkler and obviously you dad wasn't talking about his 6 year old son't tee ball game, both your parents were talking about something bigger and more important. Your mom was upset and the senility of your aging grandmother and your dad was talking about the Brave's game(that's a team right). 
We are naturally self centered and think every conversation our parents have, good or bad, is clearly about yours truly. So, it comes with great regret that I break the news to you, you're not as important as you think. When you hear a conversation, or heaven forbid, are involved in one, it is important to understand the context of what is being said. The same is true of the Bible. If you don't understand the context of what is being said you are likely to misunderstand the text, try to make it say something it is not, and may even make the verse all about you. 
     Because I don't want to piss too many people off by explaining that the most frequently misused verse in the Bible is John 3:16, I'll pick the second, Jeremiah 29:11. 

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

(Jeremiah 29:11 ESV)

     If you walking into any Christian bookstore and head over to their gift section, you are bound to find this "encouraging" verse plastered all over the place, on the signs advertising the gifts, on clocks that play hymns, music boxes that play the "best" that CCM has to offer, plaques with sailboats, picture frames with other people in them, "artwork" depicting lighthouses or snowy trees, and other "Christian" junk you hang on your wall(right next to your "statue" you put out every Christmas of Santa Clause kneeling over the manger because if it were not for that, you would forget to "keep Christ in Christmas", but that is a blog for another time). 
     Now, on to that oft-quoted quoted verse. I'll offer some context so we don't make the same mistakes as rookie Sunday school teachers and veteran pastors when they sit down to write a sermon and don't know what the heck there is left to preach. So, if we were to bother to sit down and read all of Jeremiah instead of that one verse we would be painting a whole different story to "claim" for ourselves. 

     The broader context of this verse, obviously begins in chapter 1 on Jeremiah, but we don't need to start there, except to say that this book was written for the Hebrew people in exile, in captivity, in slavery, in Babylon. We get further context for what is being said in Jeremiah 29:11, if we looks back a few verses, not many at all, I promise you.

“For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

(Jeremiah 29:10-14 ESV)

     We see here when we look back one verse, just one, we see that this promise is going to be for a future generation, the current generation hearing these words is going to be dead in seventy years, and their kids are going to have great lives. This future generation, seventy years later, will be delivered from captivity and slavery. Because they are going to be there so long in the beginning of Jeremiah 29 we see God telling them to take wives and husbands, grow crops and tend to them, and serve the city (Jeremiah 29:6-7).


     What we do need to look at when we read Jeremiah 29:11 is the full context of what is going on, but is this verse still encouraging? We see a people, told by God that they are going to die off before this promise takes effect, this promise is not for those alive at the time, and certainly not for us today. But is it still meaningful and useful for us today? The short answer is, yes. This section of scripture, taken in its full context, still has great meaning for us today, for several reasons. 


1. Jeremiah 29 is of great importance to us today because it is still the God-breathed scripture. It is still inspired by the Holy Spirit and as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches us, "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness, that the man of God my be complete, equipped for every good work. 


2.  We can see that God is a covenant God, a God who keeps his promises, and never fails his people. Even though though his people were going to die in exile, they had a great hope for the future for their children. 


3. It is clear in this chapter of Jeremiah that God is a sovereign God, meaning that He is fully in  control of all things. Because God is sovereign, this gives us great hope because God does know the plans for our life, however these plans do not have to be all pretty and bright. God's plan for the apostle Paul were great and wonderful plans, but they included great suffering for the sake of the Gospel and suffered all kinds of afflictions, from an unknown "thorn in the flesh", to harsh critics, being ship wrecked, and imprisoned several times.


      Finally, we don't have to look at Jeremiah 29 in a Joel Osteen fashion, simply pointing out the verse that make us feel warm and fuzzy, but we pay attention to the full story of God in looking at the context of scripture. God's plan for you is great, I can promise you this, but not because your life is going to so blessed financially, with great health, and good friends, but because God created you for a specific purpose. The purpose you exist is to bring glory to God. In being chosen for salvation there is no greater blessing, and any materialistic desire will be trumped by the Gospel. We can have our hope and future in Christ, and acknowledge that our greatest blessing is Christ himself. 

Contemporary Christian Music: The Work of Satan?

     The other day I had rather odd conversation that I felt was worthy of sharing. So, please, feel free to sit back, grab a cold one, and enjoy the tale.
     As often happens, I run into rather unique people. I don't know what it is about me but I tend to attract some real winners from all walks of life, last Saturday was no different. I began this conversation with this well intentioned gentleman about music and what is truly "God-honoring". He pointed out that the music playing inside the establishment in which we were conversing was clearly not "God-honoring" but didn't want to be rude to any of the employees and have them turn it off. He was intelligent and kind enough to understand that the employees had no control over the music playing in the store, even though it was a Christian establishment. I decided that this man was going to be fun speaking with, seeing as how he and I most astoundingly disagree on this issue.
     After he explained that the CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) playing in the store was, in fact, "of the Devil" I decided to good-naturedly question him a bit. To do this I thought I would try to be accommodating and ask his opinion/recommend a new musician to him. (Because I am posting from my iPhone I cannot embed the song I played for him, but to get the full scope if the kind of man this was, open a new tab. Go to YouTube and search "All I Have is Christ" by Bob Kauflin and watch/listen to the song). He agreed to listen to the song and he got a full 13 seconds in and told me that it was "the music of Satan". To be completely honest, I did not expect that response. Had I been looking for that sort of reaction I would have just played him some Sleeping Giant or Becoming the Archetype. I was truly trying to recommend a new musician that I felt a man if his conservative tendencies would appreciate. However, because I was genuinely surprised I had to find out why this godly musician was of the devil.
     I asked him why he felt this way about Kauflin's music and his response was no less confusing. He explained that the harmony and melody were in conflict and that the man's whispery voice was sensual.
Now, this may come as a bit of a surprise, but I am no expert in male sensuality, but I van honestly say that the song "All I Have is Christ" by Bob Kauflin does not arouse me in the slightest...but it is a pretty good song.
     While the fact remains that nowhere in scripture does it explain that a certain type of singing or musical expression is sinful; his beliefs about CCM continued to become even more absurd.
He then went on to explain that it is not just the lyrics of the song that makes it Christ-exalting but that an instrumental of a hymn can indeed bring glory to God as well. I think that we can all agree to that (unless you're Church of Christ, then you just ignore the entire Old Testament and believe in a works-based salvation). To illustrate his point he told me that a while back a radio station that he listens to, that only plays the right sort if music, occasionally plays instrumental renditions of songs. However, on one occasion the station let an un-wholesome song come through. This particular song was a hymn played in an oboe, which he was fine with, but what was not alright is that the musician played the sing in such a way that it dud not hit each note individually but slurred the notes and almost had a "jazzy" feel. I asked why this too was sinful and his explanation for both styles of music was simply ludicrous. He began by saying that it "makes you want to dance like the world" that "CCM mimics the music of the strip bars and night clubs". Certain kinds of music make you want to do certain kinds of things, (paraphrased),"for instance; a march makes you want to march, a waltz makes you want to waltz (this is an acceptable form if dance as long as it is done with your wife and is does in the privacy of your own bedroom), and rock music makes you want to fornicate".
Because it is no secret that David, the king if Israel, and whose decedent is the Messiah, danced, quite exuberantly in the Bible I asked him why it was not a sin for David to dance, but it was for us today. Being helpful and understanding, considering my ignorance of such matters, he clarified that King David was not sinfully moving back and forth but danced in a God-honoring manor, up and down.

     I am sure at this point you are probably are wondering how I responded to his claims and what sort of attitude I had. Well let me say first that I was respectful the entire time, as was he, and never once did things get heated or even argumentative. We had a civil, if not friendly conversation. While in this post he sounds arrogant and judgmental, that is because you are hearing this from my perspective, if he were recounting the story he would probably refer to me as a "punk kid who has lost his soul to the world" but he would say this with love and concern in his heart.

Now, for my vocal reactions.

     Like I stated, I was was in no way rude, however my questions and responses were blunt and important. The majority of the time I would ask him, "Where in scripture do you find this principal"? He certainly would respond with Ephesians 5:19, but his exegesis was poor and unconvincing, much like the Church of Christ, except he was accepting of instruments. The main problem with all of his arguments is that it assumed that what the works does is always sinful and unredeemable.

     As Christians we are called to be in the world but not of the world. We are called to be in the culture but not defined by the culture. We are to accept aspects of culture that are wholesome, we ate to reject aspects of culture that do not bring glory to God and are otherwise sinful, but we are called to a third task. We are to redeem culture. As followers of Christ we are to speak as he spoke, act as he acts, go where he went, serve as he served, and die as he died; all with the Glory of God as the ultimate goal in mind. Jesus went to parties, we are to go to parties and be Christ to those people there. We are to sit at a bar and share the Gospel with the person sitting next to us. We are to walk into a brothel and walk out with the abused and show them true life. We are to learn to play an instrument, write well, speak properly, sing/scream exceptionally, or find some other platform to exalt God.

I do hope to continue this conversation below, on Facebook, or Twitter.

The Glory of God is the Gospel

     I'm currently working on a few blogs at once, but right now there is an idea that is kind of consuming my thoughts right now, that I feel may be of rather high importance and seems to be ignored by the church. The way I'm going to deal wit h this scripture is unlike I normally deal with the Bible. I only want to look at a part of a single verse. Normally I'm all about the surrounding context, but in this odd case, there is not much more to say in regard to this section of scripture.  Right now I'm contemplating and working though what exactly Paul means when he is writing to Timothy saying "...the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God...(1:11 ESV)" Some translations have this verse rendered as "the glorious gospel" but I, as well as the much more qualified John Piper, do not think this is the best way to render this verse. We argue this way because while the Gospel is indeed glorious, the greater truth is that the Gospel is about the Glory of God. Now here is where Piper and I may diverge, while he argues that the Gospel reveals the glory of God, I think that I am willing to argue that the Gospel is the Glory of God. I am still working though this, and looking to other theologians who have put forth an articulate definition of the Gospel to see if any of them argue the way I am leaning.  Again, I am still working though this, but I do welcome discussion and if you care to respond in your own way, feel free and run with your thoughts.


*EDIT*

I found this after posting my blog, about a week ago Kevin DeYoung posted a short blog about the importance of the Glory of God. It both serves in re-enforce my point that the Glory of God is of utmost importance, it is also a short, but well written piece.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/08/12/glory-of-god-claiming-to-be-wise-he-became-a-fool/

What the Cross did to Ethnic Diversity

     Perhaps, like many of you, I am getting rather excited for the release of John Piper's new book Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian set to be released on the 30th of September. To get pumped about this new release, just two months away, I thought we would would look at a couple of things that have been said about John Piper in the book For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. One essay in particular caught my attention, The Glory and Supremacy of Jesus Christ in Ethnic Distinctions and Over Ethnic Identities by Thabiti Anyabwile (link to his blog). Pastor Anyabwile has written several books of racial relations in and outside of the church, as well as a number of essays in several books dealing with race and evangelism.

     Thabiti Anyabwile discusses in his chapter of the book his thoughts on ethnic identities as well as John Piper's thoughts on the issues as well. From beginning to end his essay is both convicting but pastoral and theological. It is rare and refreshing to read the thoughts of somebody who takes the care to be doctrinally sound and and precise when speaking on ethnic diversity. he even explains that "Ethnicity, like justification and the gospel and christology, requires theological precision. it requires thinking rightly and biblical about the nature of man and God's redemption. Empty platitudes and politically correct niceties will not due". Another thing I appreciate his is difficult, almost cutting remark, that opens his essay:

Paltry is the number of white evangelical pastor, preachers, and leaders who deal effectively and directly with race, racism, and racial reconciliation. To my knowledge, very few have addressed the isssue with anything resembling the legitimate fervor, consistency, and intentionality used to address other issues like homosexuality and and abortion. Still fewer have made racial reconciliation of racial harmony a centerpiece of their preaching ministry, church objectives, or writing projects. (pg. 293)

     Can I just say, "wow"? He then goes on to explain John Piper's role in trying to be a change in this kind of attitude of preaching, going as far to say that Piper is a "brilliant exception in all of this". Later he cites a section from one of John Piper's sermon's Race and Cross, where Piper explains growing up in a racially divided South Carolina, and that everything from water-fountains to his church were separated by race. With racial tensions high, just within, the life time of perhaps some of you reading this, and for those like myself, not having grown up in times of blatant and legal segregation, it is perhaps appropriate to ask, why would God create such differences in the human race if they were going to divide us so? Thankfully, Pastor Anyabwile offers a biblical response, "Because God glorifies himself in the differences themselves and is being glorified in the reconciliation of the nations though Jesus Christ, his Son".

     I wish to close with a one last point from Thabiti Anyabwile where he explains how a Christian responds to "the supremacy of Jesus Christ over ethnic identities".

"For in the spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). The apostle does not mean that ethnic, social, and gender distinctions are destroyed, for those realities persist. Rather, Christ subsumes those real differences in a way that makes them secondary to our baptism into Christ and our new-found identity. We are one in him, drinking from the same Spirit. This means we may recognize real ethnic, social, and gender issues without being divided over them. (pg. 302)

     Later, he goes on to explain that, "

Why I Love the Hell out of Rob Bell

     

   As much as I want to write my review of Love Wins by Rob Bell, I have yet found the time to get around to doing so. However I thought that I would do a blog between the blogs, a sort of discussion of why, I, of all people, love Rob Bell. Let me first say that i read both Love Wins by Bell, and Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up by Francis Chan. While, I do agree with Chan's theological conclusions far above those of Bell's, I must admit this blog is not about theology, but looks. I think Bell has better fashion sense. Does Chan have cool hipster-esque glasses? No, Bell does. Bell used to have longer, bleach blond hair, not any more. he is a man of simplicity. Simple beliefs, simple style. In his Nooma videos he was always able to draw you in with that speeking style, which he so helpfully put into print.

Into print, now that's an idea. People love ideas, even animals love ideas. 

What is so attractive about an idea? 

Is it the simplicity of simply stating something out loud and having others jump on your thought train? 

Or is it the complexity of something so brand new?

Perhaps its the beauty of a person saying something unique to them,

their group of friends,

their family, 

humanity,

to all the earth, person, animal, and plant a like,

Ministry of Magic,

or to the Galactic Federation?

In his promo video for Love Wins Bell is wearing a very smart looking black coat, similar to a peacoat, and a black scarf. I really do appreciate his sens of fashion here, as well as the statement his clothing choice is making.  He is standing against a white, snowy back-drop while wearing black. i think, saying in effect "lets do something so I'm seen, some new, something fresh, something bland, but against the current." 

Did I mention his scarf?

He wears a scarf now.

Scarves are cool. 

Bell always tends to dress smartly, and with great taste. I think my favorite outfit of his all the times I have seen him has to be the time he wore the black slacks, white dress shirt, black vest, and the back skinny tie. I admit, I have a thing for skinny ties. I just wish Mark Driscoll would embrace the skinny tie. However I think it would look silly on a man a buff as Driscoll. He can stick to his UFC, heavy coats, and flannel , and Bell can go, all budding young executive/classy hipster. 

Doctrine is not a Dirty Word

     I have noticed over the years that I am a real nerd when it comes to theology. I have tried to be a computer nerd, a literature nerd, a Harry Potter nerd (success), a music nerd, and a gaming nerd (mild success). However all of these pale in comparison with the amount of time I spend studying theological issues. While this does certainly not mean I have a vast knowledge of scripture, or theology, it does mean I know very little about a lot of random topics. If you want to sit down and have a talk about predestination, the atonement, varying views of the "end times", or some other obscure or major topic, I will gladly accept, but first I'm going to grab a book or two to read beforehand so when it does come to discussion time, it will appear as though I know what I am talking about. I do not think this is cheating, its like cramming for an exam, only for me, its fun. But all this leads me to the main question that I want to deal with today, is theology good? There are some who would say that the study of theology is a dangerous thing and should not be done. They would say that a person should not read books on doctrine, but only encouragement. They would argue that the only theological work needed is the scriptures. So are these people right? Is theology bad?

Theology is bad.

You should study Doctrine.

     I was out with a friend yesterday, while my fiancee was doing something around her house, and she was telling me about a friend of hers at college who is a member of the Salvation Army and why she believes that a Christian should not read doctrinal books or study theology. Her friends is of the belief that the only theological work is only the bible. I'm not sure if this is an individual belief or if this is something held as a whole by the Salvation Army. 

     I would like to first, to look at what the authors of scripture said on the issue of doctrine, and true belief, or orthodoxy.  This will mostly be a lot of citing of scripture. First we will look to a statement of faith in the Old Testament, one that Jesus was taught growing up, believed, and taught. It comes from the book of Deuteronomy, in chapter 6:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (verse 4-5, ESV)

And it then goes on to say in verses 6-9 what should be done with this section of scripture.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (ESV)

The the rest of the chapter goes on to explain why these things should be taught, and that the God they serve is a mighty God, and that they should both fear Him while simultaneously praising his goodness and his glory.

Clearly from this section of scripture we have a command to teach, at the very least this, and the character of God we see in the next few section of scripture. Another section of scripture that teaches on both the greatness of God and his sovereignty is the book of Job. The book opens describing how great Job is and then satan, presumably the Satan, appears before God, and God, the God, the one and only, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, begins to boast about Job. But Satan accuses God of putting a hedge of protection around Job, and God gives Satan, over a period of time, to destroy every aspect of Job's life. Satan kills Job's family, kills all his live stock, and his crops. He even destroy Job physically by giving him sores all over his body, putting him in great, agonizing, pain. He then has three "friends" come to talk to and "comfort" Job, by giving him some of the worst advice ever recorded. Job, after 30+ chapters Job receives an answer from God. However, instead of explaining his actions to Job, God asks him a series of theological questions, demonstrating His greatness, and Job's less than impressive stature in the universe. Job does then respond to God in chapter 40:4-5 saying "Behold, I am of small account; what shall i answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and  will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further (ESV)".  Clearly in Job, God teaches doctrine, then Job, has the right response when assaulted with right teaching, he keeps his mouth shut and waits for more. Which God offers, for the rest of the book.
     We then see Jesus in the New Testament teaching a method of doctrine. In Matthew 5 we see Jesus teaching that he did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets, but to to fulfill them (vs. 17). He then teaches that not an iota from the Law will pass away until he has fulfilled all is accomplished (vs. 18). In John we see Jesus teaching on salvation (3:15), that he is sovereign in salvation (5:21), we see Jesus speaking on the Trinity, and being unite with the Father and Spirit in the work of redemption (14:16-18). Jesus also teaches that his death is the basis for salvation (6:51-58), that he, Jesus, reflects the one who sent him (3:17), and certainly that Jesus is God (5:17-18). It would be come rather clear from reading the book of John in its entirety that Jesus holds a high view of doctrine and sound teaching.
     We also see that Jesus followers made no bones about their doctrine. In Acts chapter 2, we see Peter preach a rather lengthy sermon on Jesus being the Christ. Stephen, possibly the first martyr of the Church, gives an incredibly long speech before his death outlining the story and theology of the Old Testament up through the Gospels, showing the Jesus was and is their one true king. We also see several speeches and sermons by Paul in Acts, in chapter 19, Luke, the author, explains to us that Paul had been preaching a theology of the Kingdom of God.
     The if we Jump in the Paul's letters we see in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that all scripture is inspired by God and has several uses : 1) teaching 2) reproof 3) correction 4) training in righteousness. This is so "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. As Paul had a theology of Scripture, he also had a deep doctrinal understand of God, (to illustrate this we will limit our reading of Paul to Romans), but also of salvation (1:16-17), judgement (2:-11) total depravity (3:10-12), God's righteousness (3:5-8), God's righteousness has been fulfilled in Jesus (3:21-26), God has compassion on whoever he wills (9:15), God is fully sovereign (9:16-18, 21) God's glory (9:23), righteousness comes by faith (9:30), and the Gospel brings eternal life (10:6-13).
     We can clearly see the God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all teach doctrine as well as the authors of scripture. We are told to use scripture to teach and we are told to teach sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-11, 2 Timothy 4:2-4, Titus 1:9, 2:1) Paul also says in 1: Corinthians 11:1-2 "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." So, if Paul imitated Christ, and Paul is teaching sound doctrine, and we are to imitate Paul, who imitated Christ, we too, are to teach sound doctrine. 

Teach sound doctrine, it's your friend.

     I see no logical argument from a Christian who says we should not study theology. if bay stating such a thing, they, are in effect, teaching a kind of theology, a very poor theology, but theology none the less. I am not sure how we can imitate Christ if we are not worshiping God with all of our minds. if we only live in a very limited understanding of scripture, then we have a much more limited understanding of God than we should. That is not to say we can know all things about God, but we can know all He ha taught us concerning Himself. 

     In closing I want to recommend two books that might be especially helpful in understanding Doctrine, and why we should worship God with our full intellect. 

Understanding the Internet

     On occasion something happens in my life that takes me off guard and I am not entirely sure how to respond. I am generally one of those people who take things in stride, and do not let things bug him a whole lot. Take today for instance, my fiancee, Kimberly, and I went on a walk and went to a neat little toy store in a renovated train car. While there I found the coolest Captain America lunch box, and it was only about $10, so I decided that it was something I needed to own. As we left, my stomach reminded me of the serious lack of food on my life that day, so she and I walked across the train bridge, now a walking path, and went to the Marietta Brewing Company. We were seated and I placed my new lunch box on the table so Captain America could watch over us as we ate. which he did with the greatest of ease. When the waiter came to the table to take our orders, and without asking what we wanted to drink, because it never changes, (a stout beer for me, and orange crush or micro brewed root-beer for Kimberly) he commented on the greatness of my new purchase. After talking about how pumped we were for the movie, he took our lunch orders, and Kimberly and I ate our wonderful food while discussing the importance comic books in American culture. This is an example of taking something out of the ordinary in stride and just going with it, as our waiter managed to do.
     There is, however something slightly more out of the ordinary that happened to me this evening. I got on my blog to look at the traffic and to see where most of my views have been coming from, I noticed something rather...startling. There a midst the normal sources, like a Yahoo! or Google search, the occasional friend from Facebook or Twitter, there was one URL that stood out to me, something that just did not fit into the broader context of this blog. There, a midst the standard was the URL to a gay porn website. Yes, somehow a link to my blog appeared on a website for gay porn, and then, the person in their quest for gay porn, decided to click on a link, which brought them here.
     Now, it must be said that I do have a bit of knowledge of the internet, and how it works (for a full understanding of the intricacies of the internet click here). So, with my limited understanding I would think that a website promoting, oh, I don't know, lets say, gay porn, would want to be advertising or posting links to similar websites, perhaps, more gay porn. If I had a desire for my audience, however small it may be, to grow in the understanding of a particular topic I am referencing, be it theological or technological, I would post a relevant link. If I wanted you to have a better understanding of the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I would not have made that a link to the video blog where I act rather awkwardly and try and fix my car.
     Another thing I would like to draw your attention to are the advisement's on this blog (I think I am allowed to mention them). They tend to be based upon the things that may interest my readers, generally theology and doctrine. Now that I am writing a post that makes lots of references to homosexual pornography, I have to wonder, is it safe to post this blog, knowing the possibility of the adds Google wishes to post, may, perhaps be counter productive to the message I try and convey on the website? No, I do not worry about this happening because I think that the adds, are based upon the blog as a whole, not one particular entry, a least I hope this is correct. Never the less, I will post this and include a link to http://www.xxxchurch.com/ for those of you interested in some porno.
   
     Later this week I have several days off from work, and plenty of time on my hands to do whatever I would like. So, I would not mind some suggestions, and here are some ideas I am tossing around, let me know what you think should be done.

1. A Video Blog
2. A book review (suggest a book)
3. An album review (suggest a CD)
4. Something completely unique  

Let me know in the comments. In the mean time, I will leave you with this...

Album Review of "Celestial Completion" by Becoming the Archetype

     Some of you who know me well, or have at all frequented my blog, know I am really into heavy theology. One of my favorite things is to sit down with a friend and discuss varying topics such as predestination, the atonement, the sovereignty of God, and other such topics. I also generally like my theology to be either filtered though coffee grounds, or on tap, so plan accordingly when having me over. However, so of you may not know that, similarly to my theology, I also like my music, in the same style, heavy. I really have very little interest in hearing about the God of the Universe in musical form unless its being screamed growled, shouted, or skaed(the art of being sung to via ska). So, because I love the heavy music, it is with great pleasure that I decided to review the newest album by, in my estimation, one of the best metal bands out there, right now. I am, of course, referring to Becoming the Archetype(If you click on the link you will be taken to their blog, where they began announcing the twelve days leading up to their new album release).
   
     The newest and fourth release, not counting their single Necrotizing Fasciitis, by Becoming the Archetype, in my understanding of the term, is by far, their best. That is not to say that their previous recordings were bad, quite the opposite in fact, with each new release they progressively got more incredible!
   
     With this new (March) release we hear Becoming the Archetype do some things that may even surprise some of the old school fans. On their blog, each day leading up to the album release of Celestial Completion, they posted a new song from the album, along with a brief description of how that particular song was written, and provided the lyrics for the fans to discuss. This was truly a fantastic ply to get me to pre-buy the ultra super cool collectors package or something like that, and it certainly worked, and was completely worth while.
     In explaining the title of the new album, Celestial Completion, Jason Wisdom, the vocalist and bassist of the band posted on his blog last fall that the whole album revolved around the ideas of light and its properties, such as refracting, bending, and sending forth a beam, ideas that will become abundantly clear when looking at the titles of some of the songs from the album. Now, onto the crux of the matter, the songs.
     The first song of the album Celestial Completion, is a fantastic intro entitled The Resonant Frequency of Flesh a beautiful four part harmony which opens with some beautiful classical instrumentation. Seth Hecox on twitter, or Count Seth, as he is known on BTA blog, message boards of the band website, and the album(this is the first time I noticed this in the album booklet), offered commentary to each song as it was released, and provided some of the clean vocals to a few of the tracks, as well as being a guitarist and keyboard playing for the band. The second track of the album The Magnetic Sky, and the first actual song of the CD, begins with some chaotic guitar work, and goes right into some very powerful, multi-layered vocal work by Jason Wisdom and Count Seth (as he will hence forth be referred to). The song's lyrics open up as a track that would appear be a whole "end of the wold" theme that metal bands seem to flock to in droves. What sets this apart from many of the other "end of the world" songs out there is that this one is surprisingly positive, a theme that is consistent throughout the entire album. Jason Wisdom expressed this idea early on in his blog about the upcoming release of this album, that he, and I assume the rest of the band, wanted to make this album intentionally positive, and to avoid the negative themes that seem so prevalent in today's metal music. With lyrics like, "Here at the end of the world/We are witnessing together/The inception of forever", and, "Lift the/earth and like a wave/Carry us to shore/What a perfect/What a beautiful emptiness/And we will live forevermore", shows the unique spin they have taken on the end of the world, and how that does not mean anything but a positive outlook on the future. They point out in the song that "This is what we were created for". 
     The third song of the album Internal Illumination is a bit of a throwback to some older Zao (which got me rather giddy) and how they, as a band, wanted to pay the original band some tribute. Part of the overly theological nerd in me wants to extrapolate from this song that it is about the doctrine of Illumination, where by though the read of scripture the Holy Spirit will "illuminate" the text so as to have a proper understanding of the  Gospel, but perhaps I may be wrong. However with lines in the song like "The ones who came before/Were only looking for decay/Forsaking and mistaking/What was hidden in their day" my be referring to misunderstandings of scripture in the past, and then though the rebirth found in Christ "But now the veil is broken, The light is clearly seen/The lines begin to blur/And reveal what's always been". So, my vote is that this song, while perhaps not intentionally about that aspect of doctrine, it does appear to speak to that very well.
     Finally onto my favorite song of the album, and one of the most most fun on the entire album, is with out any doubt, Cardiac Rebellion. The song opens like a throwback to some of their earlier music and then morphs into something completely new, as far as I know, to the metal scene. About a minute and a half into the song some fun chanted lyrics start to appear going back and forth with some of the deeper guttural yells by Jason Wisdom, then at just after two minutes into the song we hear a few horn licks, like, trombone licks with a distinctly ska-like feel. then about thirty seconds later we here some more ska like chanting by the band as a whole. At three minutes into the song the music style dramatically changes, something Becoming the Archetype is known for, classical interludes, then about forty five seconds later we have the full on ska trombone parts of none other than the great Dennis Culp of one of my favorite bands of all time, that's right, Five Iron Frenzy. This song is my dream come true, Becoming the Archetype and part of Five Iron Frenzy teaching the world about music as it should have always been. 
     Over all, the album is amazing, there are a few other lines from the album that really made my gizzard twitch. On the song Reflect/Refract we hear the lines, "Father of lights/Shine upon us here/Take the darkness from our hearts/Make it disappear" and then going on to say, "Reflect, refract/Break me/Remake me/A mirror that reflects your glory/Break me/Remake me/A mirror that reflects you perfectly". The truly speaking to our corrupt state, and the change found in the glory that is God. 
     Finally, two other songs that I really fell in love with were  Xenosynthesis: Requiem Aeternam Part III, a song, as Count Seth, puts it, "an ode to the truth of our spiritual helplessness and God’s sovereignty.  In all affairs.  Soli Deo Gloria!" So lyrically, this is a song I really dug my teeth into. Just listen to Jason Wisdom bellow such great theology made my  young restless and reformed hairs o the back of my neck stand on end:  "Soli Deo Gloria/You can't save yourself/Enemies are rising up against the light/Yet it will go on shining even in the darkest night". I love hearing a great band, whom I love dearly, dealing with such weighty theology, and even pulling out the Latin, just was something that really got me pumped. The final song, that I really fell in love with was Path of the Beam mostly because of the description that Jason Wisdom gave, explaining that the song was about riding a motorcycle on the sun. Now, I could be mistaken, but I believe that the song is about the need for incense burning in the church...or perhaps not. This song, the fourth on the album, was simply fun to listen to, the vocals were done wonderfully, the guitar work was great, and I really appreciated the drum work, while I don't know I was the most technical on the album, it was enjoyable to listen to. 
     Overall, I really have no real complains about the album, some say it was too chaotic, I enjoyed the chaos and the seemingly random jumps around in style and instrumentation. Honestly, think of another metal band that incorporates four part singing harmonies, sky style trombone, and sitar, all on the same album, Becoming the Archetype, that's who. I suppose, if I did have a single complaint it would be that there was not more ska! However, I do not think that more ska would have necessarily benefited the album, I just miss good ska so dang much.   
     My recommendation, for you, is if you do not already own the album, get it now, and fall in love as I have. Or, if you already have given it a listen, let me know what your thoughts on the album were.


Track Listing: 

1. The Resonant Frequencey of Flesh
2. The Magnetic Sky
3. Internal Illumination 
4.  Path of the Beam
5. Music of the Spheres: Requiem Aeternum  I
6.  Elemental Wrath: Requiem Aeternum II
7. Xenosynthesis: Requiem Aeternum III
8. Invisible Creature
9. Cardiac Rebellion
10. Reflect/Refract
11. Breathing Light

Review of "The Good News We Almost Forgot" by Kevin DeYoung

     A while back I finished reading the book The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism by the fantastic author, Kevin DeYoung, whom, I have decided, is one of the best authors to come out in the past five or six years. In this new(ish) book by him, that cameo out a little more than a year ago, DeYoung goes though the Heidelberg Catechism, which was published in 1563, and its goal was to teach the main truths of the Bible in a handy question and answer format. The Catechism taught through the Ten Commandments, Apostles Creed, Lords Prayer, and a few other important Christian doctrines, very much within the tradition of the Reformation. The Catechism was set up into 52 "Lord's Days" with 2-4 questions on each day, totaling 129 theological questions, with a set, doctrinal answer. The 52 Lord's Days made the Catechism easy to preach through, giving pastors solid, Gospel centered sermons for the entire year, something unique to this Catechism.

     The commentary DeYoung offers throughout the book, on each Lord's Day is, in short, marvelous, helping to show the Gospel even though the questions and answers on the Ten Commandments, an ability sadly lacking in many of today's pulpits. For instance, on Lord's Day 34, dealing with the First commandment, it asks four questions ; 92) What does the Lord say in His law? 93) How are these Commandments divided? 94) What does the Lord Require in the First Commandment? 95) What is idolatry? The Heidelberg goes on to give specific theological answers to each of these Questions, and DeYoung's remarks on this Lord's Day are fantastic. He explains:

"The Law is given (1) to restrain wickedness and (2) to show us our guilt and lead us to Christ. But, according to Calvin, the "third and principal use" of the law is an instrument to learn God's will. The Law doesn't just show us our sin so we might be drawn to Christ; it shows us how to live as those who belong to Christ."

Having grown up in a traditional Baptist home I was completely unaware of this work of Reformation theology until DeYoung had published this book, and I quickly fell in love with its glorious truths. So, having grown up Baptist, and having been a member of a Methodist church there were a few Lord's days that particularly interested me, and I admit, I jumped to them before reading though the proceeding days. The first Lord's Day I read was the chapter entitled Vivacious Baby-Baptizing, day number 27. On this particular Lord's Day, the Heidelberg argues for the baptism of infants, a topic, that both, greatly interested and confused me, thankfully though, the catechism and DeYoung clarified the purpose for such an event. Because, being Baptist, I knew it was a sin to baptize a baby, and being Methodist, I knew the Baptists were wrong, and being a little bit of both, I was incredibly confused, and did not know what to believe. One of the things I greatly appreciate about this chapter is that DeYoung directs his comments directly to those who do not agree with infant baptism, and tries to persuaded them otherwise. I was quite pleased with DeYoung when he explained that "we do not presume that this child is regenerate, nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven." However I was then rather confused as to the purpose of infant baptism, having never been explained its purpose or origins. Luckily he did not stop his explanation there, he went on to say, "we baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant." This covenant is explained by both DeYoung and the Heidelberg, the latter explains:

"Infants as well as adults are in God's covenant and are His people. They, no less than adults, are promised the forgiveness of sin though Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by baptism, the mark of the covenant, infants should be received into the Christian church and should be distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old Testament by circumcision, which was replaced in the New testament by baptism."

     To me, such clarity and straight forwardness on this topic was a breath of fresh air, but it should be noted that this is not an issue to fight over, and should certainly not be a litmus test for the legitimacy of a person's Christian faith. Belief in infant baptism is simply one of the many understandings orthodox Christians have had though the centuries.
   
     if you have been in the search for a great book to read by a theologically sound author, I suggest you give this book a read. If you have been in search for a book on some of the creeds of the Reformation, then obviously you are going to want this. But, most importantly, if you are in need of a book that will strengthen your understanding of the Christian faith in a Gospel centered way, then, without a doubt, I recommend The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism.

     Thank you for taking the time to read over this brief review of  Kevin Deyoung's book, and if you wish to read any more book reviews by me, please, suggest some books. I am always in the market for a new book to read. Below I will provide another link for you to go and purchase the book, and for $10.19, you can't beat it.