Alguns leitores perguntam onde podem encontrar os livros do Francis Schaeffer.

Respondo: A maioria dos livros dele foram publicados no Brasil pela Editora Cultura Cristã.

Gary DeMar considers the pessimillennialism of Van Til and Schaeffer

Two new biographies, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman and Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life, reminded me again of the importance of eschatology. Van Til (1895–1987), who was professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary for 43 years, had strong disagreements with J. Oliver Buswell (1895–1977) and Allan MacRae (1902–1997) over apologetic methodology. In addition to apologetics, Buswell and MacRae opposed the anti-premillennial view of Westminster Seminary. In terms of cultural application of the gospel, however, there wasn’t much difference between Van Til’s amillennialism and Buswell’s and MacRae’s premillennialism.

Early in his theological training, Schaeffer’s eschatology was shaped by the Scofield Reference Bible.¹ Os Guinness writes that “dispensational premillennialism . . . has had unfortunate consequences on the Christian mind,” including reinforcing an already developing “anti-intellectualism” and a “general indifference to serious engagement with culture.”² While this description cannot be applied to Schaeffer, there is an underlying premillennial pessimistic stream that cuts through Schaeffer’s worldview.

William Edgar, a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, recounts the time in the 1960s he spent studying in L’Abri, Switzerland, under the tutelage of Schaeffer (1912–1984):

I can remember coming down the mountain from L’Abri and expecting the stock market to cave in, a priestly elite to take over American government, and enemies to poison the drinking water. I was almost disappointed when these things did not happen.³

Edgar speculates, with good reason, that it was Schaeffer’s “premillenarian eschatology” that negatively affected the way he saw and interpreted world events. One of Schaeffer’s last books, A Christian Manifesto, did not call for cultural transformation but civil disobedience as a stopgap measure to postpone an inevitable societal decline. “The fact remains that Dr. Schaeffer’s manifesto offers no prescriptions for a Christian society. . . . The same comment applies to all of Dr. Schaeffer’s writings: he does not spell out the Christian alternative. He knows that you ‘can’t fight something with nothing,’ but as a premillennialist, he does not expect to win the fight prior to the visible, bodily return of Jesus Christ to earth to establish His millennial kingdom.”⁴

Tom Sine offers a startling example of the effect “prophetic inevitability” can have on some people:

“Do you realize if we start feeding hungry people things won’t get worse, and if things don’t get worse, Jesus won’t come?” interrupted a coed during a Futures Inter-term I recently conducted at a northwest Christian college. Her tone of voice and her serious expression revealed she was utterly sincere. And unfortunately I have discovered the coed’s question doesn’t reflect an isolated viewpoint. Rather, it betrays a widespread misunderstanding of biblical eschatology . . . that seems to permeate much contemporary Christian consciousness. I believe this misunderstanding of God’s intentions for the human future is seriously undermining the effectiveness of the people of God in carrying out his mission in a world of need. . . . The response of the (student) . . . reflects what I call the Great Escape View of the future. So much of the popular prophetic literature has focused our attention morbidly on the dire, the dreadful, and the destruction of all that is.⁵

Eschatological ideas have consequences, and many Christians are beginning to understand how those ideas have shaped the cultural landscape. A world always on the precipice of some great and inevitable apocalyptic event is not in need of redemption but only of escape. As one end-time speculator put it, “the world is a sinking Titanic ripe for judgment.”⁶ Any attempt at reformation would be futile and contrary to God’s unavoidable and predestined plan for Armageddon.

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and has been a regular guest of Postmillennialism.com since 2001. For more information: American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460, www.americanvision.org.

Notes
1. Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 42.
2. Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to do About It (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 63–65.
3. William Edgar, “Francis Schaeffer and the Public Square” in J. Budziszewski, Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 174.
4. Gary North and David Chilton, “Apologetics and Strategy,” in Tactics of Christian Resistance: A Symposium, ed. Gary North (Tyler Texas: Geneva Divinity School, 1983), 127–128. Emphasis in original.
5. Tom Sine, The Mustard Seed Conspiracy: You Can Make a Difference in Tomorrow’s Troubled World (Waco, TX: Word, 1981), 69.
6. Jan Markell, “Kingdom Now: We’re Not Returning to Eden” http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1626/Jan_Markell. For a response, see Gary DeMar, “Is the World a Sinking Titantic?,” Biblical Worldview (May 2007), 4–6.

The God who is There by Francis Schaeffer 

Calvin for Armchair Theologians by Christopher Elwood

The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce

Dr. Fischer of Geneva or the Bomb Party by Graham Greene

Heidi by Johanna Spyri

Any guesses?

Extra points if you guess why I've focused on this theme in particular.

While at the beach, Mark received a copy of Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer (son of the infamous Francis and Edith Schaeffer). I've almost finished reading it and am loving it -- maybe it's due to the break in a fantastical marathon that I've recently been on of C.S. Lewis' myth 'Til We Have Faces and Prince Caspian followed by Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinke in Time. (All of which I heartily recommend for varying reasons, even if only a swing back to childhood.) Nevertheless, this book is a memoir of Frank Schaeffer's life (and as he lets you know early on, he uses the term "memoir" loosely). Likewise it's a provocative and insightful commentary on religion, "professional Christianity," American culture, parenthood, and the human soul wrestling against pride/egoism, even when masked in religious overtones. Schaeffer's authenticity wrapped up in his excellent story-telling ability introduces an entirely different dimension to the L'Abri culture -- and one of the reasons he received so much grief for writing it. He forfeits the altruistic tendencies of religious writing to pull back the curtain of his life (and subsequently all those intimately involved, including major Christian evangelists). It's caused me to laugh and cry, and of course speculate/self-evaluate. While I could understand an uprising of bitter sentiment toward Schaeffer  for demeaning good things, immaturely taking things for granted, or whatever other million reasons you'll discover upon reading the book, it actually made me appreciate him, his parents and L'Abri all the more. They're real. God-loving people suckered by lies the same way we are. Refreshing. Read it. 

Stanley Jaki, The Savior of Science (Scottish Academic Press)

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (IVP)

Philip Johnson, Objections Sustained (IVP)

Philip Johnson, Reason in the Balance (IVP)

Francis Schaeffer, Escape from Reason (IVP)

Michael J Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Zondervan)

Biography

Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore: The Life of

Adoniram Judson (Zondervan)

Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Abingdon)

Iain Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 2 vols. (Banner of Truth)

Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth)

C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography (Banner of Truth)

CATECHISMS

Tom Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts (Calvary)

John Piper, ed., A Baptist Catechism (Desiring God Ministries)

THE CHURCH

Jay Adams, Handbook on Church Discipline (Zondervan)

John Armstrong, ed., The Compromised Church (Crossway)

J.L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (booklet; Center for Church Reform)

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (book; Crossway)

Mark Dever, ed., Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (CCR)

Mark Dever, A Display of God’s Glory: Deacons, Elders, Membership, and Congregationalism (CCR)

John Piper, Elders (Desiring God Ministries)

Donald S. Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines within the Church (Moody)

CHURCH HISTORY

Mark Dever, Richard Sibbes (Mercer)

Tom Dowley, ed., Handbook to Church History (Fortress)

Greg Wills, Democratic Religion (Oxford)

DATING

Joshua Harris, I Kissed Dating Goodbye (Multnomah)

Joshua Harris, Boy Meets Girl (Multnomah)

Devotional

Augustine, Confessions (Henry Chadwick translation, Oxford World Classics)

Horatius Bonar, Longing for Heaven (Christian Focus)

John Bunyan, Grace Abounding (Anchor)

John Bunyan, Holy War (Christian Focus)

John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress (Penguin)

D.A. Carson, For the Love of God, 2 vols. (Crossway)

Jonathan Edwards, Charity and its Fruits (Banner of Truth)

Carolyn Mahaney, Feminine Appeal (Crossway)

Jerry Marcellino, Rediscovering the Lost Jewel of Family Worship (Audobon Press)

J.I. Packer, Knowing God (IVP)

Elizabeth Prentiss, Stepping Heavenwards (Calvary)

J.C. Ryle, Holiness (Baker)

C.H. Spurgeon, Faith’s Checkbook (Whitaker)

C.H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening (thin ones; Christian Focus)

Donald S. Whitney, How Can I Be Sure I’m a Christian? (Navpress)

Donald S. Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (Navpress)

DISCIPLESHIP

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (Harper & Row)

Elyse Fitzpatrick & Carol Cornish, Women Helping Women (Harvest House)

John Stott, Basic Christianity (Eerdmans)

EVANGELISM

Joseph Bayly, The Gospel Blimp (Lifejourney Books)

D.A. Carson, ed., Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns (Zondervan)

Jonathan Edwards, Works on Revival (including Distinguishing Marks) (Banner of Truth)

Val Grieve, Your Verdict on the Empty Tomb (Paternoster)

Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Zondervan)

Will Metzger, Tell the Truth (IVP)

Iain Murray, The Invitation System (Banner of Truth)

Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism (Banner of Truth)

J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (IVP)

Mack Stiles, Speaking of Jesus (IVP)

Christianity Explained (Narrowgate Press, UK)

MARRIAGE & DIVORCE

John Murray, Divorce (Presbyterian & Reformed)

PARENTING

Ted Tripp, Shepherding a Child’s Heart (Shepherd Press)

Prayer

Arthur Bennett, ed., Valley of Vision (Banner of Truth)

D.A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Baker)

Samuel Prime, The Power of Prayer (Banner of Truth)

STUDY TOOLS

Handbook to the Bible (Zondervan)

New Bible Commentary (IVP)

New Bible Dictionary (IVP)

Dan Allender and Tremper Longman, Bold Love (Navpress)

Dan Allender and Tremper Longman, Bold Purpose (Navpress)

D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan)

Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman, Introduction to the Old Testament (Zondervan)

Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All it’s Worth (Zondervan)

Suffering

D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? (Baker)

Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed (Banner of Truth)

Theology

Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth)

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans)

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Westminster/John Knox)

D.A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway)

D.A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Crossway)

D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Wipf and Stock)

J.L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Gano/Sprinkle)

John Flavel, They Mystery of Providence (Banner of Truth)

Timothy George, The Theology of the Reformers (Broadman)

Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom (Paternoster)

Wayne Grudem and John Piper, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway)

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Fortress)

Carl F.H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief (Crossway)

Robert Letham, The Works of Christ

Fred Malone, A String of Pearls Unstrung (Founders)

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression (Eerdmans)

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westminster/John Knox, or SCM

Leon Morris, The Atonement (IVP)

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth)

Tom Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory (Founders)

J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness (Crossway)

J.I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (Eerdmans)

J.I. Packer, God Has Spoken: Revelation and the Bible (Baker)

A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Baker)

John Piper, Future Grace (Multnomah)

John Piper, God’s Passion for His Glory (Crossway)

John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad (Baker)

John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Multnomah)

John Piper, TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism (Desiring God Ministries)

Ernest Reisinger, What Should We Think of the Carnal Christian? (Banner of Truth)

Thomas Scott, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (Sprinkle)

B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Simpson)

David Wells, The Bleeding of the Evangelical Church (Banner of Truth)

David Wells, God in the Wasteland (Eerdmans)

David Wells, Losing our Virtue (Eerdmans)

David Wells, No Place for Truth (Eerdmans)

John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Baker)

George Whitefield, Selected Sermons (Banner of Truth)

WORSHIP

Most Hymnals

Horton Davies, Worship of the American Puritans (Soli Deo Gloria)

Michael Horton, In the Face of God (Word)

Leonard Payton, Reforming Our Worship Music (Crossway)

David Petersen, Engaging with God (Eerdmans)

Copied from 9Marks

In the wake of FOX News' most recent fiasco, it's clear that certain elements on the right are willing to stoop to embarassing levels to undermine Obama's credibility.  In case you missed it, the network had to pull the plug on E.D. Hill's (correct reaction: "Who?") show after she referred to Barack and Michelle Obama's fist bump as "a terrorist fist jab".  Shortly thereafter, FOX News had to apologize for running a graphic that referred to Mrs. Obama as "Obama's Baby Mama". 

The network referred to the mishaps as "poor judgement".  You can accept that explanation, or you may favor another: "overt racism". 

Call it what you will.  I'd argue that these "slips" reflect a deep racism present among a small but very vocal fringe of the Republican Party. 

Unfortunately for the rest of the GOP, these backwards-looking individuals have the ability to marginialize the Republican party of the future.  Frank Schaeffer writes an article for the Huffington Post touching on the subject.  Noting that the rest of the world has reacted very favorably to Obama's candidacy, he declares:

Senator Obama is not just a "historic black candidate." He turns out to be a profoundly inspirational person. For a start he is not beating the drum for fear as the means to motivate votes. This is a huge change from Bush and the paranoid distrust of the "other" that the Bush years will be remembered for. There are echoes of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt in the measured and sane Obama candidacy. There is the best of the American story in his personal history. The man radiates a steady decency, compassion and profound wisdom that is rare at any time in politics, but following the embarrassment of George W. Bush comes like cold water to those stuck in an interminable desert.

Thisis the context of the Obama candidacy. And what it symbolizes long-term is so far and away more important than the election results in November, that the mere politics of the moment is almost an insult to the sea change that Obama's candidacy represents.

If the world gets it, if Obama inspires the French, the British, the Egyptians, the Germans, the Indonesians, the Irish, even the Chinese, but Republican operatives and strategists don't "get it," then I make this prophecy: the Republican Party will look so small and yes, so pathetically racist, that by the end of the day we will barely have a two-party system left in America. No one will forgive the Republicans (or angry Clinton Democrats) if they come out of this moment looking as if they missed the point of what America means.

Strong words, but rooted in truth.  The world has progressed dramatically in the last 50 years, to the point where the United States arguably lags behind other parts of the world in terms of social justice.  Many nations have become wary of American arrogance-- perhaps personified by President Bush, but certainly not invented by him-- and selfishness. 

The irony is that Bush has in reality been a very generous leader-- noted humanitarian and rock star Bono called him "the best President for Africa" we've ever had.  Unfortunately, his handling of Iraq and other sensitive issues has been clumsy.  But we digress. 

The point is that the democratic voters selection of an African-American presidential nominee was eye-opening to other nations.  It was eye-opening for much of our own population as well-- young voters and African-Americans, in particular, have registered and voted in record numbers.  Whether Obama wins or loses, his candidacy will be viewed by history as a significant moment in our nation's development. 

The question is: how will his opponents be remembered? 

Schaeffer again:

The Republicans are going to look as out of touch a few years from now as did the isolationists and "America First" folks after World War II. Before the war they were active in the prewar run up and they seemed very much in the game, even relevant. But the isolationists didn't understand the fact that the world had changed and left them and their interests stranded. The globe was smaller than they figured and they marginalized themselves. Forces beyond their political control were unleashed on them. And by the end of World War II the entire world map was redrawn. There was no room left for them on the political map either. They went from serious to joke status in a heartbeat.

That's the fate that awaits the Republicans today if they persist in trivializing Obama. As they prepare their slimy little Rovian attacks on Michelle Obama, and her "lack of patriotism," on Senator Obama and his "un-American" former pastor, and as the racial innuendo and the use of Obama's middle name, etc., etc., morphs into an updated version of "swift boating" the Republicans are more or less signing their death warrant. They are about to become a minority party perceived as controlled by silly half-educated white men, cranks, racists and windbags. The writing is on the wall. If fools like the FOX News folks, are the face of the Republican Party in this election the Republicans are done. It will not be forgotten that the Republicans pissed on a shining moment of opportunity and could do no better than snicker at a moment when the rest of the world looked at the Obama moment in awe and renewed respect for America.

Other than the image of Karl Rove urinating on an Obama campaign banner, the most striking part of Schaeffer's argument is the magnitude of the choice facing Republican leadership today. 

The GOP simply cannot allow racist, baseless allegations become the theme of their opposition campaign.  Fortunately for them, John McCain is a very decent man and seems unlikely to condone such behavior (indeed, he has already condemned certain factions of the party for "divisive" campaigning). 

But the fact remains that certain minority elements of the GOP are not as honorable as McCain.  The Republican party in general is looking at an uphill battle this election year.  The temptation to fall back on dirty politics-- racism and other types of fear-mongering-- will be significant. 

Debate Obama's policies.  Question his foreign policy experience.  Question the cost of his proposed health-care reform.  But for the sake of the GOP, for the sake of the USA, for the sake of our future-- don't settle for cheap shots. 

daftparrot@hotmail.com

1. What is Apologetics?

Apologia = 'a word back'.  In 1 Peter 3:15, and Acts 10:3-5.  Was used in a legal context, in reference to giving a defence.  

In evangelism, are we just about winning people's hearts?  Some argue this, and say apologetics is too intellectual.  But often in Scripture, the heart = the thinking part of us (when used in context such as "heart & soul & strength").  So we are about winning hearts, but that means their thinking!

2 Corinthians 10:3-5.  This and 1 Peter show the two sides of apologetics: negative & positive; defence & offence.  Apologetics = "the task of commending Christianity to thinking people as needed truth". - Jim Packer

2. Different Methods of Apologetics

This is an issue that is divisive among evangelicals, especially in the US.  

(i) Fideism.  Fide = faith; fideism says it's all about faith and not reason.  Ultimately the truth is its own witness, take it or leave it.  Often associated to Karl Barth.  

Some supporters of fideism think it best to ignore apologetics altogether, and claim it is not biblical, but pandering to human arrogance and pride; that it gives neutral reasons for believing in God.  Much apologetics (outside the evangelical spectrum) is like this!  "The problem with biblical theology is that it tries to talk about God by talking about man with a loud voice."  - Karl Barth.  Much apologetics does this.

(ii) Evidentialism.  The other end of the spectrum from fideism.  Looks for evidence in archaeology, history, science, psychology, logic.  Evidence leads to a conclusion.  Josh McDowell's approach would be a classic example.  William Lane Craig calls himself a classical apologist; he wouldn't say he's an evidentialist but to an extent he's near this end of the spectrum.  Richard Dawkins is also an evidentialist!  Problems: can encourage idolatry (belief in the wrong god) and is clearly biased (e.g. Dawkins).  

(iii) Presuppositionalism.  Van Til developed it, Schaeffer was influenced by it.  John Frame: as evangelicals we presuppose the Word of God is true.  We needn't be embarrassed by having presuppositions, everyone does.  The task is to persuade that your presuppositions are better than others!  

"Evolution has been observed.  It just hasn't been observed when it is happening."  - Dawkins.  That's not evidentialist, it's based on a presupposition!  But Dawkins refuses to concede his presuppositions or else his argument is put on the same level as those he is trying to refute.  

There is a clear link from fideism to presuppositionalism.  

Assessing the alternatives:

(i) We must think in this order:

Bible

Theology

Apologetics

It gets problematic when this order is switched.  Most heretical theologies start the wrong way round.  Some classical approaches are in danger of this; e.g. we do this if we insist we only believe the bible because of the evidence, rather than the authority of Scripture itself.  Should we really encourage others to find higher authority in evidence than in Scripture?  

(ii) In his book 'Bridge Building', Alister McGrath talks about finding 'common ground', because we live in a God-created universe (see Romans 1:18-32).  Gives a reason for evidentialism as well as the rest!  Doesn't mean we're advocating neutrality, but there will be overlap with different belief systems because we live in the same God-created universe.  It isn't a basis of neutrality but a basis of truth!  Romans 1:19-20.  

(iii) For further reading:

'Five Views of Apologetics' - Steven Cowan

'New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics' - IVP

My parents and I share similar tastes and agreed that bone-in filet was just what we wanted.  It was perfection; butter-basted perfection.  But no filet can be eaten without a suitable red wine accompaniment. After flipping through the extensive wine list and seeing many of my California favorites, we settled on a Schaeffer Cabernet.  This was due, in most part, to my recent visit and dinner experience at the winery.  It was wonderful for me, but not quite what my father had in mind.

Next, it was his turn.  He chose a Hartwell Cabernet; also based primarily on a prior experience at the winery.  It was different that the Schaeffer, which got better over time.  Upon opening the bottle of Hartwell, it was a deep, smokey, earthy wine that had the most beautiful rich red color.  One of those wines that you could taste it by just looking at it.  The Schaeffer on the other hand had more red fruit up front and developed the heavier tones after breathing for about 30 minutes (I didn't mind the wait).  This was unacceptable to my father, due in some part to the monetary price we paid.

After agreeing with my father on wines almost all my life, we had the biggest disagreement ever over two of the best wines I've had all year. I can think of worse things.

On Saturday morning we arrived at Hartwell at 10am for a lovely wine tutorial, taught by Karen Macneil.  We lightly tasted six different cabernets and commented on their aromas, body and taste.  It was clear that my friend was catching on quickly when he said: "I don't know, but I think I detect an undercurrent of cranberry on my palate."  He doesn't normally speak like this, so it was either the booze or the environment (or a little bit of both).  The class took about an hour; we made our way through different aromas, from cigar box to pencil shavings and earth tones and a wide array of tannins.  Whichever glass A-F you liked or disliked, one truth remained constant: Stag's Leap District has some of the best Cabernet Sauvignon's in the world.  They pack enough punch to stand up to bold meals, but are soft enough to keep you coming back for more.

After the Sensory Intensive, my friend and I, with our list of open house wineries in hand, drove back down the Silverado Trail to start at the beginning and work our way up.  Throughout the day we meandered slowly from winery to winery whilst telling ourselves to "slow down", "don't drink so much" and my personal favorite: "I really don't need a fifth chilled brie and duck appetizer."  After five hours, a full belly and a trunk full of wine, we headed back to the hotel to freshen up.  The day was not over.

Our amazing day came to an end with a delightful dinner at Schaeffer Winery.  The food was amazing as was the company (the who's who of wine makers and winos alike).  We ate more, drank more and took a moment to appreciate the day we had been given in a ever-astonishing location.  Napa has a way of making me want to drop everything, pack a bag, quit my job and crush grapes for the rest of my life.

Upon reflection: I would highly recommend this event to anyone that wants to learn more about wine and the people that make it as wonderful as it is.

We are standing in a living relationship with a living God, who loves us, and has shown his love for us to such an extent that Jesus died on the cross. Fear falls, and we have the courage to give ourselves for his use without being afraid, when we se we are not giving ourselves in the teeth of an impersonal situation or of a world that hates us, or an inhuman world of men. 

We are offering ourselves before the God who loves us and he is not a monster but our heavenly Father.  He will not leave us in the battle as a soldier discards one piece of military equipment for another, casting it into the mud. God will never deal with us in this way. He will not use us as a weapon without care for the weapon itself. In his hand, not only will we be useful in the battle, but even the blows brought upon us in the battle will bring us closer to himself, because he is infinite and personal and because he loves us. 

~ True Spirituality

 A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume (The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent). (Crossway, 1990).  

Why did I want to get this?  Well, first off, it's Francis Schaeffer, if I have the opportunity why would I not get one of his works?  Secondly, he writes a mix of theology, philosophy, apologetics, cultural analysis, and the like, and with a strong pastoral concern, he cares. He was also addressing issues of postmodernism long before other people even knew what it was - his stuff is classic. Everyone should really think about reading his some of his stuff - if not just to read it.  

The second is: 

David R. Helm. 1 and 2 Peter and Jude: Sharing Christ's Sufferings.  (Crossway, 2008).  Crossway is publishing a Preaching the Word Commentary Series and I was curious about it - so I asked for it - it looks good and has good endorsements - plus it was free.  Also, I have an interest in 2 Peter and Jude (I also have Bauckham's WBC work on the same), so, I am interested to get into it and seeing how Helm works the texts.  I am expecting it to be a bit Reformed (as are many books put out by Crossway) but that is fine, if it is good, I might check out some others.  If it is too much then I'll just stick with this one for now.  

Well, off to reading, I've got a lot to do!  Blessings! 

The best chapter by far in the book is the one entitled “A Shelter in the Time of Storm.” In this chapter Schaeffer warmly, but penetratingly writes about how to utilize the tough times in family life in order to make them worthwhile; in a word, to have no regrets. The section where she speaks of taking care of the sick was especially benign. For example, in one section she writes “When illness hits we should remember that this period of time is part of the whole of life. This is not just a non-time to be shoved aside, but a portion of time that counts. It is part of the well person's life, as well as part of the sick person's life.”

This sentiment has had a particular impact on me given my current family situation. A few months ago, prior to the beginning of my final semester, my grandfather, with whom I was very close, died somewhat suddenly. It was the most traumatic period of my entire life, as well as for my mother and brother (who spent every day after school with him, just as I did as a child). The couple of weeks when he was in the hospital before his death were seen, at least by most of my family, as a sort of non-time. It was a time to be forgotten as a soon as possible, an instant regret. It seemed as though there was nothing that could redeem the Absolute Evil of this period. However, I see now that there is a different way to treat this stage of life. I can at least say that my grandfather himself would have wished for the same dynamic that Schaeffer proposes in this book: to not waste any time with regrets, but to live for the moment, but in a Christian sense. It is about redeeming the time for the sake of the sick as well as for the well.

Yet there is another aspect that has affected my reading of Mrs. Schaeffer. I have recently been engaged in reading Frank Schaeffer’s family memoir, Crazy for God (you can read a great interview with Frank here). With all politics aside, I believe Frank to be completely honest in his portrayal of his family life, the good and the bad. For example, his alleged “outing” of his father’s abusive relationship with his mother is actually defended as being due more to true belief than hypocrisy. Even his recounting of his father’s suicidal depressions is written with a sympathetic air. Through all this, however, I think we should see a silver lining, but not a naïve one. At one point Mrs. Schaeffer delivers the most profound line in the entire book, summing up how the reader, and especially the reader that knows the Schaeffer’s dark secrets, should synthesize this seemingly contradictory information: “People throw away what they could have, by insisting on perfection which they cannot have, and looking for it where they will never find it.” I really do hope that both Francis and Edith really believed this as much as I do.

Aelita Hopper - różowowłosa dziewczyna, znaleziona przez Jeremy'ego w Lyoko. Przez niemal całą pierwszą serię przebywa wyłącznie w Lyoko. Pod koniec pierwszej serii w końcu Jeremy'emu udaje się ją zmaterializować. jednak znowu występują komplikacje, ponieważ od Aelity oddzielone są jej wspomnienia. Dopiero w połowie drugiej serii je odzyskuje. Okazuje się, że mieszkała w domu zwanym "Pustelnia" i jest córką Franza Hoppera, twórcy Lyoko i X.A.N.A. Dawniej nazywała się Aelita Schaeffer. Jej ojciec (Waldo Schaeffer) zmienił im obu nazwisko, a w jego przypadku także imię. Franz zwirtualizował ich obu do Lyoko. Pod koniec czwartej serii Franzowi i Jeremy'emu udaje się zniszczyć X.A.N.A., ale Franz, na oczach Aelity, ginie.

You could probably add a few of your own. Feel free to comment. 

And my subjective “truth”? Well, the bottom line is, I believe young clients and therapists need to work together to agree what’s going wrong, how they will sort it out together and which kind of relationship and “working alliance” might achieve this. They can do this by talking or by any other method that establishes what is wanted and what works for them. This may or may not include family, teacher, play, CBT, other support etc.

In this way, you can end up with a 13-year-old role-playing shopping expeditions as “mothers taking their young babies out”, or an eight-year-old sketching (fairly expertly) pictures of brains to explain how he worries and defends against it with the help of his TV hero. Or a 10-year-old telling Mum what needs to be changed at home. Each client is different.

Of course, if that’s the case, then my myths are not entirely myths – there will always be one time when the statment is true for a specific child.

For those who want a straightforward slide presentation of CBT, I just found one here – and have added it to the CBT resources page. For those who are interested in play therapy with adolescents, Charles Schaeffer and Loretta Gallo-Lopez wrote an all-encompassing book, which I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from. I see this webpage lists the contents if you scroll down, and also now offers some CPD hours if you write a test paper on the book. Interesting idea. I haven't tried it out, but it's certainly not a myth that answering questions on reading reinforces learning.

His argument begins by connecting religion with ecological position. He describes an article where a history professor argued that Christianity, with the view that man was given dominion over the earth, poisoned the modern post-Christian view that created the ecological mess; changing this religious base would resolve the problems. Schaeffer agrees fully with this second part, the first he later shows is not fully representative of a proper Christian view.

Schaeffer moves on to describe two ideas that have been prevalent as a basis for ecological positions. The first he examines is pantheism. In this vein, he examines an article that calls for recognition of morality as extending to humankind's full environment, including the natural world, instead of the traditional view of just person-to-person. In a broader sense, the pantheistic view sees the essence of mankind and nature as one and the same. Although he recognizes the merit of this position in putting humankind and the natural world on the same plane of existence, he shows that it, by failing to enjoy the particulars of being human or nature, reduces the universe to an absurd system.

He also offers a rebuttal of Platonic dualism, especially in the context of the modern church. He explains that a Christianity concerned only with a "higher" spiritual life, seeing nature as only a proof of the greatness of God, essentially say that God's creative work is insignificant! I enjoyed very much this story:

...Some years ago I was lecturing in a certain Christian  school. Just across a ravine from the school there is what they call a "hippie community" (though they aren't real hippies!). On the far side of the ravine one sees trees and some farms. Here, I was told, they had pagan grape stomps. Being interested, I made my way across the ravine and met one of the leading men in this "Bohemian community.

We got on very well as we talked of ecology and I was able to speak of the Christian answer to life and ecology. He paid me the compliment (and I accepted it as such) of telling me that I was the first person form "across the ravine" who had ever been shown the place where they did, indeed, have grape stomps, and the real pagan image they had there, which was the center of the rites. ...

Having shown me all this, he looked across to the Christian school and said to me, "Look at that; isn't that ugly?" And it was! I could not deny it. It was an ugly building, without even trees around it. The thing was ugly!

It was then I realized what a horrible situation this was. When I stood on Christian ground and looked at the Bohemian people's place, it was beautiful. ... Then I stood on pagan ground and looked at the Christian community and saw ugliness. That is horrible. Here you have a Christianity that is failing to take into account man's responsibility and proper relationship to nature.

So then what is a Christian view of ecology? Schaeffer says right away: Creation. God created everything, both the human and natural, therefore both mankind and the world "are equal in their origin". Recognizing God as creator, our relationship to the natural world is through him; in Schaeffer's language "upward" instead of "downward.

Schaeffer goes on about the implications of this. Recognizing God as Creator, in whom all things have their being, means that neither mankind nor the natural world is autonomous. Things have no meaning in themselves; rather because they were created by God, they have the role that God assigned to them. Therefore the Christian sees the natural world, in its natural God-given order, as good. This means God (and we also, if we are wise) deals with things in their own way, as diverse beings with their own function.

Interestingly, he identifies the ascension of Christ as a central part of the affirmation of the worth of the natural. Christ's natural body in the ascension, became hidden in the unseen, "spiritual" realm. As such, the two "worlds" of the physical and spiritual are not antithetical, but are both good parts of God's creation.

Thus the Christian view satisfied what Schaeffer identified as needed: it explains why humans ought to feel an affinity with nature, and respects the diversity in kind that exists.

What we are witnessing is a clear example of “white privilege.” When are we going to hear this kind of full discourse on race from Clinton or Obama? Probably never. It’s too incendiary a topic and they can always retreat to their safer majority white worlds. Why risk it? Obama doesn’t have that privilege; he has to face the subject every day.

So here’s my challenge to my white brothers and sisters, regardless of your political leanings or candidate preference. Educate yourself on the legacy of racism and incarnate yourself into the black world for a while. Study the systems that perpetuate our racialized world. As you begin to “get it” (and this will take a long time and a lot of painful effort) start speaking up, so your black brothers and sisters don’t always have to carry the burden.

-----

While you are here check out this post from Frank Schaeffer. (Thanks to Jim West of my previous post.)

Frank Schaeffer: Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton

[HT Justin Taylor]

In this post I will not be engaging with individual “opponents” of Theonomy but with the basic problem I have with accepting any other position. There is an admitted “theological grid” by which I view problems inherent in the alternatives. The individual particulars or the complete theological grid that lead me to my current position would have to be replaced with something else in order for me to move to any other view.

For starters, I want to make sure my definitions of Theonomy and Natural Law are understood correctly, here are my definitions:

Theonomy: God’s special or “supernatural revelation” His law-word, the sacred inspired scriptures (the entire Bible not just the Pentateuch) from Genesis to Revelation which is the only “objective standard” by which justice, law, and ethics, can truly be measured.

Natural Law: God’s “natural revelation” that he has placed in the heart of all men (Romans 1:18-32, 2:14-16) which, because of sin, is too often suppressed by the sinful hearts of men, and is very often (not always) open to “subjective error“ in the areas of justice, law, and ethics.

Also, I do not pretend to be “unbiased” on this issue, I am an unapologetic theonomist. At this point I have not been convinced of any other position. This is partially because, in a post-modern world, I feel I have no where else to go. For me the word of God is an objective rock, in a sea of postmodern subjectivity. This really, is at the heart of why I hold so tenaciously to Theonomy. In my mind, justice, law, and ethics, need an objective home where I can place my confidence; a way I can measure true truth, from false truth. “Natural Law” is way too “subjective” for me.

All that being said, I want to press forward on the subject:

Thoughts on the Doctrines that Lead to Theonomy

It appears to me that Theonomy in the realm of “civil law and ethics” is a natural development of certain Reformation core doctrines; I am not sure you can get to the “thenomic position” without holding to these particular (what I believe are biblical) doctrines :

The Calvinistic Theocentric view of the world an life
The Calvinistic stress of continuity between the OT and NT
The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura
The Reformed doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture And the Kuyperian doctrine “Jesus is Lord over all creation“ ( Jesus’ Lordship extends throughout every area and aspect of life, it is not simply restricted to the “sphere of church” or to “individual private piety“)

An aside, I believe Kuyperianism is partly just the natural development of the Reformation doctrine of “the dignity of all work or callings” as opposed to the medieval emphasis of the “superiority of spiritual callings." This is why I would call Kuyperianism a “Reformation” doctrine. I believe Kuyperianism is a child of the Reformation (that is why it's often called Neo-Calvinism)

I believe these core doctrines taken to their logical conclusions lead ultimately to the thenomic position, take any of these doctrines out and Theonomy falls.

That said, what I have noticed all to often in reading the opponents of Theonomy, from both Reformed and Non-Reformed, Liberal and Conservative Christians alike, is that there always seems to be a subtle attack on one or more of these Reformation core doctrines that I have mentioned (or these doctrines are so qualified to death, you can barely understand the arguments). As I alluded to in my opening statement, I would have to be convinced from scripture that one or more of these doctrines does not apply to the “civil ethical realm“.

Compartmentalization of the “Sacred” and “Secular”

Another way I have noticed that opponents deal with Theonomy is to embrace some form of compartmentalization of the “sacred” and “secular“. They dichotomize one or more of these doctrines into “two realms“ or “two kingdoms” as it is called; one being sacred or having Biblical ethics which apply to the Kingdom of God and the other being secular with Natural Law ethics that apply to the Kingdom of Man.

These folks who reject Theonomy in the “civil ethical realm“ seem to almost always embrace some type or form of dualism, resulting in the dichotomizing of these above mentioned doctrines, thus resulting in dichotomizing the application of Christian ethics or law into two realms, the “sacred” and the “secular“.

I have real problems accepting these compartmentalizations, first, because there is unity between Natural Law and Theonomy (which I will get to shortly) and secondly, because I accept (because I believe the scripture teaches) the Kuyperian doctrine of “Jesus is Lord over all“ not just the sphere of the Church. "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father". (Phil 2:10-11). “The earth is the LORD‘s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1).

“Marcionism” or “Dispensationalism”

Other opponents of Theonomy, are prone to essentially compartmentalize or dichotomize the OT and NT. They create radical discontinuities between the two covenants, there is a heavy stress on the “discontinuity” between the OT and NT. These folks seem to embrace either a subtle form of “Marcionism” and or “Dispensationalism,” which makes the God of the Bible schizophrenic and or radically segregates His people into two different people of God.

Because I strongly believe in the doctrine of the immutability of God which teaches that He does not change (nor does He change His ethics), “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal 3:6) I cannot accept any kind moral schizophrenia in God. Secondly, because the scripture clearly teaches the NT - OT unity of the people of God: “Only those who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham” (Gal 3:6-9) I cannot accept any form of doctrine that radically dichotomizes the people of God or creates a radical discontinuity of the OT and NT.

The Unity of Natural Law and Theonomy

Also, what I have noticed, is all to often in the “civil ethical realm,“ Natural Law and Theonomy are almost always pitted against each other. Natural Law always seems to be offered as the “alternative” solution to Theonomy. These opponents create a kind of division between the two. In my mind this creates two different “law” standards, one in “natural law” and another in “revealed or biblical law” (this also is a big problem I have with the “two Kingdom theory” as opposed to “sphere sovereignty” which I accept). This tension or dichotomy suggests some type of ethical “double standard” or “ethical schizophrenia” when it comes to the “justice, law, and ethics” of God.

In the past, Western jurisprudence (in countries where the Reformation had the biggest influence) regularly recognized the relationship and unity between Natural Law and Theonomy (Theonomy as I have defined it)

Consider Blackstone and Locke who were cited frequently (along with the Bible) by America's Founding Fathers:

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780)

“The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.

Human Laws must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

Two Treatises on Government - John Locke (1632-1704)

Consider also, the 17th century English struggle between the theology of the “Divine Right of Kings” and the theology found in Lex Rex (Samuel Rutherford) “the Law is King“. These arguments were grounded in a long tradition of both English Common Law and Scripture (Theonomy).

All this begs the question in my mind, does God have two different “standards” of justice, law, or ethics? If God judges the nations ("Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth" Psalm 67:4), are there different standards that politicians and judges use? Different “standards of justice” than His own? As Bahnsen has said:

“Others have gone on to maintain that natural revelation (natural law) will be the standard of judgment. However, this either amounts to preferring a sin-obscured edition of the same law of God or to denying the unity of natural and special revelation (and to be willing to pit one against the other) Not only this, but in fact, natural revelation is suppressed in unrighteousness by the sinner, this should dissuade us from thinking that it can be the recognized, functional measure of his ethical obligation.” (Theonomy in Christain Ethics p. 387)

If there is unity between Natural Law and Theonomy, why do we oppose Theonomy, and why as Bahnsen puts it, do we prefer a “sin-obscured edition” of the same law of God?

Why do we (especially Calvinists) underestimate mans nature and his ability to suppress the truth?

Again, in the civil ethical realm, why do we place so much confidence in Natural Law if wicked men suppress “natural truth” in unrighteousness? Why choose the inferior natural revelation over “special” or “supernatural revelation“? I ask myself, could it be, because of contemporary cultural pressures? Could it possibly be, that we have elevated Natural Law over Theonomy because we are afraid or ashamed at what the Bible teaches? Hopefully this is not the reason, but we must be willing to ask ourselves, is it because we are cowards?

I believe the scripture clearly teaches one standard of righteousness and judgment for all men: He (God) "has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained" (Acts 17:31). And secondly, if Jesus Christ is "the ruler over the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5) does He have different standards for different rulers? (believing rulers or unbelieving rulers) Does He give these rulers different standards (Natural Law) than those ultimately found fully manifested in Holy Writ, by which these rulers are to govern and adjudicate justice by?

I say no, a thousand times no, God does not have, two different standards of justice, law, and ethics.

As a side thought (I am open to suggestion), I anticipate some will agree on the unity of Natural Law and Theonomy, and say yes, the same "standard" for rulers, but "quantitatively different". They possibly might argue that Natural Law has quantitatively less. My question is then, by what standard or criteria do you quantitatively measure? How do you determine what applies and what does not? How do you draw the line between Natural Law and fully revealed Biblical Law (Theonomy)?

Natural Law as a Guide is Not Sufficient Enough

To look to Natural Law as a guide for justice, law, and ethics, seeing the full implications of how badly men will and have, suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. In light of the nature of man and how in the pre-flood world (in the days before “special” revelation, except to Noah), men had degenerated so far and become so corrupt that God said that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) Realizing that the anthropological nature of man hasn't changed and that men are prone to degenerate in the same way today. In this light, because of the nature of man, we have to admit that Natural Law as a guide for justice, law, and ethics is not sufficient enough.

Natural Law as a guide for the conscience, in a culture that is in the final stages of post Christianity is not sufficient. This is especially the case in a post-modern culture where western civilization’s collective conscience has been, systematically (through education) and purposely (through legislation) been seared of its Christian inheritance. We must realize that our culture as a whole has been ethically re-oriented, it has been stripped of its Christian moral conscience collectively. Natural Law is not sufficient in a culture where consciences are “manipulated” by modern ideology such as economic and social egalitarianism, and a hundred other isms, where (non-biblical) guilt manipulation is rampant.

Why Theonomy?

In this kind of a culture, because of the depravity of man, we need the objective truth of God’s law-word that sets people and nations free. We need Theonomy as a guide for justice, law, and ethics more than ever. We need the Law of God as an objective standard that informs and teaches the conscience.

More than ever, Western civilization needs (starting in the church, then working its way into every area of culture) a Josiahian revival -a rediscovery of the lost Law of God. We need this revival both in the Church and out. We need modern day prophets who thunder the Law of the Living God to a confused and rebellious culture.

I also believe we need Theonomy to teach and instruct the Politician and the Judge what true “objective” justice, law, and ethics are according to the Living God. We need the “dust broom” of Theonomy to “sweep up” the “suppressed conscience” of Natural Law (that law that God has placed in the hearts of men) to bring them to repentance and to a true understanding of what real justice is which is defied by God.

I might be a little simplistic, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how the missionaries down through the ages taught sexually immoral pagans, cannibals and the like, how to live simply by teaching “Natural Law”? These pagans and their rulers had to be instructed by the law-word of God (Theonomy).

If we reject Theonomy, how pray tell, will Natural Law deal with the increasing modern paganism and sexually immoral climate of today’s current culture, given that the increasing totalitarian state sanctions, teaches, and even encourages (sometimes by persecution of those who deviate) these new modern ethics? How will Natural Law address issues like these:

(keep in mind that modern man’s “conscience” is increasingly being completely reprogrammed to accept modern “values“)

The “Gay” Agenda

Polygamy has Arrived: Britain and Canada Pay Welfare Benefits to Polygamist Immigrants

Increase Sentences for Gay "Hate Crimes": Scottish Parliament

8-year-old boy returning to class as girl / Teachers making accommodations, preparing to counsel other students

Mock weddings, drag shows and workshops on transsexuality among events planned for students as young as 14 in same-sex marriage campaign

Judge: Teaching How to Use Condom and that Homosexuality is Inborn to 8th and 10th Graders is OK

"China-Lite" : Two-Child Policy Bills Proposed in Philippines Include Criminal Sanctions

UK: Tribunal fines Church England £47,000 for refusing to hire homosexual

34-Year Old Italian Man Gets Slap on the Wrist for Sex with 13-Year Old

Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents

New York Court Rules State Must Validate Canadian Homosexual "Marriages"

B.C. Teacher Kempling May Lose Teaching License for Defending Christian Beliefs

Licensing of Parents

And all this is just the beginning, imagine what other horrors lurk further down the road of Western post-Christianity?

I believe Francis Schaeffer summed it all up in ”How Should We Then Live?”. He points to a painting by Paul Robert called Justice Lifts the Nations, it is on the stairway in the old Supreme Court Building in Lausanne where the judges had to pass each time before going to try a case.

Schaeffer says: “Robert wanted to remind them that the place which the Reformation gave to the Bible provided a basis not only for morals but for law. Robert pictured many types of legal cases in the foreground and the judges in their black robes standing behind the judges bench.

The problem is neatly posed: How shall the judges judge? On what basis shall they proceed so that their judgment will not be arbitrary?

Above them Robert painted Justice standing unblindfolded, with her sword pointed not vertically upward (to Natural Law) but downward toward a book, and on the book is written The Law of God (Theonomy). Down in the foreground of the large mural the artist depicts many sorts of litigation the wife against the husband, the architect against the builder, and so on.

How are the judges going to judge between them? This is the way we judge in a Reformation country, says Paul Robert. He has portrayed Justice pointing with her sword to a book upon which are the words, The Law of God.

For Reformation man there was a basis for law. Modern man has not only thrown away Christian theology; he has thrown away the possibility of what our forefathers had as a basis for morality and law.”

The problem today is the same as in the Garden, modern Adam's choice is, as Cornelius Van Til said, between Theonomy or Autonomy.

And given that, for me, the choice is clear, it’s Theonomy or Chaos…

Lar

Of course, there is nothing wrong with any of this if one feels it is his calling.  But there is a much better sign - a mark that has not been thought up just as a matter of expediency for use on some special occasion or in some specific era.  It is a universal mark that is to last through all the ages of the church till Jesus comes back. 

What is this mark?

At the close of his ministry, Jesus looks forward to his death on the cross, the open tomb and the ascension.  Knowing that he is about to leave, Jesus prepares his disciples for what is to come.  It is here that he makes clear what will be the distinguishing mark of the Christian:

Little children, yet a little while I am with you.  Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. ( John 13:33-35)

Books:

1. Falling Man, Don DeLillo.
2. Harrison Bergeron, Curt Vonnegut
3. Central Themes in Biblical Theology, ed. Hafemann & House
4. Seeing Through Cynicism, Dick Keyes
5. Total Church, Chester & Timmis
6. Paul: A Fresh Perspective, N. T. Wright
7. n + 1. a twice-yearly print journal of politics, literature, and culture.
8. How Children Raise Parents, Dan Allender.
9. The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Richard Hays
10. Disciples of All Nations, Lamin Sanneh

Articles:

1. "Converts or Proselytes?: The Crisis Over Conversion in the Early Church," Andrew Walls IBMR 28
2. "Anaesthetic Ideology," Mark Greif n+1 vol. 5
3. "Things I Wish I Had Known When I Planted My Church," Next Wave