Invisible-Visible Church Confusion

I was recently met with resistance over at Greenbaggins (not by Lane) over the notion that the invisible church and the visible church are two "perspectives" on the same church. My position is that the invisible and visible church distinction is not two perspectives on the same church, but rather a tool to help us to consider how to regard the institutional church in light of the fact that "not all Israel is Israel."

First off, some terms are in order. The invisible church is the elect of God throughout all ages. The visible church is defined by the same Westminster Confession of Faith as those who profess the true religion along with their children. The Westminger Larger Catechism expands upon this definition of visible church to include those throughout all ages.

Let's now employ the terms to get a better understanding of things.

Christ died for the church. In that sense the church in view is the invisible church, though the institutional church is to be regarded as those for whom Christ died, the elect. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, which we can assume included non-elect people. Accordingly, Paul wrote to a sampling of the visible church, which he regarded as part of the invisible church - those for whom Christ died (the elect alone).

Now for some polemical thoughts aimed to address some muddled musings that are shared by Federal vision people and non-Federal Vision people alike.

It is logically fallacious to define the church (or any entity for that matter) in contrary terms and then to predicate opposing definitions to the same entity. We may perceive God as holy and also as love and rightly say these are two true perspectives of the same God. The reason being, they are both true of the one God. However, given that the invisible church is comprised of the elect alone and the visible church includes non-elect people, we may not say that the visible and invisible churches are two perspectives of the one church, lest the church may be defined by mutually exclusive propositions. It's called equivocation. In this case the problems results by taking the cliché "one church from two perspectives" literally and not thinking through the implications. Hodge employs this phrase as did Berkhof.

When I argued this point on Greenbaggins I was met with an appeal to "perspective." However, appealing to "perspective" is simply evasive because perspective is only relevant when the subject of predication is comprised of at least both propositional perspectives, which requres they not be contrary. One who perceives God as love and another who perceives God as holy need not be thinking of two different Gods. But to think of the church as that which is comprised of the elect alone and to think of that same definition of church as including non-elect persons is to predicate two contrary definitions to the same church, which is not to think logically (or truthfully) about the same church. Perspective has nothing to do with it.

The simple solution to the question at hand is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It discusses the visible church and invisible church not as two different perspectives on the same church, as if the same church can be comprised of contrary propositions. Rather, the visible and invisible distinction is simply one that aids in informing us to treat or regard the visible church as if it were the same as the invisible church. This distinction actually presupposes that the visible church is not the invisible church and it also presupposes that the two concepts are not complimentary perspectives of the same church! Again, if both perspectives are true predicates of the same entity, then the two perspectives cannot be contrary; yet elect alone does not comport with elect plus non-elect.

Now then, if one agrees that sound theology would have us distinguish between the visible and invisible church then he would not be far off from realizing that we are to treat the visible church as if it were the same as the invisible church. The distinction of the visible and invisible church exists to inform us how to regard the visible church - as if it were actually the invisible church, though it is not by definition regardless of "perspective." 

Again we see that analytic philosophy is needed in the church today more than ever because this sort of confusion is not only found in the Federal Vision movement. Indeed, if the non-Federal Vision had a better appreciation of these things Reformed churches would not have been so mystified and captivated by the movement of Federal Vision.

(As a side note, A.A. Hodge's "commentary" on the Confession is no commentary at all. He simply used the Confession as a platform for his theology, much of it good.)

10 Point Refutation Of A Common Argument For Infallibility

A common sentiment among Roman Catholic apologists is that discrepancy between Protestant denominations over doctrine implies that the Bible alone is not effective in settling all doctrinal differences. What we need is an infallible magisterium proven by the fact that there is no substantial doctrinal agreement among Protestants.

Ten points:

1. Protestant confessions go beyond the gospel of the Substitutionary Atonement, the essential doctrine all Protestants agree upon.

2. A confession that goes beyond the teaching of the gospel can recognize, as the Westminster standards do, that not all doctrines are equally plain. (WCF 1.7) In fact, Peter called some of Paul’s writings difficult to understand. (2 Peter 3:16) So, it’s not surprising that there are differences among believers. In fact, Scripture teaches that doctrinal differences are necessary in order to show who has God’s approval. (1 Cor. 11:19) It's no wonder that Paul didn't just point to the papacy instead of Scripture, or that the papacy wasn't invoked in Acts 15.

3. It is fallacious to conclude that disagreement implies non-clarity. Otherwise we’d have to conclude that God’s existence is not clear because professing atheists disagree with theists on God’s existence. (Romans 1:18ff)

 4. If we lump Rome in with all the rest of Trinitarian Christianity (and apply the fallacy of “disagreement implies lack of perspicuity”) then the disagreements among the set of all Trinitarians, including Roman Catholics, would imply that all doctrine held by Trinitarians is dubious, even Rome’s

5. How is it that Scripture is clearer to the Roman magisterium than to the Westminster Divines (for instance)? A Roman Catholic’s only appeal is that Rome says so. For as soon as the Roman Catholic reaches for his Bible to prove his point he undermines his conclusion that Scripture is “not an effective final infallible source of doctrine.”Not only do Roman Catholics believe Rome on her say so alone; they are unable to check her claims against Scripture because Scripture is apparently unclear and not effective in settling such matters. (BTW, Mormons have a similar problem.)

6. Why should we believe it is more difficult to reconcile James with Paul than it is to reconcile Vatican ii with Trent? After all, Protestans have no problem reconciling James with Paul, whereas Vatican ii and Trent contradict each other even to many professing Roman Catholics (who typically but not always opt for the new face of Rome.)

7. There is no OT precedent of infallibility (yet there has always been disagreement over Scripture). Given no such precedent, the burden of proof from a logical standpoint is not upon Protestants to disprove infallibility, which has been done ad nauseam by comparing Scripture with Trent etc., but upon Rome to positively prove infallibility. Yet how can one possibly prove Roman Catholicism from Scripture if Scripture is not effective in such matters?!

8. Given the Roman Catholic view of the ineffectiveness of Scripture to settle doctrinal matters, the conclusion of an infallible magisterium rests 100% upon Rome’s claims regarding infallibility. To accept such claims is hazardous and not available to one who has heard, been taught and learned from God. (John 6:45)

9. Epistles written to the church presuppose the perspicuity of Scripture for the laity.

10. Rome cannot provide a syllogism with propositions drawn from Scripture that proves the infallibility of Peter or a succession of infallible popes. 

Unity & John 17

Roman Catholics and undiscerning Protestants miss the point of Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17. They think that this unity is to be found in a denomination.

This unity for which Jesus prayed takes place when believers are baptized into Christ. The fullest expression of this unity is love. Just as the Father is in the Son, Jesus prayed that the church might too “be in us” so that “the world may believe” that Christ was sent by the Father. The world cannot see the reality of believers "being in us", but it can witness love. So, Jesus is very clear that the witness to the world is love and the source of that witness is union with Christ and in him union with the Holy Trinity: “I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity.” Jesus went on to pray: “Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." Finally, Jesus closed his prayer with these words: "I have made you^[ known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

There we have it. Through union with Christ the love of the Father for the Son may be in those in Christ, just as Christ himself indwells the believer. Yet many Roman Catholics, like Bryan Cross, think that unity entails all believers falling under one “Bishop” at Rome. But quite the contrary is the case. After all, Jesus prayed that his people might be kept from the evil one.

Only love is sufficient to demonstrate the harmonious nature of true unity. Yet, as we are well aware this side of glory, being part of the same denomination is not sufficient to display love, let alone unity.

A Romanist's Fallacious Argument From Silence

 Bryan Cross recently wrote over at Greenbaggins:

"I make the claims and arguments I make about infallibility because I believe them to be true and sound. If you think something I have said is false or unsound, please show it to be false or unsound."

That Rome contradicts Scripture does not persuade Bryan Cross that he is wrong about infallibility. Yet I have a more fundamental problem with Bryan’s remark - namely his fallacious argument from silence.

Prove Bryan's "argument" about infallibility is unsound:

1. There is no OT precedent of infallibility. (From Scripture, which Bryan does not dispute)

2. The burden of proof is that Bryan proves infallibility in the NT church. (From 1 and def. of fallacious argument from silence)

3. Bryan has yet to put forth a proof for NT infallibility, only assertions. (Observation)

4. Bryan's shifting of onus to a demand that one must prove infallibility wrong is nothing more than a fallacious argument from silence and, therefore, to be considered invalid. (From 2 and 3)

5. Invalid arguments are always unsound. (def. of valid and sound arguments)

6. Bryan's argument is unsound. (From 4 and 5)

Q.E.D.

Bryan has been repeatedly asked to produce an argument that begins with Peter as the "the rock" and concludes with a perpetual, infallible magisterium located in Rome. Maybe one day he'll take up the challenge or else abandon the claim.

Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism

Bryan Cross from "Called to Communion" recently wrote this on Greenbaggins:

"But when a Catholic attempts to reason with a Protestant about, say, the gospel, and the Catholic appeals to the pope and the authority of Trent, etc., he begs the question, because the Protestant does not accept the authority to which the Catholic appeals. And likewise, when a Protestant attempts to reason with a Catholic about the gospel, and the Protestant appeals to his own personal interpretation of Romans 3, that begs the question, because the Catholic doesn’t accept the authority [i.e. personal interpretation] to which the Protestant appeals. That conversation isn’t going anywhere, because both persons are each appealing to paradigm-relative standards. So the conversation will go on for years, even five hundred years, or the communities will just turn their backs on each other and give up (and the back-turning isolation will remain for even five hundred years). To get over that hurdle, both sides have to recognize the paradigmatic nature of the disagreement."

I wrote to Bryan:

"1.  It’s interesting that when a Protestant points to God’s word you call it an appeal 'to his own own personal interpretation…' but when a Roman Catholic appeals to the pope and councils you don’t portray those appeals as reflecting mere opinion of the Roman Catholic, but rather you presuppose that what is inferred by the Roman Catholic is as equally true as the doctrinal pronouncement. In other words, nothing is lost in the translation for the Roman Catholic. And when it comes to the gospel, why there is perspicuity within Rome that cannot be found in Scripture is a curious thing, especially given that Rome was to have based her gospel upon Scripture.

2. You suggest the 'conversation isn’t going anywhere because…' of different authorities to which the Roman Catholic and Protestant appeal. But rarely, if ever, have I seen a Roman Catholic appeal to the pope or Trent to make his case. Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert 'the pope has said so and that settles it.' No, the Roman Catholic makes appeals to Scripture because Scripture, so it is claimed, is an authority for Rome, just not her only authority. Indeed, the faithful Catholic won’t interpret Scripture so as to undermine his understanding of Roman Catholic teaching, but notwithstanding he does attempt to reconcile James with Paul by the analogy of Scripture. That’s why I find it rather misleading to index the Catholic-Protestant impasse to a Protestant’s subjective understanding of Scripture versus a Roman Catholic’s appeal to the clear pronouncements of popes and councils. At the very least, doesn’t a Roman Catholic try to justify the very idea of the popes from Scripture? Or is his reasoning so circular that he would dare to justify the papacy from an appeal to the papacy?

Sundry implications

Can Rome produce an infallible tradition not found in Scripture that has its origins with the apostles? Of course not, which leads to the question – If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to brute particulars that have no discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not so much that Rome denies the intelligibility and lucidity of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible and clear to the magisterium. Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not, as they do, appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church’s need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes, and once they do that then yes, we will be at an impasse. That, however, would be an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture.

In sum, as soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture."

~ End of my response to Bryan ~

Roman Catholics such as Bryan find themselves on the horns of an epistemological dilemma and in turn fall into a form of skepticism. By placing a mediator between God and men they render God’s living word inoperable. If their authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication for one to know what Scripture is saying.  Yet when a Roman Catholic reads Scripture they demonstrate that an infallible magisterium is unnecessary to know the truth. Roman Catholics live in a tension that they cannot reconcile. We all get that I think.

Roman Catholics pay lip service to the authority of Scripture, for given an apparent discrepancy between Scripture and tradition Scripture always loses. Whereas Protestants can become more Reformed and move toward the OPC! :) For instance, Scripture teaches that all miracles appeal to the mind through the senses. Now then, imagine that Jesus looked as though he were sinking in water yet claimed to be walking on it. Or imagine that the Israelites drowned in the Red Sea but that tradition said they crossed over on dry ground and only looked as though they drowned. Should we believe such testimony in the face of contrary truth? So it is with the hocus-pocus of the mass. We are told we must believe, lest we risk hell(!), that the bread and wine has changed into the body and blood of the Lord; yet the elements continue to manifest the physical properties of bread and wine. Not only is there no biblical precedence to accept such obviously false claims, in principle we are warned and commanded not to do so! Yet such blind, irrational faith is required for one to be a good Roman Catholic. Yes, the demands are high, maybe because the stakes are so high. The skepticism created by Romanism begets doctrinal infidelity. No, demands it!
 

Finally, Scripture has always taught that Scripture itself is to judge the teachers of God’s word. After all, if we were to allow the teachers to judge the Scriptures then the rejection of Christ by the religious leaders of his day would have been justified. There would be no Christianity! So it is with Rome. By placing herself above the Scriptures she too has fallen away - no less than the Jews. Or should we measure damnable heresies by degree? Roman Catholicism actually presents a bigger problem to true believers because she does hold to enough truth to be a more superior tempter.

John Robbins on 1st Table of The Law

 In Slavery & Christianity, John Robbins penned these words:

“In Romans 13 Paul makes it clear that the proper role of civil government is the enforcement of the so-called second table of the Ten Commandments: Romans 13:9 explicitly mentions adultery, murder, theft, false witness, and covetousness. Civil governments have no power over the mind, and so they have no authority to enforce the first table of the law.”

It’s often difficult to know where to begin untangling enthymemes due to the nature of unspoken premises. We can add to those difficulties the ambiguity of such phrases as “no power over the mind,” noting that whatever the phrase was intended to mean a consistent use of the phrase - the same meaning throughout the relevant context that is, may be demanded.

Robbins does not seem to be arguing:  “Romans 13 only teaches that government may enforce the second table of the law; therefore, government may only enforce the second table of the law.” That, of course, would be an argument from silence of the fallacious variety and to transfer the word "only" most improperly.

At the very least Robbins appears to be arguing that Romans 13 only teaches that government may enforce the second table of the law and since civil governments cannot extract what is in a man’s mind they cannot possibly enforce the first table of the law, nor can God expect them too.

A few observations are in order:

1. Although the second table reference pertains to all relationships, which would thereby include relationships with individuals who are to wield the sword, in verses 8-10 the persons in view are not qua state persons but merely all individuals without distinction. John Murray is correct that a transition occurs in verse eight of Romans 13, from whence man’s relationship to the state gives way to an imperative pertaining to all relationships. Verse seven brings a line of thought to its conclusion, underscored by the translation “therefore”.  In verses 8-10 the apostle moves on to address love toward neighbor as the fulfillment of the law (hence the reference to second-table law), and love for neighbor has little to do with the state’s responsibility to punish criminals, a prime import of verses 1-7.

2. Robbins seems either to base, or at least corroborate and bolster, the conclusion that civil governments have no authority to enforce the first table of the law upon the premise that civil governments have no power over the mind. Robbins: “Civil governments have no power over the mind, and so they have no authority to enforce the first table of the law.” [Bold emphasis mine.]

Yet if a lack of power over the mind (insert your own definition of what that means) is a sufficient condition to prohibit the enforcement of the first table of the law by civil governments, then either God was wrong to require Israel to enforce such laws, or else power over the mind was some sort of supernatural gift given under the Law that has now ceased in the newer economy.

Moreover, three of the four laws contained in the first table are not typically (and two can't be) confined strictly to the mind but are manifested in observable actions, not unlike second table tansgressions that demand civil sanctions. Therefore, it would be hasty to conclude that sins against the first table cannot be sanctioned because they are only confined to the mind - as if they do not entail observable displays of blasphemy and rebellion which, by the way, can be an immediate source of second table sins. (i.e. Erode the first table and the second goes with it.)

3. Robbins takes the references to second table sins as either establishing or at least corroborating his view that the civil magistrate is to be concerned with the second table. And although it is true that the civil magistrate is to be concerned with the sins contained in the second table, not all sins mentioned in verse 9 are punishable by civil magistrates, like covetousness. Covetousness is a sin of the mind, over which (Robbins informs) the government can have “no power” (again, whatever that means). Accordingly, the references to the sins from the second table cannot successfully be used to argue that sanctions are to be confined to the second table simply because covetousness is not a punishable sin, though its manifistation in action can be.

Robbins does footnote:

“They [civil governments] do have the obligation to obey the so-called first table of the law. God’s law governs all individuals and institutions. There are no exceptions for presidents and kings.  That means, for example, that no one should be permitted to take an oath – either in court or on being inaugurated into office – on any book other than the Bible. Swearing by Allah or Zeus is worse than useless: They are not the truth.”

Robbins does not merely state that no one should take an oath on any book other than the Bible. No, Robbins clearly states that not one should be permitted to take such an oath. But doesn’t that presuppose some form of enforcing the first table of the law, the very thing Robbins says governments may not do?!

Generally speaking, I find it rare to find such inconsistency within such close proximity of itself; yet it's my experience that such is common place when one tries to escape the civil demands of God’s law, whether first or second table. That is not intended to be a slight against John Robbins, to whom I am exceedingly grateful for having faithfully promoted the works of Gordon Clark. Rather, I would simply use Robbins as an illustration of the obvious inconsistency and arbitrariness that results from denying the authority of God's law over civil rulers.

Heidelberg Catechism

Question 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?

Answer: It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)

(a) Prov.29:24 Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not. Lev.5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (b) Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Pope Boniface VIII & The Alleged "Change" of Vatican II

Lane over at Green Baggins has begun a discussion over what he calls a “fascinating book” that supposedly deals with question of change that came about at Vatican II. That discussion can be found here.

I don’t find anything Lane wrote in the original post objectionable, but it has been my experience that such discussions are riddled with confusion. Just a few thoughts on the matter..

From a true Roman Catholic perspective no doctrinal change was introduced at Vatican II (and no contradiction to the official teachings of that communion could have been made). If there appears to have been doctrinal change introduced at Vatican II then from a Roman Catholic perspective there must have been some pre-Vatican II doctrines that were concealed as mysteries until the official pronouncements of that later council gave sufficient clarity to them. We might say that there is an analogy of councils for the Roman communion whereby apparently unclear utterances are to be interpreted by clearer ones. The problem, of course, is that those pre-Vatican II pronouncements that are so repugnant to evangelicals are no less clear in their prima facie interpretation than those later pronouncements that are seemingly more palatable. Consequently, either Rome’s consistency in her clarity accuses her of outright doctrinal contradiction or else there is no perspicuity of Roman Catholic doctrine, a dilemma indeed.

Either Rome has changed some of her doctrines, which would undermine her battle cry of Semper Eadem, or else she hasn’t changed any of her doctrines and is thereby a living contradiction in what she has clearly stated, which, of course, would undermine her alleged infallibility. For instance, how does Rome reconcile the unambiguous pronouncement of papal bull Unam Sanctam with the equally clear language of Vatican II from which we are informed that Protestants are now to be regarded as “separated brethren”? Are we to believe that converted Protestants are in fellowship with the pope while denying the teachings of the Roman communion?

 

Sweeping Statements (by a fine man)

Carl Trueman recently wrote here that he is disturbed by the willingness of Christian groups to pay Christian leaders $10,000 and upwards for giving a single lecture. He even quotes another favorably, suggesting that a willingness to pay such a fee gives “Christianity in this country a bad name.” Trueman warns against the preparedness of some Christian organizations to pay such fees, noting that it is “horribly sleazy” when one is influenced by a speaker’s “ability to command serious media attention or simply fill that stadium”. He goes on to suggest that not to voice that a lecture fee of $10,000 is “distasteful or downright inappropriate” is to head into “televangelist and prosperity huckster” territory.

Is it immoral to choose any speaker based upon a degree of popularity even when accompanied by a motive to fill even a large auditorium? If a Christian organization desires to communicate a particular message to as many people possible in one single evening, would it necessarily be wrong to consider the notoriety and communication skills of potential candidates? Moreover, if proceeds for such an event were, say, in the tens of thousands, why would it be impermissible for a speaker to be compensated $10,000 or more?

Indeed, I don’t question that speakers are sometimes sought out by Christian organizations for less than pure motives. However, I am not prepared to paint with such a broad brush as to say that to pay a speaker half the proceeds for addressing an audience of 1250 people at 16 dollars per head is distasteful, let alone horribly sleazy. Imagine, for instance, a professor writing a book on the Trinity that required a lifetime of study and reflection, including a grueling year or two to organize it into manuscript form. Not much money can be made selling useful Christian books, even award winning ones. Accordingly, I would have no problem with a Christian author recouping some of his effort in the form of a 10K financial reward through the medium of a single conference engagement. I wouldn’t even have a problem with a minister who preached thirty five sermons per year in a large congregation in Luanda, Angola making $350,000 per year given that a fast food meal in that city cost over twenty dollars in 2011.

Much more can be said on this matter, like what we think regarding the perceived worth of something relative to supply and demand.

Revolution Replacing Reformation (in the church)

One of my neighbors was ordained years ago to the office of Elder in the Reformed denomination of which I'm a member. Thankfully, he has since time aligned himself with a non-denominational Bible church. While still in his former denomination I remember this man saying to me in my dining room how he was looking to spend the church’s money in the hiring of an extremely talented non-Christian electric guitarist who would be paid to critique the church’s corporate worship style. This “consultant” would help the church become more “cutting edge” in their worship so that they might attract the lost.

A few years before that I attended a Reformed church (same denomination) in San Diego while away on business. Before the first song the minister apologized to the congregation by saying that although they would be standing to sing "because we are Presbyterian," he assured them there was no need to stand. This amendment was not intended to accommodate the aged but rather it was intended to communicate a laid back approach to worship. The elementary school aged boy in front of me took the minister up on the offer (and then some). He sat comfortably sprawled out in his chair as he read a racing car magazine. As the pastor paced the stage with his Big Gulp in hand, he drew the analogy in his sermon that the Savior on the cross was like the pastor’s daughter who had been held down by force on a hospital bed by her father as the doctor administered a painful needle. After several other misleading word-pictures including defining justification as "a fancy word for having a new heart,” the minister ended the sermon by singing the benediction in a rock style genre while strumming a guitar. His parting words boasted “be a Christian but live like a golfer.”

Today I attended a church (same denomination) by invitation because of a baptism that was to take place. Amazingly in God’s plan I was used to persuade the parents of the biblical case for covenant baptism – all the more reason I felt a happy obligation to worship away from my home church. Out of twenty five minutes of singing, no song except for the offertory was familiar to anyone in my family. The only familiar tune was America the Beautiful. Contemporary is one thing. Sectarian and esoteric is something else. To be so far detached from not only the historic Christian church but the church of this present age so as to sing all unfamiliar tunes to the well churched ear is, I think, problematic.

In today’s worship we were told that biblical repentance always brings forth fruit, but a Christian can be one who has not yet repented. After the service was over and the Senior Minister was walking down the aisle, the atmosphere was so casual that a prominent member felt at liberty to yell to the Senior Minister that the congregation agrees to pray and look out for the baptized children even though the minister had forgotten to take a show of hands, apparently a tradition of theirs that was overlooked that Sunday. The Senior Minister was seemingly embarrassed.

Much can be said about the casual approach to worship that is pervasive in the church today and more often than not accompanied by a corrupted gospel message, which is no gospel at all. It is good to be reminded from time to time that Moses takes off his shoes when he encounters God; Isaiah is undone; Job puts his hand over his mouth and repents in dust and ashes; Peter asks the Lord to depart from him because he is a sinful man; and John falls down as a dead man. Does our adoption as sons in Christ somehow diminish the sacred and the holy? Or is it true that a God who is not perceived as transcendent, but only worshipped as our friend, is not the true and living God? If joy without reverence is not God-inspired joy, then it must be the work of the flesh.

I believe the unsaved have a better intuitive grasp of appropriate worship than professing Christians do sometimes, which is why it breaks my heart to see un-churched relatives attend such “worship” services. Casual “worship” becomes a stumbling block to the lost (and the saved) because it is not consistent with who God is and what he has done in his marvelous works of creation, providence and grace. It seems to me that evangelicals were more outraged by the inappropriateness of Michelle Obama touching the Queen in 2009 than they are with casual worship before a righteous and holy God.

Even in the Reformed church I’m afraid, Reformation is being replaced by Revolution. There seems to be a concerted effort to overthrow corporate confession of sin; assurance of pardon; historic Trinitarian creeds; OT and NT Scripture reading; Psalm singing; hymns written by theologians, sung by the one holy, catholic and apostolic church; and expository preaching. How can this be deemed an improvement?

I know there is no perfect church, and I don’t think I’m looking for one – far from it I think. I’m just looking for decency and order for my household. Thankfully, we have much more than that at my home church. By God's grace we enjoy the elements of Reformed, Trinitarian worship.

Lord willing, we’ll worship at our home church this coming Sunday.

"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator..."

Obama would use government to undermine what he considers the injustice (if not evil) of wealth disparity. Republicans believe in principle the same things, just more subtly and probably to a lesser degree. For instance, Republicans have no problem helping all people become educated through government schools funded by taxes. So why shouldn’t the government keep us healthy in the same way, through government "tax" dollars? It wasn’t Obama who ushered in the seeds of Socialism. Our progressive tax tables (originally aimed to fund the Civil War and later exasperated by the Great Depression and WWII); the new deal under FDR; and government education all preceded Obama’s birth. These are all means of “spreading the wealth” that are intrinsic to both parties. America has been on this road for a long, long time. One must either be a hypocrite or unthinking to accuse any particular party or candidate while giving a pass to others who do the same. (I'm not engaging in name calling here. I'm merely pointing out that those who accuse Obama and not the GOP are either ignorant of their own leanings or else unjust in their dealings.)

Moreover, Obama-socialism comports rather nicely with the recent bailouts of the Great Recession, supported by both parties. The bailouts were a difficult matter but only if predicated upon the question of defending our nation (the national security question). It could have been argued, I suppose, that an economic collapse would have put national security at risk, hence the need for a bailout. I don’t find that premise particularly persuasive, but that was the only possible rationale I could think of three to four years ago to justify the "loan" from a constitutional posture.

Reformed folk (whether R2K or stridently theonomic) have always grasped that the Bible doesn’t provide a blue print for economic theory, though it does speak in principle to questions pertaining to the three spheres of government - family, church and civil. Fathers and mothers are to discipline children and individuals are entrusted with feeding the poor. The church serves the Supper, and shows acts of mercy (along with individuals). The government wields the sword. Once we conflate those sorts of boundaries chaos sets in. That’s what we now have. People are to "render unto Caesar" taxes, but nowhere does God grant government the liberty to extort money at the end of a gun in the manner that both Republicans and Democrats have become so accustom. This is why I find the entire outrage over ObamaCare to be a mock horror. Sure ObamaCare is wrong; that’s obvious. But on what ground do we object to the theft of ObamaCare and not the laws and taxes regarding child education? How is nationalized health care any more insidious than national education? How is the “no child left behind act” constitutional and not a form of spreading the wealth? Faith based initiatives? Come now, Christian.

It is striking to me that both parties want to help their preferred classes of people who will indeed decide any election - the rich and the middle class. But God’s word would have us be concerned only for the financial betterment of the lowest income strata, who when at no fault of their own need financial aid. Even with Scripture's emphasis on  helping the (non-slothful) poor, the true privilege and obligation to extend financial charity always falls upon individuals and the church, not government. Yet Republicans, contrary to Scripture, foster the government-aid mentality, again – just to a lesser degree than Democrats. So again, both parties are of the same hypocrisy {no differently than Michael Corleone and Senator Patrick Geary (pictured above) were}; some are just more consistent than others.

Lastly, it is also my opinion that too many would find their hope in government, which is what true Communism would have, and it’s what Obama and Pelosi would have. But once again, I find Christians just as misguided here as they follow the GOP. Create a crisis and the people will run to government, or if I’m to believe the left – their guns and bibles. Christians, in their partisanship, too often do not think for themselves I'm afraid. They would sooner let Rush, Sean and Bill do their political thinking for them. Those men are far from conservative by my standards and certainly not intellectually honest, let alone biblically harnessed in their outlook and reasoning. They’re of the same hypocrisy as the community organizer from Chicago, just not as consistent as he. They are more selective in what socialistic, unbiblical laws suit them, but nonetheless they too want bigger government than what the framers intended and not substantially fewer programs than their opponents desire. Just look at RomneyCare. That he wants to contain it to his own state of Massachusetts is a distinction without a principled difference. (In this regard Romney reminds me of ficticious character Guiseppe Zaluchi who with his own irrelevant qualification wanted to keep drug trafficking "respectable" by restricting it in Detroit to a certain class of people that he thought were "animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.")

Every time you lick a stamp, ask yourself why the government is involved with delivering parcels. I remember a loyal Republican woman (also a Christian) who when presented this question replied in all sincerity, "Then who would deliver the mail?" (Remember Pork in Gone With the Wind? "Whose gonna milk that cow, Miss Scarlet? We's houseworkers.") Sadly, it never occurred to this dear saint that there could be private sector competition over serving the mail just like there is in picking up garbage from the curb.

Sure, Obama is the socialistic real-deal, which is why the thought of him for four more years terrifies so many, but how does Romney really differ?

In sum: I think what Obama stands for is deplorable. No equivocation there I trust. Now then, putting Romney's faith aside, I find his socialistic tendencies as misguided as his economic policies, and in principle he is no different than Obama. We can rightly consider ObamaCare a natural progression from what Romney, following the GOP, embraces. The two candidates might be at slightly different points along the trajectory, which only means that Obama is just slightly ahead of the curve, that's all.

"Obama" isn't just a candidate; it is an ideology that has been taught in public schools for years. It's in the culture and air we breathe. Everyone gets a trophy. All opinions are to be respected and, therefore, considered equally valid. There is no absolute truth, just better opinions possibly.  Romney is a disciple of that same secular philosophy. The difference between the two is Romney is not as good a student as the President. That is how Romney differs from Obama. He's not as far along as his opponent, but given time and the right providential circumstances he might just get there.

"Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman" George Harrison
(Written in response to the "supertax" with backing vocals' reference to Labour and Conservative Parties - Mr. Wilson and Mr. Heath - suggested by John Lennon to Harrison; though Wilson [Labour] was the real culprit I suppose.)