Over the Christmas/New Year break, my brothers-in-law and I were discussing aspects of cultural decline here in the west. One of my brothers-in-law brought up a book he had recently been reading which discusses the fact that most instances of cultural decline were accompanied by sexual promiscuity, debauchery, and confusion. This has led to me doing some ruminating.
It's difficult, sometimes, to say what are causes and what are effects. In the case of cultural decline being associated with confused sexuality, I'd posit that there's a bit of both cause and effect going on. As our culture abandons Godliness and Biblically grounded moral principles, God gives up our culture to our lusts and desires.
I am going to quote at length Romans 1:18—32, to which I am alluding above. I recommend reading it in its entirety. This is the New King James Version. All emphasis is mine:
<blockquote>
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
</blockquote>
There's so much that could be said about that passage and how it relates to what we see around us today (for instance, I would like to do some writing about the last three sometime, which I think are very prevalent in our culture right now, "unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful"), but for this article, I'm going to focus on God giving a people over to sexual immorality as inspired by the conversations I mentioned.
I think it's a given among anyone interested in reading something I'm writing, that if Romans 1 is part of a cultural map, then, "YOU ARE HERE" is plastered right there in the, "God gave them over to a debased mind" section. So I won't spend much (or any, probably) time trying to convince you we are. One only needs access to any news of late to see it.
I will instead just talk practically about the relationship of sexual debauchery and cultural decline.
<h2>The Standard</h2>
Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 gives us the starting place for the plum line of God's design for sexuality. God made Adam. He didn't want Adam to be alone, he created him to have a life-long companion. And so He created Eve and blesses their "one flesh" union. And He commanded these first love-birds to be fruitful and multiply (have lots and lots of sex), and take dominion over the earth.
God created sex, and he created it for the intimate relationship of a husband and wife. And if that weren't enough for us, he also gave us an entire book of the Bible to tell us about sexual love (Song of Solomon). God's design is clear, and it is good. God made sex to be used properly, rightly, and joyfully within marriage.
God also created the sex drive (both male and female, but I'll be talking mostly of the male drive since that is what I'm familiar with). The sex drive is not something that is wrong. It's not something to be ashamed of. It's not something to be put aside and not considered (the Apostle Paul speaks to this when he says don't burn [with passion] but get married [to fulfill it]).
Sex, sexual drive, intimacy are all very good things that God created for us to enjoy and take pleasure in. It is to find it's fulfilment in the one flesh relationship of a husband and wife. That's the standard set forth in the scripture.
<h2>Controlling the Passions — The first real test in self-control</h2>
The sex drive is, in my estimation and 30 years of living with mine (puberty at 11 and I'll be 41 in a couple of days, which I understand is a bit early for males, but that when it started for me) one of the strongest drives placed in man. It is unquenchable and very difficult to tame. Even when controlled and tamed, it is a life-long struggle to stay away from sexual sin. It never ends and one must never for a moment take for granted that they are in control of these urges.
As I've said, when in the context of marriage, this is one of God's great gifts to man. But when much is given, much is also required. Namely, in the case of sexual drive, no small amount of self-control. One must gain mastery and maintain mastery over the sex drive if one is to amount to much in life. That's just a fact.
If Godly wisdom and training has been taking place in a young child's pre-pubescent life, the adjustment to living with sexual urges will be much easier. But, regardless, the real test of one's ability to exercise self-control comes upon young boys. When a society is governed by God's rules and God's values and morals, there are many societal helps and peer pressures to aid here, not to mention the biblical counsel, wisdom, and discipline of Godly parents.
But less and less, we are not living in a society that values sexual self-control. In fact, lack of sexual self-control is expected in the young. Multiple sexual partners during adolescence and before marriage is expected. The consequences have been ruinous and deleterious to our society as a whole.
<h2>What's the cause? What's the effect?</h2>
This leads us again to ask, what is the cause and what is the effect? Is our societal lack of sexual self-control caused by our society beginning to largely abandon Godliness? Or is our abandoning Godly principles causing sexual chaos?
I'd like to suggest they are one and the same. When we abandon Godly principles, one of the first to go is those pesky sexual guide rails which prevents us from experiencing whatever pleasures we want whenever we want, and with whomever we want.
All this leads to a break-down of self-discipline and self-control. I posit that learning to controls one's sexual urges immediately is part of what leads to a more self-disciplined life. The reasons for God's morality can be multi-faceted. And I think that when one learns to master that very strong drive at a young age, it positions that person to be in a far better position of self-discipline throughout all of life.
Why is cultural decline and sexual debauchery so closely linked together? I would say because cultural decline is caused, in part, by a people who have no self-control.

Sexuality and Cultural Decline

Larson Hicks and Rich Lusk started a podcast a few months ago and it's been fantastic. Allow me to recommend it to you.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@got-a-minute/videos">Got a Minute? on YouTube</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/">Got a Minute? On PodBean</a> (a more traditional podcast format, subscribable in your favorite podcast app, which is how I listen and keep up with the podcast)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Dating vs. Courtship</h2>
I'd say my favorite episode so far has been <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/dating-vs-courtship/">Dating vs. Courtship</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3B_PjdBZWc">YouTube</a>). That's because, in the '90s and '00s (at least in my circles) we went through "a phase" and things got really weird regarding courtship, dating, betrothal, you name it. But the end goal of all the weirdness sometimes got lost in the shuffle. Oh, we would talk about the end goals sometimes, solid marriages, avoid divorce, don't give yourself away to someone before the vows are made, sexual purity, etc. etc. But courtship (or betrothal in some circles) became an end unto itself. If you didn't follow the formula, things were bad, you were a sinner, you were probably getting a divorce later, and you had committed much sin.
Larson and Rich point out a lot of the pitfalls and talk about the troubles surrounding courtship and such — including (and I found this an especially salient point) that often these alternative methods of young people finding their spouses were explicitly designed to give the parents of those involved in the courtship all or almost all the control. But if you think about it for two seconds and remember that these are young adults that we're about to turn loose (at least in the common case, I realize there are and could be long-time adults entering into relationships — but we're mostly talking about the common case here in the illustrations), if they're not capable of being the front-runner on choosing their own spouse, things aren't gonna be great for that couple regardless of the method for getting there.
But, though my thinking and approach has changed a lot on this topic in the last 18 years, my view of the end goal has not changed. That's why I like Rich's emphasis on Christian Dating. And what I think he means by that based on his explanation, and what I certainly mean, is that we don't want to do the casual dating and sleeping around of the world. Dating is not an end unto itself. We don't enter into these kinds of relationships with someone with no intention of ending in marriage, or just for the fun of it. When a man or woman begins "dating" someone, it should be with the end goal of marriage. You should be in a relationship with someone to evaluate spending the rest of your life with them. And of course, there are off-ramps: we're not right for each other, there's significant sin in someone's life, they're not mature enough yet, turns out I'm not mature enough yet, and in a Christian context I shouldn't need to say that the other person must be a faithful Christian. But as the relationship progresses, it should more and more surely as it moves forward lead to marriage.
The word dating becomes a placeholder word for beginning a relationship with the opposite sex for the purpose heading toward marriage.
I want to say here, too, something about emotional attachment. When I was coming up through the ranks, there was a big emphasis on detaching your emotions during the "courtship." One was not to become emotionally attached or involved during this phase in case things didn't work out. That is probably the shakiest part of the whole deal in my experience. Every single human relationship involves emotion on some level — even the most casual friendships. To not form emotions or some sort of investment over the course of the relationship is a). impossible for most, b). is actually a mental health issue, c). I would argue is not in the least desirable. Yeah, sometimes hearts are broken, Guess what, that's life! Ideally, reasons for breaking off a relationship are discovered early and much pain can be avoided. But humans are designed by God to be communal. We form attachments to others in our lives. And in preparing for marriage, the strongest human bond possible, it is both natural and desirable to form a deep emotional connection with the one who will be your spouse.
I remember, because of all the teaching in my life about courtship, trying to understand my feelings toward Rachel right before and right after we were engaged. All the teaching confused me and told me I shouldn't love Rachel yet. But after wrestling for some time, I came to the conclusions that I both loved Rachel deeply, and that this was right and proper. I then told her so, and she expressed some relief since neither of us had ever said it and it gave her some pause about whether I really loved her. It seems silly from my vantage point now. Of course I loved her (and still do more and more every day). How could I not? We were made for each other, which is what we had been discovering over that season of our relationship, we had been in a relationship for over a year forming attachment (whether we thought we were or not). If I did not love her, something would have been seriously wrong with me.
So, anyway, yes, go listen to this episode, it's really good.
<h2>Church Membership</h2>
My second favorite episode thus far is <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/does-church-membership-matter/">Does Church Membership Matter?</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNkxjZUeTYU&#x26;t=2886s">YouTube</a>). I would say, of course it does, but Larson and Rich get to the why. It's a very important topic in our day of maverick Christianity. We know from numerous Biblical passages that Christians are required to submit to the elders and authority of the local church. But what does that mean? Who's in, who's not? We call that, "membership" these days. But all it means is drawing the boundary so that elders know who is under their care and members can know who's care they are under.
Give it a listen!

Got a Minute? Dating vs. Courtship and Church Membership

Great stuff from my friend, Tim Gallant.

Tim Gallant — Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

<blockquote>
Advocates of so-called Christian Nationalism now are mostly a part of a protest movement, even if they pretend otherwise. Secularists deny certain historical truths about America’s founding; the CN camp replies with excessive revisionism of its own. Secularists scream for the coerced removal of God from the public square; the CN camp replies with advocacy for some coercive notion of their own. Secularists scream that Christianity has no part of America’s identity; the CN camp seeks to merge Christian and American identities. I could go on and on. Things that ought to be acceptable at worst and commendable at best get taken to a place of authoritarianism or nativism out of a temper tantrum.
</blockquote>

The Shine Falls off Christian Nationalism

Bahnsen on Christian Nationalism

<blockquote>
You might ask why I would describe this paragraph on page 118 as the “end” of a 475-page book? Because the sentence that follows begins, “Having established these conclusions…” Since, as I will explain at length, Wolfe has in no way “established” these conclusions, everything that follows from page 118 to page 475 is essentially superfluous. There may be some material of interest—and some of it will elicit comment—but none of it reaches the heart of the matter.
</blockquote>
Brutal.
<blockquote>
Wolfe begins the book by exempting himself from the tasks of exegesis and biblical theology: “Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand that frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.”
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Wolfe’s ambivalence toward the Bible has deeper roots, however, than mere feigned ignorance about how to do biblical interpretation. The fact is rather that he doesn’t think he needs to do any biblical interpretation in the first place. The irrelevance of the Bible to the task at hand—political theory—is deeply embedded in his own understanding of reason and revelation, nature and grace.
</blockquote>
What I find fascinating is that Wolfe sees the Bible and Biblical interpretation as not interesting or important to what he's writing about. Yet his work is being promoted by those of my acquaintance or who's work I have liked or am familiar with, who cast themselves in the Van Tillian or Kyperian traditions. In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til (perhaps famously) says:
<blockquote>
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure how you can cast yourself in this tradition unless you are willing to apply the Bible and Biblical interpretation to everything, including the political realm.
Stephen Wolfe is also of a very two kingdoms persuasion. I do have friends of the two kingdoms persuasion. I would never say they weren't Christians. We can be friends and I even have some sympathy for some two kingdom thinking. Nevertheless, the primary influences in my life are not of two kingdom thought. Yet this book, which is clearly based on two kingdom theology, has taken my non-two kingdom influences by storm.
<blockquote>
If one consults, say, his academic Ph.D thesis looking for some deeper explanation, one finds more of the same: the crassest sort of dualism, with everything divvied up very neatly between “heavenly” things about metaphysics and salvation known by faith and “earthly” things like science and politics known by reason. In that work he even includes a flowchart dividing it all up that would get full marks from Professor Kant of Königsberg, who would then, of course, just tear the sheet of paper in half and throw the “heavenly” side into his fireplace.
</blockquote>
Because you like someone's conclusions (and I'm not saying I like all of Wolfe's conclusions, though I dare say I would fall in line with a great many of them) does not mean I agree with the means used to arrive there. Just because two opposed trajectories intersect, that is no reason to jump on the opposing train. If you jump off the train going in the right direction for the intersecting train going in the wrong direction, you will find yourself at the wrong destination.
And finally, somewhat relatedly, I made a meme, and Andrew Sandlin saw it somewhere and shared it 🙂.
<blockquote>I always knew Brian Mattson was a superhero. <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Square_Inch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@The_Square_Inch</a> <a href="https://t.co/AT5HAWEX2m">pic.twitter.com/AT5HAWEX2m</a>— DocSandlin (@DocSandlin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DocSandlin/status/1594182974840311808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote>

Brian Mattson

On Nationalism

<img src="/images/uploads/colbert-help-the-poor.jpg" alt="Colbert help the poor">
I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).
So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:
<blockquote>
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.
</blockquote>
Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.
What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.
However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.
This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.
If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:
“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”
You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:
<ol>
<li>Family</li>
<li>Church</li>
<li>Civil</li>
</ol>
There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.
Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.
The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.
Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

Helping the Poor

Did I get what I wanted? I got some of it, there were things I didn’t get that I never expected to get and doubt whether Apple will even ever give me. I’ll go over my list from the previous post.
1. Verizon
Well, I knew there would likely be nothing in the iPhone OS event about opening up to other carriers in the U.S. even if it is going to happen (which I still doubt by the way). This event was about iPhone OS 4, and I think support for other carriers would be announced with a hardware event since the current iPhone hardware only fully works on AT&#x26;T’s network. In my book this makes a multi carrier strategy announcement a hardware announcement.
And anyway, much as I would like to see a CDMA/EV-DO iPhone, in my opinion, it will never happen. You see, Apple has stated on many occasions that their business model is to make one iPhone. AT&#x26;T’s network operates on the same standard as 80% of the rest of the world. T-Mobile uses weird 3G frequencies, and Verizon and Sprint run CDMA/EV-DO networks (we’re not even going to talk about Sprint’s weird iDEN network left over from their Nextel merger, and their affinity WiMax). So the point here is that AT&#x26;T is the only network I see the iPhone running on for now, inept though AT&#x26;T may be compared to Verizon. However, as we move to 4G this may change. Verizon is going to have the first commercial LTE network (4G). LTE is the 4G technology of choice throughout most of the world so we may well see a Verizon iPhone when Verizon has deployed LTE across their entire footprint with full voice support (in other words they can’t be relying on CDMA for voice or it still won’t work for Apple).
So that’s a long explanation for my opinion that we won’t see a Verizon iPhone for a few years to come, and it STINKS!
2. Multi-Tasking
Yes, we got it. At least we got it in ways that count and make sense. I was blown away. Summer can’t come fast enough. Apple will be providing 7 OS integrated services to reduce the processor strain and battery life issues of having each app do it’s own thing when in the background, but the result will be the same to the end user. And state saving (freezing) apps will be huge! For those apps that don’t need to run background services, state saving will be the same as multi tasking without the battery drain or CPU cycles.
So yeah, I think I’m happy with the way Apple is implementing this. Still, took them long enough!
3. Better Notifications
Yeah… didn’t get it. We still have single mode pop ups that obliterate previous notifications if there are any, and stop you doing whatever it is you are in the middle of. STUPID! But I can deal… for now.
4. Release the App store shackles
I knew this would never happen. And it didn’t. I doubt that Apple will ever give up their current app model. I’ll have to evaluate whether I can deal with this at the end of my current AT&#x26;T contract.
5. Better Lock Screen
Oh Apple how you disappoint! Such a wasted opportunity!
6. Customization
Oooo, looky, pretty wallpaper behind my icons! Seriously, it seems small, but it is a baby step in the right direction.
7. Widgets
You know, I’m not the only one that wants them. And in the Q&#x26;A after the event, one of the media people asked why Apple wasn’t giving any love to widgets, glancable info, or better lock screen info. The answer was a sidestep. That either means it’s coming in future builds of the OS, or they didn’t want to draw any more attention to this glaring omission. In any event, we didn’t get it (yet, he says hopefully).
8. Notes and to-dos
Still no word on to-dos. And I have a feeling that Apple is going to do nothing about my “Die Marker Felt, die” sentiment in Notes. However, though not directly talked about, according to some sleuthing of the iPhone geeks around the interwebz, it does seem as if over the air note sync is a part of iPhone OS 4
9. Unified Inbox View
We got that and more. There are some major updates for Mail on the way. I am a very happy camper in this department! See Apple, I know you can impress, you still have it in you! Go Apple! Now give me my other stuff!
10. Better Home screen icon management
Folders for the home screen have been long in coming! But it is going to be awesome! And it is going to help a LOT!
So, I got some stuff, and I didn’t get some stuff. I’ll have to see if I’m satisfied when this update comes out in the summer.

My Opinion: How did Apple do?


Here’s one of those gems that is so good I had to post it. You may find the original <a href="http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&#x26;title=bavinck_aamp_mcatee_on_baptism&#x26;more=1&#x26;c=1&#x26;tb=1&#x26;pb=1">here on Iron Ink</a>.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
“While the Anabaptists argued against infant baptism, that children could not experience faith and repentance, the Reformed replied that although children did not possess the acts of faith, they still could possess the disposition (habitus) of faith. Since absolute certainty about the internal state of the recipient is never certain in the case of either adults or children, the question is whether we have the same certainty in either case…. Just as with adults, the hearts of infants should be judged with charity….
Since as a poorer dispensation of grace circumcision was administered to children, it follows that as a richer dispensation of grace baptism ought to be administered to children as well. Also, the entire idea of the covenant as the historical and organic realization of election points toward the inclusion of infants through their connection with their parents in grace and blessing.”
Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics Vol. IV – pg. 498
</blockquote>
1.) Those who hold to anabaptist ecclesiology while trying to embrace Reformed soteriology at the same time are seriously confused. Anabaptist ecclesiology suggests that membership of the church is characterized by those who themselves choose to be part of the church. The emphasis falls on the individual. This is advocated in keeping with anabaptist “pure church” theology. (A “pure church” is one that has no tares. Classical Baptist theology holds that all that are members of the Church are saved.) This emphasis on the individuals choosing has an Arminian flavor.
2.) As faith is received passively and is a consequence of regeneration before it becomes active in conversion it was fitting for the Reformed to speak of infants having the habitus of faith. The idea is that in having this disposition of faith infants will display that faith actively as they age to the point of being able to display that faith.
3.) The judgment of charity should be extended to infants of believers in Christ since as being the child of at least one believer infants are already members of the covenant. Throughout scripture God promises to be God to His people and their children. God reckons and counts His people covenantally. This differs from Baptists who reckon God’s people individually and who count them one by one in conversion. The difference here is the difference between God counting His people as one with individuals seen as extensions of that one community. On the other hand Baptists count God’s people as individuals who when totaled together count as the whole.
4.) In the old covenant the children were clearly part of the covenant. Baptists would have us believe that in the new and better covenant the children are only part of the covenant upon their “asking Jesus into their hearts.” The new and better covenant leaves children out of the covenant.
5.) In the end Baptist theological notions of covenant should be seen as a ongoing social compact that each generation has to ratify for themselves with their vote for Jesus in order to be part of the compact. On the other hand Reformed notions of the covenant should be seen as a social compact decreed, organized, and populated by God.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&#x26;title=bavinck_aamp_mcatee_on_baptism&#x26;more=1&#x26;c=1&#x26;tb=1&#x26;pb=1">Source</a>

Bavinck & McAtee on Baptism

As I wait on pins and needles for the baby to arrive (due date day is almost over and still no sign of labor) I thought I would share this article. It is after all, that time of year again when the air can be filled with a lot of “BAH humbug.” <img src="smile.gif" alt="smile">
<blockquote>
Should Christians celebrate Christmas?
I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don’t go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn’t carry the pagan connotation anymore. I’m more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.
Here’s the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word “Sunday” because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English “Sunday” doesn’t carry that connotation, and that’s the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.
Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.
I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn’t celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!
It’s really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let’s just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth.
There is no point in choosing any other date. It won’t work.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/">desiringGod.org</a>
</blockquote>

Should Christians celebrate Christmas?

So, I ran across this article in my Google Reader Shared items. It’s just way too good not to post here as well. I don’t know a lot about the blog it comes from since I’m not a regular reader… but this is a great post none the less.
<a href="http://floydturbeville.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/that-pesky-thing-we-call-consistency/">Source</a>
<blockquote>
I read a <a href="http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&#x26;title=that_s_another_way_of_putting_it&#x26;more=1&#x26;c=1&#x26;tb=1&#x26;pb=1#comments">great quote from Pastor McAtee</a> on how the Credo-Baptist position essentially views children as salvifically-unviable-fetuses:
<blockquote>
Credo-baptists believe that soteric worth is tied up with moral agency. Such moral agency is dependent upon consciousness. For Credo-baptists, soteric rights presuppose interests, and creatures without a fairly advanced state of consciousness do not and can not have soteric interests. Hence, until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness, the child is, salvifically speaking, not a person, but rather is a soteric fetus awaiting enough consciousness to be considered a candidate for soteriological personhood.
</blockquote>
And ironically, the first commenter on Pastor McAtee’s post takes most Paedo-baptists to task with the same logic:
<blockquote>
Insert Paedo into this article where it reads Credo and some would think that you had certainly made a mistake and truly meant Credo. However, many who would think you made that mistake apply this very reasoning to God’s Covenant children by rejecting them from Christ’s table “until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness”.
</blockquote>
And if you’d like to be entertained by hearing some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) discuss it, <a href="http://weedon.blogspot.com/2007/03/old-lutheran-quote-of-day_30.html">check this thread out</a>. Pastor Weedon brings out a quote from Luther on 1 Corinthians which explains that the “examine himself” command doesn’t apply to children at all. Its quite telling that Pastor McCain jumps in immediately and begins repeating slogans and ad-hominems as if his life depended upon it. He knows exactly the threat that the quote presents to the anti-paedocommunion establishment, even if others don’t yet see it.
</blockquote>

That pesky consistency business

I found another good read today via a good friend of mine. It was such a good read that I have to post it here:
<a href="http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location=2&#x26;action=display_one&#x26;story_id=300">Why You Shouldn’t Allow Your Children To Eat Thanksgiving Dinner</a>
(Man I’m really on a roll with this theme aren’t I?)

Great Read!

Marion Lovett, Elder at Heritage posted two very good articles recently on how Christians view their children. Check them out!
<pre><code>• [It’s Really About How We View Our Children](http://heritagecenterville.org/marionsblog/render/its-really-about-how-we-view-our-children/)

• [The Context for Discerning the Body](http://heritagecenterville.org/marionsblog/render/the-context-for-discerning-the-body/)
</code></pre>

Posts tagged “Theology” from the blog