Jesus is not the reason for the season…

He’s the reason for everything.

Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Duck Dynasty and the Gospel Coalition: Just wondering…

When all the Gospel Coalition guys and other Evangelical Gatekeepers are going to express the same outrage over Phil Robertson’s roasting as they did when “Reformed Rap” and “Holy Hip Hop” were spoken against.

I won’t hold my breath.

Thank You:

Al Mohler

Thabiti Anyabwile

Doug Wilson

Joel Beeke Reformed Rap Holy Hip Hop Mea Culpas and Why Christ Came: Will the Real Dr. Beeke Please Stand Up?

Dr. Joel Beeke, president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and prolific author on all things Puritan, has been “encouraged” to walk back comments he made when questioned about Reformed Rap. A panel at a Family Worship conference was asked what they thought about Reformed Rap. Dr. Beeke gave the “softest” most gracious answer of any of the panel members. But even that was too much for the gatekeepers. His good friend, Tim Challies, made it clear that such Christian liberty would not be tolerated and apologies were in order. Dr. Beeke apologized,

Recently I was asked to participate in a panel discussion at a Reformed Worship conference. In that discussion the panelists were asked to address the subject of Christian rap music (which I took to mean rap music primarily in the context of a local church worship service). To my regret, I spoke unadvisedly on an area of music that I know little about. It would have been far wiser for me to say nothing than to speak unwisely. Please forgive me. I also wish to publicly disassociate myself from comments that judged the musicians’ character and motives.

It seems pretty clear that any kind of divergent opinion on such matters is strictly forbidden among Evangelicalism’s elite.

I had always thought pretty highly of Dr. Beeke. I don’t know him personally or anything, but I have never seen anything from him I found objectionable- (I mean, other than the fact that he gives babies baths in church…). For family devotions we are actually using his newly released book. Why Christ Came. Given his recent encounters with the Rap PC crew, I found certain statements in chapter 5 of that book pretty discouraging:

  • In cultures and thought systems that reject the very idea of absolute truth rooted in Christ, speaking the truth is not necessarily a virtue and lying is not necessarily a fault. (p. 16)
  • Today, even in Judeo-Christian contexts, people frequently question the existence of truth itself. Some people wonder whether truth matters. (p. 17)
  • Pilate questioned the existence of truth, and his life bore the fruit of his doubts. He lived in fear of losing position. Against his conscience, he gave deference to the requests of the people. (p. 17)
  • Do you experience true freedom in Christ? Or are you living in bondage to the fear of men, to the demands of your flesh, and to the guilt of lies? (p. 18)

Wow. A couple things stick out to me. First, it seems pretty cleat that Evangelicalism is no longer just “No Place for Truth,” it is now “No Place for Debate.” If the gatekeepers have rendered their verdict, that verdict is final and it will be unopposed. Secondly, I would really like to hear Dr. Beeke’s answer to those final questions that he himself asked.

I feel bad for a man who is not allowed to have personal standards of holiness. I feel worse for a church who will not let him have them.

League of Denial and the Sixth Commandment: Can Reformed Christians Watch, Play, or Otherwise Enjoy Football?

Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17

Man is such a paradox. He sins and is lawless. Yet he is a legalist at heart. Show me where “it is written!” If I have done what is written, well. If it is not written, I am free. Jesus addresses this tendency in the Sermon on the Mount with his repeated contrasts of “You have heard that it was said…but I say unto you.”

Reformed catechisms and theologians have been careful to expound the Ten Commandments with this sinful proclivity in view. The sixth commandment, as do all the others, says much more than the four English words say. Question 69 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?” Answer: “The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.” The last three words are where battles could be fought: what exactly qualifies as “tending toward” death? Again, because we are legalists, we want to know exactly how dangerous something has to be before it is considered something “tending” toward death.”

As might be expected, question and answer 136 of the Westminster Larger Catechism gives a fuller answer:

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

According to the Westminster, the command forbidding murder also forbids any kind of physical harm that justice does not demand (i.e. parents are still required to discipline their children and civil authority is still required to punish evil).

Questions 105 through 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism are in substantial agreement with this:

105 Q. What is God’s will for you in the sixth commandment?
A. I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor; not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds; and I am not to be party to this in others;  rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge.  I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either.  Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword.

106 Q. Does this commandment refer only to killing?
A. By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness.  In God’s sight all such are murder.

107 Q. Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such way?
A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves,  to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to them,  to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.

Reformed theologians echo the thought.

Predating both of the Catechisms above, Luther summarized man’s duty toward this commandments as: We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.

When John Calvin turns his attention to explain this commandment in his Institutes of Christian Religion, he writes, “The purpose of this commandment is: the Lord has bound mankind together by a certain unity; hence each man ought to concern himself with the safety of all. To sum up, then, all violence injury and any harmful thing at all that may injure our neighbor’s body are forbidden to us.” (2.8.39)

The Reformers- at least two of the greatest- and Reformed catechisms- at least the three most well-known- interpret the sixth commandment in a Christ-like manner. The command prohibiting murder also forbids all physical harm and enjoins the protection of life.

With this understanding of the sixth commandment, how can any confessing Reformed Christian play, watch, or otherwise enjoy the game of football? Whether you are a Presbyterian who uses Westminster; or a Reformed who uses Heidelberg; or claim the term Lutheran or Calvinist; you are not being faithful to what you say you believe if you are investing time in football.

The game of football does physical harm to its participants. This element cannot be removed from the game. Furthermore, through the work of those doctors and scientists described in League of Denial, it is becoming clear that football literally kills it participants.

But we are legalists at heart. Football players do not get injured on every play. Not every football player will develop brain damage and die abandoned, penniless, and insane. Somewhere in the “tendeth thereunto” we can find all the allowance we need to enjoy watching men commit physical violence toward one another.