Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.
A Shift In Reading
My friend Dave was ordained in the mid-1980s. The offering for his ordination was supposed to go toward his library. To make the most of it, he decided that he wanted to visit the Christian publishing houses and used bookstores in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He invited me to go along. We lived in Iowa, which placed Grand Rapids within a reasonable drive. It turned out to be a good trip from which both of us returned laden with books.
Dave brought along a new toy for the trip. Somebody had given him a Radio Shack TRS80 Model 100 computer. At about two inches thick, this model featured a small screen inset just above the keyboard. I’m pretty sure the computer would qualify as the very first affordable laptop and perhaps even as the first tablet. What fascinated me was that Dave could read electronic books off that small screen. I remember thinking, “Wouldn’t it be great if somebody could design a way to carry a library in a little computer like that?”
Fast forward three and a half decades. As I type, I am sitting in my study, where I am surrounded by between two and three thousand books. They occupy shelf space around all the walls of the room. I’ve even added a bank of bookshelves down the middle of the floor. They take lots of space. They’ve also cost lots of money. Over the years I have invested well into five figures to accumulate these volumes.
From a financial point of view, these books are now nearly worthless. A small handful may appeal to collectors, but I can hardly give most of them away to today’s seminarians. An entire shift has taken place in the way that we read.
Two study tools have propelled this shift. The first is Logos, an electronic library from Faithlife company. I received Logos 2 at a demonstration seminar for free many years ago. The price was right, but I hardly used it because the interface was opaque to me. With subsequent releases, however, the Logos design became much more intuitive. I began to employ it for my serious study, starting with its Greek and Hebrew tools. Its main competitor was BibleWorks, which was more powerful for working in the original languages. I had both programs, but I ended up using Logos for two reasons. First, it was just easier to navigate. Second, it offered many more auxiliary tools such as commentaries, dictionaries, and biblical and theological tools of all sorts.
Consequently, my Logos library began to grow. I bought commentary sets, scholarly journals, and systematic theologies. At one point Faithlife introduced a parallel line of publications for the humanities called Noet; I began to accumulate works of philosophy, literature, and history. While Faithlife eventually stopped producing Noet, some of the same volumes are still marketed under Faithlife Ebooks. Most of my “serious” library is now stored in Logos, and my collection is approaching 7,000 volumes.
The main problem with Logos ebooks is that they are often as expensive as, and sometimes more expensive than, their print equivalents. Even so, given a choice between a print book and a Logos book, I will choose Logos. For one thing, the book travels with me wherever I can take my computer. For another, I like the ability to cut and paste the text. Furthermore, every Logos book is tagged and cross-referenced with every other Logos book. To give Logos credit, they do give away free books every month, and they put even more on sale cheaply. Overall, I spend less using Logos than I would spend on print.
When I was in seminary, our dean once told us, “If you haven’t bought a typewriter yet, you haven’t prayed about it.” Now I would say the same thing about Logos. It is an indispensable tool for anyone who wishes to study, teach, and preach the Word of God and the system of faith. But it is not the only one.
Almost as useful is the second tool, Amazon’s Kindle. I was introduced to Kindle by one of our students about ten years ago. At first I was skeptical; software platforms come and go. Kindle, however, now dominates the ebook market, and it appears to be here to stay.
I don’t use an actual Kindle device, though I hear that they are quite good. I simply run the Kindle software on my personal computers. The program is free, as are many, many good books. In fact, one of the selling points for Kindle books has been that, in the past, they have been substantially less expensive than their print equivalents. That’s changing and prices are rising, but Kindle books are usually still a bit cheaper.
The software is not as versatile as Logos. For example, many books come with “Kindle locations” instead of real page numbers, which can be annoying. I find that sometimes I will read a book in Kindle, and then need to hunt for pages that I wish to cite from the print version. Nevertheless, Amazon offers books on Kindle that Logos does not, and the portability of an electronic library makes the inconveniences worthwhile. My Kindle library now numbers into five digits. Plenty of those are free books that are nothing but junk reading, but thousands of them are substantial volumes. Some are books that I could not access in any other way. Kindle is a useful tool for pastors, scholars, and students of the Bible.
While it isn’t a separate study tool, I should mention that I also use ebooks in one other format. Google Books and the Internet Archive have scanned some of the nation’s great libraries into PDF format. These PDF scans reproduce the pages of the original volumes. Sometimes one can even see marginalia left by earlier readers. The number of public domain texts available from these two sites is genuinely overwhelming. I am not sure how many books I have in my scanned PDF library, but they must number several thousand. A good PDF reader like the Adobe Acrobat program gives readers the ability to highlight and annotate these PDF books, and I take full advantage of that ability. PDF books are bulky files, so they live on a separate, detachable hard drive rather than my local drive.
Some people cannot read comfortably from a computer screen. That has never been my problem. As my eyes grow older and dimmer, I have come to appreciate the brightness of the computer. I’m now using a Microsoft Surface, and I love knowing that I have access to my library and study tools any time I wish. I can study at my desk, in the car, or even from a park bench. I can now carry tens of thousands of books with me as easily as I used to carry a single paperback. I could not have imagined in 1987 that I would be able to use tools like these on every single working day.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
One There Is, Above All Others
John Newton (1725–1807)
One there is, above all others,
well deserves the name of Friend;
His is love beyond a brother’s,
costly, free, and knows no end;
they who once His kindness prove,
find it everlasting love!
Which of all our friends to save us,
could or would have shed their blood?
But our Jesus died to have us
reconciled in Him to God;
this was boundless love indeed!
Jesus is a Friend in need.
Men, when raised to lofty stations,
often know their friends no more;
slight and scorn their poor relations
though they valued them before.
But our Savior always owns
those whom He redeemed with groans.
When He lived on earth abased,
Friend of sinners was His name;
now, above all glory raised,
He rejoices in the same;
still He calls them brethren, friends,
and to all their wants attends.
Could we bear from one another
what He daily bears from us?
Yet this glorious Friend and Brother
loves us though we treat Him thus;
though for good we render ill,
He accounts us brethren still.
O for grace our hearts to soften!
Teach us, Lord, at length to love;
we, alas! forget too often
what a Friend we have above;
but when home our souls are brought,
we will love Thee as we ought.
Is Debt Still Slavery?
Proverbs 22:7 says that the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender. This counsel runs contrary to North American sensibilities. The most recent figures (for 2020) indicate that household debt in the United States totals $14.35 trillion, for a mean household indebtedness of $145,000. Of that number, mortgages account for the majority—about $9.86 trillion. Even with mortgages subtracted, however, household debt runs to nearly $4.5 trillion. Of that amount, Americans owe $1.36 trillion on car loans and another $807 billion in credit card debt.
These numbers are genuinely staggering. They are for household debt, not commercial debt. The average household in the United States earns only $61,000 plus change—less than half of its indebtedness. No wonder many Americans feel like they are impoverished—their income is going to service their debt.
Some people want to argue that Proverbs 22:7 no longer applies. These people point out that in previous generations debtors could literally be put in prison. They could lose their personal freedom, or even the freedom of their children, who could be taken as slaves to pay the debt. Interest rates were exorbitant. Now, these objectors argue, laws limit rates of interest, and they protect both the freedom and basic property of the borrower. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that in the modern financial system, borrowers are no longer slaves to lenders.
We can certainly celebrate the protections that modern laws provide. Nevertheless, those protections do not void the warning of Proverbs 22:7. If a household earns $61,000 and owes $145,000, then it cannot possibly pay off its debt for more than two years. During those years, everything the debtor earns goes to the lender. In a very literal sense, the borrower is not working for himself but for the lender. In that sense, he is a slave.
Very few people can actually put more than two years’ income into paying off their debts. They must also buy food, clothing, gasoline, and other necessities. They will also pay their taxes, purchase various insurance policies, and usually spend some amount on simple enjoyments. Consequently, they are going to have to stretch out their payments over many more years—perhaps even over decades. While they are making those payments, however, interest on their loans will continue to accrue, stretching out the arc of their repayment even further. For that entire time, these borrowers will be working to pay off the lender. In that sense, they will be slaves.
The only time that this kind of borrowing makes good sense is when it meets two conditions. The first condition is that the borrowed money is going to purchase something that is genuinely necessary and not merely something desirable. The second condition is that the item being purchased is one that will either appreciate in value or whose value can be improved. In that case, the increased value of the item will at least help to offset the cost of the loan. Apart from these two conditions, debt should be avoided.
Of all forms of indebtedness, credit card debt is one of the worst. This does not mean that credit cards are necessarily bad. They are convenient when they are used as a cash substitute, which means that the cardholder pays off the balance at the end of each month. Any balance carried on a credit card, however, will be charged a relatively high rate of interest. The combination of large balances and minimum monthly payments is a surefire way to enslave oneself financially for years to come.
What is the alternative to borrowing? It can be summed up in one word: contentment. God wants His people to be contented with His provision. Creature comforts can be legitimate purchases, but they are not necessities. They should never be acquired on credit. Instead, if we wish for something beyond what we genuinely need, then we should save up for it ahead of time. Then we should purchase only what we can pay for. Otherwise, it is a virtue to be content with what the Lord provides.
Another virtue that will help us to avoid debt is thrift. We should shop frugally even for necessities. Often, new shoes and clothes can be purchased in thrift stores at a remarkable discount. Furniture and tools can come from yard sales or consignment shops. Americans give plenty of stuff away or sell it for pennies on the dollar, and much of it is barely used (or not used at all). If we are too proud to avail ourselves of such venues, then we are indeed too proud.
Freedom from debt truly does liberate God’s people. It sets them free to give to the needy and to the Lord’s work. It sets them free to make provision for emergencies and for the time when they will no longer be able to earn a living. It sets them free to follow God’s leading into a new sphere of life and ministry. The borrower is still a slave to the lender, and it is a slavery that God’s people should avoid whenever possible.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Come All Ye Mourning Pilgrims Dear
John Adam Granade (1763?-1807)
Come all ye mourning pilgrims dear,
Who’re bound for Canaan’s land;
Take courage and fight valiantly,
Stand fast with sword in hand!
Our Captain’s gone before us,
Our Father’s only Son;
Then pilgrims dear, pray do not fear,
But let us follow on.
We have a howling wilderness
To Canaan’s happy shore,
A land of dearth, and pits, and snares,
While chilling winds do roar.
But Jesus will be with us
And guard us by the way;
Though enemies examine us,
He’ll teach us what to say.
The pleasant fields of Paradise
Are glorious to behold;
The valleys clad in living green,
The city paved with gold,
The tree of life with heavenly fruit
Behold how rich they stand!
Blow, gentle gales, and bear my soul
Away to Canaan’s land!
Already to my raptured sight
The blissful fields arise,
And plenty spreads her smiling stores
Inviting to my eyes.
O sweet abode of endless rest,
I soon shall travel there;
Nor earth, nor all her empty joys
Shall long detain me here.
Most Interesting Reading of 2020: Part Two
Last week I began listing the “most interesting books” that I read last year. As you can tell, the list is eclectic. While I read mostly in my discipline, much of the reading that I find interesting is outside it. Here’s the rest of my list.
Lansing, Alfred. Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage. New York: Basic Books, 2015. 357pp.
In September 1914 Ernest Shackleton set sail to lead an expedition across Antarctica. Before he reached the continent, ice trapped and sank his ship. The crew camped on ice floes, not touching land for 497 days. After reaching the inhospitable Elephant Island, Shackleton and five companions from the crew took a twenty-foot boat across more than 800 (land) miles of open sea to South Georgia Island. They climbed and then descended from the island’s unexplored mountain range using only fifty feet of rope and a carpenter’s adze. From there, Shackleton tried three times to lead rescuers to Elephant Island. He finally reached his crew at the end of August 1916. Every member of his expedition survived. This story, told in very readable prose by Alfred Lansing, is a testimony to the possibilities of human endurance.
Leslie, Edward E. The Devil Knows How to Ride: The True Story of William Clark Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders. Boston: Da Capo Press, 1998. 516pp.
Before reading this book I’d heard about Quantrill, but I’d never read much about him. The book provides considerable biographical detail but its chief value is its depiction of the “border warfare” between Missouri and Kansas. This warfare was producing atrocities on both sides long before the South seceded from the Union. The resulting scars were part of what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he spoke of the need to “bind up the nation’s wounds.” Leslie’s depiction of Quantrill helps the reader understand both why this healing was necessary and why it was so hard.
Michener, James A. Tales of the South Pacific. West Bloomfield, MI: Franklin Library, 1986 repr. 415pp.
________. The Novel: A Novel. New York: Random House, 1991. 446pp.
Last year I read two works by James A. Michener. The first, Tales of the South Pacific, is his memoir of the Pacific Campaign of the Second World War. The book won a Pulitzer Prize and became the basis for the musical South Pacific. It was my first introduction to Michener’s writing, and I read it partly because he served in the same theater of war as some of my family members. Of the volumes that I’ve read about the war in the Pacific, this was by far the most engaging.
Because I enjoyed the first volume so much, I decided that I’d like to try another work by Michener. I picked up The Novel because I assumed that a book with that title must be about writing novels—after all, Michener’s written a bunch of them. On the contrary, the book is a novel about a novel, or more particularly, about a novelist. It does provide an inside look at the publishing industry as it stood immediately before the Internet changed everything. In a backhanded way, it also provides a glimpse into Michener’s own literary theory.
Murray, Douglas. The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race, and Identity. New York: Bloomsbury, 2019/2020. 384pp.
This book was good enough that I read it twice. Murray could hardly be called a conservative, but he does several things well. First, he explains the theoretical roots of contemporary identity politics as embodied in Critical Theory and the “woke” movement. Second, he surveys the movement itself. Third, he draws attention to the excesses and internal contradictions of “wokeness.” Murray also prescribes an agenda for responding to the madness of this movement. This is not a book for the faint of heart: Murray deals with his subject matter thoroughly and even graphically. It is a book that every pastor ought to read.
Peterson, Jordan B. Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 1999. 564pp.
If you’ve ever wondered whether Jordan Peterson is a Christian, this book ought to answer that question for you. Peterson believes that myth is unavoidable, that it is built into the very structure of both knowing and being. He also believes that myth is essential for making sense of the world. He believes that Christianity is myth. This volume is probably his most theoretical, but reading it provides valuable background for understanding his more practical works.
Rumsfeld, Donald. Known and Unknown: A Memoir. New York: Sentinel, 2011. 883pp.
Rumsfeld served three terms as a congressional representative, as Secretary of Defense under both Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, and as an adviser to Richard Nixon. Here he offers his memoirs, including a fairly extensive look into the administrations with which he served. He depicts the rivalries, both interpersonal and interdepartmental, that shaped government policy. He is hardest on the press, but not unfairly so. Unlike most memoirs, this is not an exercise in self-justification. Instead, Rumsfeld tries to acknowledge his mistakes and to explain why things happened as they did.
Sowell, Thomas. A Personal Odyssey. New York: Free Press, 2000. 320pp.
I’ll read anything that I can get my hands on by Thomas Sowell. This book is different than most of his work, however. It is his autobiography. It details his rise from poverty to scholarship in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities while at the same time telling the story of his shift from Marxism to a species of conservatism. As usual, the book contains valuable advice for those readers who are clearheaded enough to heed it.
Waymeyer, Matt. Amillennialism and the Age to Come. The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2016. 326pp.
Matt Waymeyer writes this book to defend premillennialism against a new generation of amillennialists. His primary target is Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism. Waymeyer argues that biblical prophecies cannot adequately be explained on a simple two-age theory (the present age and the age to come). Prophecies about the age to come cannot be read coherently without inserting some intermediate form of the kingdom before the final and everlasting form of the kingdom. This book is now the state of the art for premillennialism.
Wiesel, Elie. Dawn. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. 64pp.
Dawn is a very short work of historical fiction. The setting is Palestine during the closing years of the British Mandate. Zionists have been fighting the British for Israeli independence. Wiesel depicts them as terrorists. The British are threatening to execute a captured Jewish fighter. The Zionists in turn capture a British officer and threaten retaliation if the execution takes place. Dawn is the story of the final night as seen through the eyes of the young Israeli who has been ordered to carry out the execution. This book is a remarkable piece of writing from a remarkable perspective.
That’s my list of “most interesting books” from 2020. My tastes are admittedly odd. You may like some of these books, but you might hate others. In any event, I wish you happy reading during 2021.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
The Windows
George Herbert (1593–1633)
Lord, how can man preach thy eternal word?
He is a brittle crazy glass;
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.
But when thou dost anneal in glass thy story,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy preachers, then the light and glory
More reverend grows, and more doth win;
Which else shows waterish, bleak, and thin.
Doctrine and life, colors and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and awe; but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the ear, not conscience, ring.
Most Interesting Reading of 2020
Lots of people produce recommended reading lists. Typically these are bibliographies of the books that the compiler found most useful. The lists are often labeled something like “Best Books of…” or “Best Books about….”
I do my list a bit differently: I give you a list of the reading that I found most interesting, even if it was completely useless. Furthermore, this reading might qualify as most interesting in various ways. Perhaps it was boring but particularly helpful. Perhaps it was useless but conspicuously funny. Perhaps it was so outstandingly bad as to become amusing.
What I’m saying is that my list is idiosyncratic. It is certainly not a list of recommended reading. You may find some of the books amusing or helpful, but you may find them tepid, off-putting, or even offensive. They are listed here only because I, and I alone, found them interesting. Read at your own risk, but here’s the first part of my list of “Most Interesting Books I Read During 2020.”
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Part I, Q 1–26. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burn, Gates, and Washburn, 1920. 366pp.
While I had already read the McDermott abridgment of the Summa, I thought that this standard version would be worth sampling. In fact, it was easier to follow. The length of the entire Summa Theologica can be daunting, but it is broken down into manageable parts. Thomas is not difficult to read, but you do have to know how to read him: when he is asking a question and limiting it, when he is giving answers with which he will later disagree, and when he is giving his own answers. You must also catch his definitions and pay attention to the way he expands upon them. In this first volume Thomas deals with the doctrine of God. It is a worthy statement of classical theism.
Bordewich, Fergus M. The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017. 416pp.
High school courses in American history teach that the US Constitution was worked out through a series of compromises—and that’s true as far as it goes. In this history Bordewich shows the competing interests fully at work, and he also sets them against a background affected by difficult travel, harsh weather, economic hardship, and competition between leading cities. I came away from this book marveling that the United States were able to adopt a constitution at all, let alone one that would endure for more than two centuries.
Dolezal, James E. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017. 176pp.
Classical theism is the belief that God is simple, eternal, immutable, omniscient, and impassible. Present-day evangelical theologians are tripping over one another to find ways to attenuate this classical perspective. Dolezal resists this revisionism and offers a brief, readable defense of classical theism on both biblical and systematic grounds. This is a book that every pastor needs to read.
Guyon, Jeanne. Autobiography of Madame Guyon. London: Kegan Paul, 1898. 338pp.
The works of Mme. Guyon are often viewed as classics of devotional literature. I began reading her autobiography with high hopes for edification. What I found, however, is that the work is offensively Romanist in doctrine, absurdly self-absorbed in its perspective, and annoyingly whining in its tone. It may contain a spiritual insight here or there, but frankly this book undermined any confidence that I might have placed in Guyon’s spiritual counsel. If I were publishing a list of “Most Annoying Books,” Guyon’s autobiography would have a place on it. I would rather read Edwards or Law for edification any day.
Hare, Robert D. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York: Guilford Press, 1999. 236pp.
While I subscribe to biblical counseling, I also recognize a value in descriptions of behavior provided by careful observers. Hare has spent a career observing psychopaths; in fact, he was responsible for developing the standard instrument for detecting psychopathy. This book provides a useful definition and overview of psychopathic or sociopathic behavior. The author also speculates as to causes and treatments for psychopathy. Warning: this book contains factual descriptions of disturbing behavior that you may find offensive. I did. But the descriptions are necessary if the phenomenon is to be understood.
Hayek, Friedrich A. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. 688pp.
Hayek did not wish to be called a conservative, but he was nevertheless one of the three founders of the modern conservative intellectual movement. This work is not his best-known volume, and at nearly 700 pages it can seem a bit intimidating. Granted, it is a manly book. Nevertheless, it is a valuable book, even a very valuable book. It is essentially a sustained argument against the totalitarian state and against the “planned economy” that leads to it. You’ve probably read The Road to Serfdom (and if not, why not?). If so, you really ought to read The Constitution of Liberty. Of the two, it is the greater book.
Henry, Marie. The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith. Grand Rapids: Chosen/Zondervan, 1984. 186pp.
Hannah Whitall Smith was one of the founders and leading authors of the Keswick movement. She continues to be viewed as a leading devotional writer. Marie Henry sets out to produce a sympathetic biography of this perplexing woman. Along the way Henry provides evidence that is, or ought to be, devastating to Smith’s standing as a Christian leader. Smith was a woman who was wrong in so many ways (her universalism, for example) that it is difficult to see why she should be ceded any level of spiritual authority. The book also provides interesting historical detail about two sons-in-law, Bertrand Russell and Bernard Berenson, both of whom became intellectual leaders of anti-Christianity.
Kessler, Ronald. In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with the Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect. New York: Crown Forum, 2010. 285pp.
This book is partly a history of the Secret Service. It is partly a description of the kind of lives that Secret Service agents are required to lead. It is partly a glimpse into the managerial culture that governs the Secret Service. It is partly a narrative of how various presidents and their families have used and related to the Secret Service. The result is that agents end up looking pretty good, the organizational culture of the service ends up looking pretty bad, and various protectees end up looking either good or bad. This book was both enjoyable and instructive. Let the reader beware: Kessler places human coarseness fully on display.
At this point we’re about halfway through my list of most interesting reading from 2020. I’ll wrap up the list in next week’s In the Nick of Time. I’ve just noticed that this week’s list contains no fiction, but I promise to correct that deficiency in the second installment.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
They Cast Their Nets in Galilee
William Alexander Percy (1885-1942)
They cast their nets in Galilee
Just off the hills of brown;
Such happy, simple fisher-folk,
Before the Lord came down.
Contented, peaceful fishermen,
Before they ever knew
The peace of God that filled their hearts
Brimful, and broke them too.
Young John who trimmed the flapping sail,
Homeless, in Patmos died.
Peter, who hauled the teeming net,
Head down was crucified.
The peace of God, it is no peace,
But strife closed in the sod.
Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing—
The marvelous peace of God.
Regional Delicacies
Last week I wrote about foods that I’ve sampled as I’ve traveled around the world. As it happens, I missed a favorite: Wienerschnitzel, which I have enjoyed right in Wien (Vienna). Did you know that it’s sold as a fast food there?
International travel is no longer part of my agenda, but I haven’t given up on unique dining experiences. The United States is a big country in which each region seems to offer delicacies of its own. I’ll list a few of my favorites below.
I was reared in eastern Michigan where I grew up eating Kogel’s pickled ring bologna. When my uncle would take me fishing, a ring of pickled bologna and a tube of saltines made for lunch. Only subsequently did I realize that some people don’t care for pickled meat. I think it’s great.
Another Michigan favorite is Vernor’s ginger ale. Vernor’s is one of the few golden ginger ales still in production—a completely different drink from the pale, tasteless stuff sold by—well, let’s not mention names—“North of the border desiccated.” I’m happy to be able to find Vernor’s in Minnesota now.
Another east Michigan favorite is the coney dog. For all its problems, the city of Flint still has the greatest variety of the best coney dogs on earth. Made with Kogel’s Vienna wieners and a dry chili sauce, coney dogs have been offered in diners like Angelo’s and Starlight for decades. Each diner has its own secret sauce. I’m OK with any of them, and I’ll eat mine with onions and mustard for a few moments of bliss.
One more eastern Michigan delicacy is blue moon ice cream. I don’t know what they put in it to get that flavor. It almost seems citrusy, but not quite. I first tried blue moon ice cream in Pinconning as a pre-teen. It has been one of my favorites ever since.
Driving into the Upper Peninsula is like traveling to an entirely different state with its own culture and cuisine. The most characteristic food in the UP is the pasty, a kind of meat pie folded into a turnover and baked. Traditional recipes call for beef or pork with rutabagas in the filling, but many pasty shops have experimented with various combinations. Now you can find chicken pasties, breakfast pasties with egg and bacon, and even pizza pasties that are virtually indistinguishable from calzones.
When I was thirteen my family moved to Iowa, where I first encountered the pork tenderloin sandwich. Back then, these savory treats were only available in a few Midwestern states. This sandwich begins with a tenderloin cutlet, pounded flat, breaded, fried, and served on a bun. It makes a perfect meal on a summer evening.
Later I pastored on the edge of the Dutch community that centers on Pella, Iowa. That’s where I discovered Dutch bakeries. The Dutch are some of the best bakers in the world, and my favorite confection was “Dutch letters.” These are crispy pastries, filled with almond paste and twisted into alphabetic shapes before baking. They make a great dessert after a Maid-Rite, a loose-meat sandwich that is another Iowa specialty.
I never tried Mexican food until I was a senior in high school. Mexican cuisine was hard to get in Iowa. When I moved to Denver for seminary, however, I experienced my first good Mexican restaurant. Denver had a chain of restaurants—the Holly Inn, or La Fonda de Acebo—that offered something they called a “tacorito.” It was essentially a smothered burrito. I wish I could get one now. I’ve had a love affair with Mexican cooking ever since.
Texas offers a different variety of Mexican food: Tex-Mex. I’d be hard pressed to say which I enjoyed more; the truth is that I love them both. When we lived in Dallas we could take our children to Panchos buffet where they could eat free and get all the sopapillas that they wanted. It was great fun.
Texas was also where I tried my first real barbecue. Barbecue certainly isn’t unique to Texas, but different regions celebrate different meats and sauces. In Texas, the church ladies provide pans of barbecued brisket for dinner-on-the-grounds. Barbecue was also available from fast-food joints and from fine dining establishments. There’s just something about the collision of smoked meats and well-seasoned sauce that is amazing, especially if it is served with blackberry pie for dessert.
Maybe the most uniquely Texan food, however, is chicken-fried steak. This dish is available elsewhere, but no place else does it like Texas. You can order it at any hole-in-the-wall lunch counter in any backwater town, and you’ll get a crispy fritter of meat that’s bigger than your plate and covered in cream gravy. I’ve never had anything quite like it anywhere else.
In east Texas, southern Arkansas, and Louisiana a different cuisine takes over. You can find deep-fried catfish served with a side-dish of gumbo over rice, and perhaps a cinnamon-caramel bun for dessert. If you’d prefer you can try a jambalaya or a crawfish etouffee.
You can also find grits in Texas, but the further east you go the better they get. Grits are eaten for breakfast and they look a bit like cream of wheat. The first rule for grits, however, is that you must never, ever eat them with milk and sugar. Butter is acceptable. Cheese is good. The best grits are served with gravy. I cannot understand why this food has never become popular in the North.
Let me mention just one more: the Wisconsin fish boil, which you can find up and down the eastern side of that state. The best place I know serves cod filets, boiled outdoors in a cauldron over an open fire. New potatoes are boiled in the same cauldron and served alongside the fish. If you don’t think that boiled fish and potatoes could be appetizing, think again.
I’m running out of space, and there are still so many foods to talk about. Wild rice soup in Minnesota. Whole-belly clams in New England. Seven-year-aged cheddar in Wisconsin (or, at the opposite end of the aging spectrum, fresh cheese curds). Cheese steak sandwiches in Philadelphia. Cincinnati chili, which is served over spaghetti, and I’ll take mine four-way.
The United States offers a welter of unique and sometimes overlapping cuisines. Some are drawn from European roots, some from Asian, many from other places. Often these foods get modified in their transition to the mainstream, but that’s alright. The variety of delicacies that one encounters from region to region is a source of delight. Again, these are good gifts from a heavenly Father who wanted us to have more than just locusts to satisfy our hunger (remember, locusts were a clean food in the Old Testament). One of my joys in life is sampling the local delicacies as I travel around the country.
So that’s all I have to say. Except—I didn’t mention poutine. Well, maybe some other time.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Let Us, With a Gladsome Mind
John Milton (1608–1674)
Let us, with a gladsome mind,
praise the LORD, for He is kind:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
Let us blaze His Name abroad,
for of gods He is the God:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
He with all-commanding might
filled the new-made world with light:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
All things living He doth feed;
His full hand supplies their need:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
He His chosen race did bless
in the wasteful wilderness:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
He hath with a pious eye
looks upon our misery:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
Let us therefore warble forth
His high majesty and worth:
for His mercies shall endure,
ever faithful, ever sure.
International Delicacies
During the years that I was president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary I did a good bit of traveling. While traveling I also did a good bit of eating. I’m not exactly what you’d call a gourmet—I can enjoy a good hamburger as well as I can enjoy a steak. Nevertheless, one thing I’ve found interesting is the variety of unique foods in each region I’ve visited. Most of us eat three meals every day, and we can hardly remember any of them. Over the years, however, a few meals and a few foods stand out as worthy of recollection.
Our seminary used to have a campus in Romania—specifically, in Transylvania. To get there, our faculty would fly into Budapest, then drive several hours to the border. Usually we would enjoy at least one meal in Hungary. I learned to look forward to goulash on those stops.
I grew up with something called goulash that was made from macaroni and tomato juice. Hungarian goulash is nothing like that. It is a soup. Every little bistro has its own version. It may or may not have tomato in it, but it is always meaty and always spiced with paprika and garlic. Often it is served with noodles called csipetke. And it is wonderful.
Romania itself features several gastronomic treasures. One is the Romanian national sausage, known variously as mititei or mic. This is a darkly-seasoned meat, and I’ve never found anything quite like it in any other culture. It is often grilled in the Romanian way, over an open fire in a large, concave steel disc. The mici are ringed around the outside of the disc. Often chicken pieces or some other meat forms the next ring, and potato wedges are heaped in the middle. As the mititei fries, oil from them flavors the chicken and the potatoes. The result is almost transcendently good.
Of course, the Romanian national dish is sarmale, which consists of seasoned meat and rice cooked in cabbage leaves. Festive occasions may call for whole cauldrons of sarmale. Depending on the season, the cabbage can be either fresh or pickled. It’s good either way. Of course, this dish is not uniquely Romanian—most Eastern European cultures feature some variety of it.
While we’re talking about Eastern Europe, one of the most memorable meals I’ve ever eaten was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I had wanted to meet the president of the Baptist Union of Serbia, who was supposed to be strongly evangelical. He turned out to be a graduate of Moody, and he was genuinely happy to see us. At lunch time he suggested a small local restaurant (in Eastern Europe all restaurants are local and most of them are small). Specifically, he recommended that we try the mixed grill. I have no idea exactly what I ate that day. I only know that it was the most marvelous assortment of sausages, potatoes, and pickled cabbage that I’ve ever sampled. This lunch was an unexpected delight during a difficult journey.
Of the various Asian countries I’ve visited, the food that stands out most in my recollection is actually a drink: tea. Of course we have tea in America, but the tea I encountered in India—masala chai—was unlike anything I’d ever had from Lipton. I believe that the tea leaves were steeped in (water buffalo?) milk, then spiced with fresh local seasonings. When served with a traditional dal (lentil soup) over rice, it made a good, basic meal.
On the subject of Indian cuisine, some of the most entertaining Indian food I’ve ever eaten was actually a crossover with Mexican, eaten at a hole-in-the-wall place in Toronto, Canada. Toronto is quite cosmopolitan, so it’s not surprising to find cultures borrowing from each other there. Thus I was introduced to the “currito,” which consisted of Indian butter chicken and rice wrapped in a genuine south-of-the-border tortilla. I thought the idea was laughable until I bit into one—and oh, my! I only wish that I could find something like that in Minneapolis.
Of the national cuisines I’ve sampled, Brazilian has to be the most varied and entertaining. If anything, Brazil is even more of a cultural melting pot than the United States. You can find good Arab food there. You can find some of the best pizza in the world. But of course, Brazil is best known for its churrasco.
What is churrasco? Broadly speaking, churrasco consists of a variety of meats, mostly beef, seasoned with granular salt and roasted over an open fire. In Brazil, these meats are served in a buffet restaurant known as a churrascaria. Waiters bring the various cuts to your table and slice off strips for your plate. The typical churrascaria also serves a variety of other foods—feijoada (meat and beans over rice), manioc, quail’s eggs, palm hearts, and so forth. These restaurants have become so popular that some of them are now opening in the United States, where they are extremely expensive. In Brazil, however, the typical churrascaria caters to working people and keeps its prices very reasonable.
Special mention should also be made of a large fish that is caught and eaten along the Amazon. Called the pirarucu, this fish is huge. It produces a mild, white meat that is very flavorful when eaten alongside beans and rice in the open air.
In the category of drinks, special mention should be made of Brazilian guaraná. The guaraná is a tropical fruit that Brazilians make into a soft drink. It tastes a bit like a golden ginger ale, a bit like a crème soda, and not a bit like either. It has to be experienced to be understood. Every Brazilian has his or her favorite brand, and they’re all good. My favorites are Guaraná Antarctica and Guaraná Real.
The hymn writer says, “I sing the goodness of the Lord that filled the earth with food.” God could have created us to absorb nourishment through the soles of our feet from the dirt we walk on. Instead, He has given us an amazing variety of foods, and He has further given us palates that can delight in them. Away with all false and unbiblical world-denying philosophies that would insult the Creator by denigrating His gifts! And away with all parochialism that disdains the unfamiliar. The marvelous variety of nourishing edibles is one manifestation of the Creator’s common grace. I for one am grateful for these good things that the Lord has permitted me to sample.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
O God of Bethel
Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)
O God of Bethel! by whose hand
thy people still are fed;
Who through this weary pilgrimage
hast all our fathers led:
Our vows, our prayers, we now present
before thy throne of grace:
God of our fathers! be the God
of their succeeding race.
Through each perplexing path of life
our wand’ring footsteps guide;
Give us each day our daily bread,
and raiment fit provide.
O spread thy cov’ring wings around,
till all our wand’rings cease,
And at our Father’s loved abode
our souls arrive in peace.
Such blessings from thy gracious hand
our humble pray’rs implore;
And thou shalt be our chosen God,
and portion evermore.
On Causes, Confederates, and Christ
One of my favorite books on the Civil War was written by a chaplain in the Army of Northern Virginia, Baptist preacher J. William Jones. Jones went from being a humble pastor to being named the Baptist missionary to Lieutenant General A. P. Hill’s corps. Jones’s book, Christ in the Camp or Religion in the Confederate Army, was originally published in 1887 and contains many letters and first-hand accounts from chaplains and soldiers in Lee’s infamous army. These correspondences describe in great detail almost unbelievable revivals during which thousands were saved. Jones estimated that during the army’s existence (1861–65), nearly 150,000 Confederate soldiers converted to Christ, representing almost one third of men under arms. This staggering number was not a mere guess taken from foxhole confessions, but reflected careful and copious records of personal testimonies, evangelistic services, and baptisms. The revivals were not only among the enlisted as Jones shared that “a large portion of the higher officers were men of faith and prayer.”
Lest one think this was the result of wartime fervor, at the time of book’s publication, out of the 410 men whom Jones had personally baptized, only three were known to have “gone back to the world.” Twenty years after the war Jones reported that according to many seminary presidents, “nearly nine-tenths of the candidates for the ministry had determined to preach while in the army.” Jones wrote of chaplains and generals alike who, after witnessing so many come to Christ, believed that this army held a unique providential blessing. Surely God would bless such piety and devotion. Convinced of the righteousness of his cause, Jones closed his book with the words, “Christian men of every section and of every creed will unite in thanking God that Christ was in the camps of Lee’s army with such wonderful power to save.”
While there are many historical and cultural complexities surrounding the Civil War, one of the most important questions to ask is, “How could this army bent on perpetuating the evil that is human bondage be so thoroughly infused with penitent Christians, many of whom gave their lives to Christ just before giving their lives, at least in part, for slavery? How could a cause so rooted in sin ever be mistaken as righteous or divinely blessed?”
Whether it was crusaders shouting “Deus vult” after a victory at the Siege of Antioch in 1098 or a man carrying a “Christian flag” onto the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 6, 2021, Christians have often employed Christ in defense of social and political causes. Sadly, I believe that many, like William Jones, have made egregious errors in so hastily engaging Christ to support their cause. While there are many that could be discussed, below are several fallacious assumptions that are all too common.
Victories in a cause equals God’s favor on a cause. Whether on the battlefield or at the ballot box, Christians often think that winning is the result of divine favor. The Army of Northern Virginia, for example, enjoyed extraordinary victories from Seven Pines to Fredericksburg to Chancellorsville, which many assumed were the result of divine favor. In fact, until Lee’s gamble at Gettysburg, his army rarely lost a fight, though facing overwhelming odds. Brilliant battlefield victories coupled with the aforementioned spiritual revivals led many Southern Christians to conclude that God was indeed on the side of the Confederacy. Similarly, in modern times, the church growth movement, built upon the premise that bigger is better, has ensnared many pastors with the faulty logic that more equals more blessed. Numbers, victories, and majorities are in no way an indication of God’s favor, nor do they indicate the righteousness of a cause. Causes are either good or bad based upon their reflection of either eternal truth, as revealed in Scripture, or earthly, bane wisdom.
Christians supporting a cause makes it a Christian cause. The fallacy of honor by association assumes that because a cause or movement (which is the actions done because of the cause) is made up of Christians or carries Christian themes, it is therefore a Christian cause. I once heard an evangelical declare from the pulpit that because some of America’s founders were Christians and often mentioned the divine in founding documents and monuments, America is a Christian nation and has therefore incurred God’s unique blessing. By this reasoning, the Vatican would be the most Christian place on earth. Thousands upon thousands of redeemed rebels fought for the cause of slavery. Just because a cause has Christians associated with it or uses the name of Christ does not make it a Christian cause.
Causes are simple. Causes are not simple; that is to say they rarely entail a singular principle or solitary moral outcome. They are as complex as the cultures, ideas, and times in which they arise. A cry for freedom by one may result in the enslavement of another. Clarity on one side may be confusion for the other. Even if a cause is straightforward and moral, the movements which it spawns may be twisted and immoral.
God works because of a cause. This is perhaps the most egregious assumption. Jones assumed that the blessing of spiritual revival within the army was the result, at least in part, of the Confederate cause. If God uses a cause, He therefore supports the cause. Many heresies have arisen with this line of thinking. Monergism reminds us that in regards to humanity, salvation is always despite. God’s blessings and salvation are granted because of God’s own glory and for His own end. Divine favor within a cause should never be viewed, even tacitly, as divine acceptance of a cause. Often God works despite causes, not because of them. Christ saved me despite myself and my ideas just as He saved my tragically-wrong rebel brethren.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jones on one point, Christ was indeed in Lee’s camps with wonderful power to save. Not however, because of the Confederate cause, but despite it. Christians, be very cautious of causes, even if they contain Christian themes or have Christian leaders. Jesus Christ is our cause and should not be easily employed in so many earthly endeavors.
This essay is by Brett Williams, Provost and Executive Vice President at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Let Us Sing the King Messiah
John Ryland (1753–1825)
Let us sing the King Messiah,
King of righteousness and peace!
Hail Him, all His happy subjects,
Never let His praises cease:
Ever hail Him,
Never let His praises cease.
How transcendent are Thy glories,
Fairer than the sons of men;
While Thy blessed mediation
Brings us back to God again:
Blest Redeemer,
How we triumph in Thy reign!
Gird Thy sword on, mighty Hero!
Make the Word of truth Thy car;
Prosper in Thy course majestic;
All success attend Thy war!
Gracious Victor,
Let mankind before Thee bow!
Majesty, combined with meekness,
Righteousness and peace unite
To insure Thy blessed conquests.
On, great Prince, assert Thy right!
Ride triumphant,
All around the conquer’d globe.
Blest are all that touch Thy sceptre,
Blest are all that own Thy reign;
Freed from sin, that worst of tyrants,
Rescued from its galling chain:
Saints and angels,
All who know Thee, bless Thy reign.
Those Little Churches
My father’s first pastorate was in Cambridge, Iowa. Other fundamental Baptist churches were located nearby. Slater had one less than ten miles to the west. Both Ames and Nevada had churches of like faith and order, each about twelve miles away. Ankeny had a regular Baptist church about twenty miles down Interstate 35.
Skip ahead. My first senior pastorate was in Newton, Iowa. Immanuel Baptist had at least three other Bible-preaching Baptist churches within about a twenty-minute drive, the closest of which was less than ten miles away. None was very large. The other churches were all older congregations, yet decades prior Newton had been specifically targeted to be a church plant.
These facts have occurred to me over the past weeks while I have been preaching in a little, rural Minnesota church. It is located near three other fundamental Baptist churches: one is about ten miles to the north, another about ten miles to the south, and still another perhaps eight or nine miles to the west. It is without a pastor and, thanks partly to COVID and partly to job transfers, can no longer afford to call a man full time.
The first time I visited this church I thought, “Is this church really necessary? It’s just a handful of people. They could easily drive to one of the other churches in the area. Wouldn’t they do better just to merge?” But then I remembered Cambridge, Newton, and the sprinkling of little, fundamental Baptist churches across the state of Iowa. I do not believe that these small churches are a waste of time, money, or effort. In fact, I think that far more ministry per capita takes place in them than in big churches.
I remember the Sunday that my father’s Bible college sent him to fill the pulpit at the Bible Presbyterian Church in Cambridge. Since it was close to home he took my mother and all five children. The seven of us accounted for somewhere between a third and a half of the congregation that morning. At the end of the service the church’s two elders approached Dad and asked, “Would you be our pastor?”
When my father recovered from the surprise, he reminded them that he was a Baptist, not a Presbyterian. He told them that he would preach New Testament doctrine, including believer baptism. They responded, “We’re willing to learn.”
He then observed, “I’m a dispensationalist and your church believes in Covenant Theology.” The two elders looked at each other for a moment, then responded, “We don’t even know what that means.” Long story short, my father accepted the pastorate and led them through the process of becoming a Baptist church. Interestingly, the presbytery readily accepted this change. They had not been able to support the church adequately for some time. Their attitude was that they would rather see a thriving Baptist church preaching the gospel than a dying Presbyterian church closing its doors and preaching nothing.
For compensation the church could offer a moldering parsonage and a pittance of a salary. My father had to work multiple jobs so that he could simultaneously feed his family and pastor the church. But the little congregation began to blossom. After many professions of faith, even more baptisms, a building renovation, and a strong pastoral presence in the community, it became a healthy, vibrant church. Dad went on to pastor bigger churches, but I doubt that he ever had a church respond more fruitfully to his ministry.
Well, there might have been one. It came after he had otherwise retired. He was living in northern Wisconsin. A little church an hour or so away in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula was without a pastor. Like the church in Cambridge, the church in Wakefield could offer a parsonage but not a living wage. Dad was able to minister without a living wage. He accepted this church’s call and went to work. Again the ministry blossomed with professions of faith, baptisms, some building renovation, and a strong pastoral presence in the community. It has flourished even more under its present pastor.
These little congregations are precious in the sight of the Lord Jesus. They are temples in which the Holy Spirit dwells. They deserve good, sound, careful, caring, thoughtful pastors. To serve them is an honor. The men who pastor them almost never receive much recognition on earth, but someday they will stand to the applause of all heaven.
I know of a small group—almost a cadre—of young men who have earned good seminary degrees. In fact, most of them have earned doctorates. They have deliberately taken pastorates in small churches like these, investing themselves in ministries that will never make them famous. Some of them have had to seek outside employment for the privilege of laboring in these tiny congregations. To my amazement, I have heard others disparage them as men who “do not pastor churches that matter.”
Let me tell you something. These churches matter to God the Father, by whose election they exist. They matter to Jesus Christ, who died to present them to Himself. They matter to the Holy Spirit, who indwells them. Their members are Christ’s lambs who need under-shepherds. Thank God for learned, skilled, trained men who are willing to spend themselves in little ministries. To me they are genuine heroes.
Sometimes churches have good reasons to merge—especially if their separate existence was the result of an unbiblical division. Sometimes churches need to go out of existence, especially if they dwindle as the result of mere idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, we should not permit a church to die simply because another church is within driving distance. Nor should we conclude that a church does not deserve to survive simply because it is small. Instead, we should pray and work to prepare the kind of men who will devote themselves to serving these congregations. May God raise up more of them.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Christ Hath a Garden Walled Around
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Christ hath a garden walled around,
A Paradise of fruitful ground,
Chosen by love and fenced by grace
From out the world’s wide wilderness.
Like trees of spice his servants stand,
There planted by his mighty hand;
By Eden’s gracious streams, that flow
To feed their beauty where they grow.
Awake, O wind of heav’n and bear
Their sweetest perfume through the air:
Stir up, O south, the boughs that bloom,
Till the beloved Master come:
That he may come, and linger yet
Among the trees that he hath set;
That he may evermore be seen
To walk amid the springing green.
Christianity and the Alt-Right
The old dictum says that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I disagree. A friend is someone who values and honors what I value. An enemy is someone who destroys or debases what I value. It is quite possible for an enemy of my enemy to destroy or debase what I value. The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy.
Modern conservatism was built upon three thinkers. Richard Weaver laid a philosophical foundation in Ideas Have Consequences. Russell Kirk traced the history of conservative thought in The Conservative Mind. Friedrich Hayek pointed out the connection between political and economic freedom in The Road to Serfdom. These were learned men. Each wrote many works, but ordinary readers found them challenging. To flourish, conservatism needed a popularizer.
Enter the young William F. Buckley, who burst onto the scene in 1951 with God and Man at Yale. In 1955 he launched a conservative journal of opinion, National Review. His goal was to establish an articulate, reasonable standard-bearer for a conservative movement. To achieve that goal Buckley had to distance conservatism from two pretenders: radical libertarianism, represented by Ayn Rand, and (usually antisemitic) conspiracism, represented by the John Birch Society. Consequently, National Review regularly denounced both Randian libertarianism and the Birchers.
Buckley saw liberals as opponents, but he saw the Randians and the Birchers as enemies. He understood that allying with these groups would poison conservatism. Instead of trying to rally the hard right, he aimed to persuade moderates on his left. The strategy worked. Buckley’s circle was chiefly responsible for the conservative takeover of the Republican party in 1964 and the eventual election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency.
This early version of conservatism was fully compatible with Christian principles. In fact, certain Christian insights were definitive: belief in a transcendent moral order, recognition of human fallenness and imperfectability, and private property as a fundamental right. Indeed, many of the leading conservatives were committed to some version of “mere Christianity.”
The origins of contemporary conservatism provides a contrast with the situation in which conservatives now stand. Donald Trump gained popularity through the support of the alt-right. After his election I began to follow the postings of alt-right figures. I wanted to understand what their values were and how closely they aligned with both traditional conservatism and biblical Christianity.
At this point two caveats are necessary. First, not every alt-right figure holds every objectionable opinion. The alt-right is not particularly systematic. Second, the alt-right objects to many things that any reasonable person should find objectionable. The press really is biased. Illegal immigration really is a threat. Politicians really are trying to take away your guns. Voter fraud really does take place. There really is an entrenched and powerful bureaucracy that resembles a “deep state.” So, is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Or is the enemy of my enemy also my enemy?
Despite these caveats, certain trends appear to be widespread within the alt-right. Here is a quick listing.
Conspiracy theories. Just over three years ago I started seeing references to “Q,” now often called “Q-anon.” This shadowy figure, who was supposed to be highly placed, began to leak news about a secret cabal of government officials and other powerful individuals who were involved in Satanism, cannibalism, and even worldwide child sex trafficking. Q also began to predict specific events such as arrests and a “storm,” or mass cleanup of corruption, most of which never came to pass.
Visceral reaction. Much of the alt-right is motivated and dominated by visceral reaction, relying less on thoughtful argument and more on screeds and memes. In moments of true emergency, visceral reactions may be useful, but as a way of life they are dangerous. Most people cannot think while they are reacting. Consequently, they are easily manipulated and driven by unscrupulous demagogues. Reactionaries cannot sustain the kind of decades-long momentum necessary to achieve a consensus and build a constructive movement. Reactionary movements are almost always destructive.
Exclusivist nationalism. Patriotism (the love of one’s country) is a good thing. Even nationalism (seeking the interests of one’s country) is not necessarily bad. There is a kind of exclusivist nationalism, however, that is dominated by xenophobia and is callous about the damage that self-seeking interest can do to others. This sort of national exclusivism is incompatible both with Christian charity and with the interconnectedness between the United States and many other nations.
Ethnic separatism. The alt-right is very white. It looks at other ethnicities with condescension, suspicion, and contempt. Much of the alt-right is openly hostile toward people of color. It is hard to say where the alt-right ends and where white supremacy movements begin. The alt-right is also laced with antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Its opposition to the state of Israel and its suspicion of Jewish ethnicity and culture run deep. These features cannot be reconciled with a biblical anthropology or Israelology. Neither can they be reconciled with the emphatic rejection of antisemitism by Buckley and other builders of conservatism.
Neopaganism. Connected with the antisemitism of the alt-right is a silly revival of paganism. In particular, the white supremacist side of the alt-right is seeking to reinstitute cartoon versions of the old Germanic religions, particularly devotion to Odin and Thor. These are sometimes combined inconsistently with Native American or other occult practices. The influence of paganism accounts for the haberdashery of the “buffalo man” Jake Angeli in the chamber of the United States Senate. Angeli considers himself to be a shaman—a pagan priest. This commitment to paganism is obviously incompatible with Christianity; this display of sheer looniness is at odds with any thoughtful conservatism.
Disorder. The first generation of modern conservatives emphasized that order must precede liberty. Disorder corrodes freedom, and anarchy dissolves it entirely. Conservatives have always recognized that “hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress” (Kirk, Conservative Mind, 9). For the alt-right, however, freedom comes first, even at the cost of complete social upheaval. One gets the impression that most figures on the alt-right are preparing for civil war. Some do so reluctantly, but others seem eager to precipitate Ragnarok. This willingness to promote disorder runs contrary both to conservatism and to biblical Christianity (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:1–4; 1 Pet 2:13–17).
Even if conservatives and the Republican party can separate themselves from the alt-right today, it will take years to repair the damage. The alt-right is poison, and the body that has swallowed it will be sick for a long time. At minimum, Christians of all sorts—including the most genuinely conservative Christians—should repudiate the alt-right and its ideologies.
Granted, the alt-right is concerned about much of what I am concerned about. The alt-right opposes much of what I oppose. But sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Physician of My Sin-Sick Soul
John Newton (1725–1807)
Physician of my sin-sick soul
To thee I bring my case;
My raging malady control,
And heal me by thy grace.
Pity the anguish I endure,
See how I mourn and pine;
For never can I hope a cure
From any hand but thine.
I would disclose my whole complaint,
But where shall I begin?
No words of mine can fully paint
That worst distemper, sin.
It lies not in a single part,
But thro’ my frame is spread
A burning fever in my heart,
A palsy in my head.
It makes me deaf, and dumb, and blind,
And impotent and lame,
And overclouds and fills my mind,
With folly, fear and shame.
A thousand evil thoughts intrude,
Tumultuous in my breast;
Which indispose me for my food,
And rob me of my rest.
Lord I am sick, regard my cry,
And set my spirit free;
Say, canst thou let a sinner die,
Who longs to live to thee?
Lord, Bless Kurt
Remember the scene from The Sound of Music when the recently-hired governess Maria is praying for her new charges? She does well to remember six of the children’s names but sadly forgets one of the boys, so she presumes on God’s knowledge and blurts, “Lord, bless ‘What’s-his-name.’” While the situation is rather humorous, I think it reveals the rather simplistic way we can often pray for each other.
Please permit me to suggest one scriptural path we can follow, one modeled by our Lord and His followers. Of course, we can find many biblical examples showing us how to pray for others, but I will spotlight one in particular: pray for their perseverance, for their obedience and continuance in the faith. Before I give scriptural proof for this kind of prayer, I want to answer some questions about perseverance.
For example, why would I pray that God help believers to persevere in the faith if He has already elected them to eternal life? After all, isn’t perseverance of the saints one of the doctrines of grace? Furthermore, we don’t see any examples in the Bible where people are praying that God would help the elect to “stay saved,” so why pray for their perseverance?
These questions come to mind and prompt us to understand the definitions of two important concepts. First, eternal security is the objective (biblical) guarantee of eternal salvation for all who believe in Jesus (John 10:28–29; Eph 1:13–14; 2 Cor 1:20–22). Second, perseverance is God’s promise to enable all true believers to continue in faith and good works until their earthly journey is complete. The Second London Baptist Confession (17.3) states: “And though [believers] may…fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein,…yet they shall renew their repentance and be preserved, through faith in Christ Jesus, to the end.” Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Paul said, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). Peter says that true believers rejoice and believe in Jesus so that they “obtain the outcome of [their] faith, the salvation of [their] souls” (1 Peter 1:9). Thus, God promises to help believers to persevere in the faith just like He promises to ensure that they will never lose their salvation.
But herein lies an important distinction between security and perseverance. While God guarantees that the elect will never miss heaven, He does not use the same kind of language when speaking about perseverance in good works. In fact, while God does enable believers to continue in obedient living to the end, He also commands believers to continue in the faith. In short, believers will persevere (see the texts in the previous paragraph), but they must persevere. Hear again from Jesus in John 15:10: “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” Hebrews 10:23 states, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” Peter encourages faithful living in 2 Peter 1:10: “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:1–2 Paul writes, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.”
Some theologians refer to this tension between the promises of perseverance and the calls to persevere as the indicatives (facts or realities) of our salvation and the imperatives (commands) of our salvation. Fact: God enables His children to live obediently to the end. Command: believers must hold on to Christ and obey His directives.
Now all of this forms the basis for how we should pray for each other. In His high priestly prayer (John 17:11) Jesus begs the Father, “Keep them [his disciples] in your name.” When Paul and Barnabas re-visit Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch at the end of the first missionary journey, they strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to “continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22). We are always safe to pray in this way for our fellow brothers and sisters. Jude (20–21) exhorted his readers to “pray in the Holy Spirit” and to “keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.”
Thus, we have ample reasons for praying wiser and more scriptural prayers than Maria, even when we can remember the names of those we pray for. Do we want God’s blessing (health, success, flourishing, etc.) to rest on these people we bring before our Lord? Certainly. But if I want to pray like Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, and Jude, then Lord, please keep my spiritual brothers and sisters in the faith and help each one to persevere in faith and good works until the day you return or call them home will also be the prayer on my lips.
This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Lord, For Thy Name’s Sake
Josiah Conder (1789–1855)
Lord, for Thy name’s sake! such the plea
With force triumphant fraught,
By which Thy saints prevail with Thee,
By Thine own Spirit taught.
Now, for Thy name’s sake, O our God,
Do not abhor our prayer;
But, while we bow beneath Thy rod,
Thy chasten’d people spare.
Oh, for Thy name’s sake, richly grant
The unction from above;
Fulfil Thy holy covenant,
And glorify Thy love.
In Memoriam: Jerry Tetreau
Early this week, Jerry Tetreau, longtime president and chancellor of International Baptist College in Chandler, Arizona, entered his eternal rest. I had the joy of serving under and with him at IBC for four years; my wife was there for five, most of which as Dr. Tetreau’s secretary. It is a joy for us to be able to devote this edition of In the Nick of Time to honor his life and ministry.
Although Dr. Tetreau’s family had been posting updates about his health and hospitalization on social media, neither my wife nor I really expected to hear Monday’s news. Not only did Dr. Tetreau’s condition seem to be improving, but it seemed impossible that a man who had led annual hikes down and back out of the Grand Canyon—in his 70s!—would ever slow down, much less be stopped. Dr. Tetreau defied any normal model of aging. I suppose that I expected him to be out-hiking college kids forever.
Everyone on campus called him Dr. T. He shaped us all by his words, but perhaps more so by his deeds. As is true of many of his generation, he was committed to the virtue of thrift and sought to inculcate that virtue into others. He abhorred the thought of ordering anything other than water to drink at restaurants. His shirt pocket often contained a list of the produce on sale at each of the area supermarkets, so that he might catch each store’s sale items every week.
His frugality was not to enrich himself. If you were invited to his home for a meal, he was going to use his full pantry to make sure that you could not possibly leave hungry. Alicia tells me that in his travels for the college, he often paid many of his own expenses. His thrift genuinely was a virtue. It was not pursued for his own profit, but as a tool to enable him to bless others.
In so many ways, Dr. Tetreau was a model of moral virtue. But he would be deeply upset, and rightly so, if that were the main thing that anyone remembered about him. It was impossible to spend any time with Dr. Tetreau without seeing his devotion to his God and the Word of his God.
He admonished us all, students and faculty alike, to meditate on the Word and I do not believe I have known anyone who did so like he did. Kevin DeYoung wrote that Psalm 119 is a love letter to the Bible and asks his readers whether they could, in full conscience, say that they loved the Word the way the psalmist writes. This is a penetrating question.
I believe that Jerry Tetreau could have recited Psalm 119 with undiluted honesty: “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! …Your testimonies are my heritage forever, for they are the joy of my heart” (vv. 103, 111). You knew that Dr. Tetreau found God’s words sweet, because he kept them in his mouth all the time. He loved to tell you about what he had just read in his devotions. A verse would strike him and he would continue to speak about it for months, turning it over and over in his mind and making it a theme of his conversation, teaching, and preaching.
I have no doubt that Dr. Tetreau loved all the Bible, but his heart was in the wisdom books. It is no wonder, then, that Dr. Tetreau became himself a fountain of wisdom. I had the privilege of traveling with him to an education convention one year. The highlight was not the convention, but the time to converse with Dr. Tetreau. The trip occurred the month before I proposed to Alicia, at a junction of my life in which I was facing several major decisions. To receive counsel at that time from a saint so thoroughly immersed in the wisdom of God is a privilege for which I will continually thank God.
It is difficult for me, even now looking back, to explain how Dr. Tetreau brought his influence to bear on the institutions he served for so long. Dr. Tetreau was not a natural leader, and I intend the word natural to be read in the Pauline sense. A natural leader sways people by force of overwhelming personality or charisma, by imposition of his will or subtle politicking. Dr. Tetreau did none of those things. He shaped International Baptist College for nearly three decades, but as a Spiritual rather than natural leader. His leadership was not domineering. He was never a bully, even in an era that often rewarded such tactics in church leaders.
That inexplicable leadership is a mark of the Spirit. I’m reminded of Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor 2:1-5).
The Word of God was always in Dr. Tetreau’s mouth. And he lived and led in such a way as to draw our gaze, not to him, but to his God, so that our faith would not rest in the wisdom of men. The author of Hebrews admonishes us, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11). Dr. Tetreau, a man of countless hikes, has reached the end of his earthly pilgrimage. He has labored faithfully, has entered the joy of his Master, and enjoys that rest.
This essay is by Michael P. Riley, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church of Wakefield, Michigan. Since 2011, he has served Central Seminary as managing editor of In the Nick of Time. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Psalm 119:89–97
The Psalter, 1912
Forever settled in the heavens,
Thy Word, O Lord, shall firmly stand;
Thy faithfulness shall never fail;
The earth abides at thy command.
Thy word and works unmoved remain,
Thine every purpose to fulfill;
All things are thine and thee obey,
And all as servants wait thy will.
I should have perished in my woe
Had not I loved thy law divine;
That law I never can forget;
O save me, Lord, for I am thine.
The wicked would destroy my soul,
But in thy truth is refuge sure;
Exceeding broad is thy command,
And in perfection shall endure.
The Progress of Temptation
[This essay was originally published on January 18, 2013.]
Christians often make mistakes in the way that they think about temptation. On the one hand, they sometimes see any temptation as an evil in itself, as if to be tempted were already to commit the sin. On the other hand, they can think that temptation is merely the initial inducement to sin (or to sin again), which terminates with the sinning. In reality, initial temptations are less insidious than some suppose, while the later stages of temptation are far more sinister than many realize. Temptation occurs in a series of stages, each of which involves a growing element of implicatedness in the sin toward which one is being tempted. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize the stages of temptation, explaining how each stage brings one more deeply under the domination of the object of temptation.
The first stage of temptation is inclination. At this stage, an individual encounters the object of temptation and is somehow attracted toward it. Neither the object nor the attraction necessarily involves sin in itself. A person simply experiences a desire that cannot rightly be fulfilled under the circumstances. This most rudimentary form of temptation can even be glimpsed in the first temptation of Jesus: He was hungry, and He was tempted to create bread. The desire for food was not wrong, but it could not be fulfilled legitimately under the circumstances. When temptation is dealt with at this stage, no sin is committed.
If inclination is not resisted and dismissed, however, it leads to consideration. In this stage, an individual becomes preoccupied with the object of temptation. It is held before the mind’s eye as an object of fascination or even of obsession. Rather than fleeing from the temptation, the person is now beginning to embrace it. This is the stage at which temptation begins to involve some element of sin, because our minds do not have to dwell upon the object of temptation. Indeed, rightly handled, temptation can become a signal to shift our thoughts to specific objects that are worthy of our consideration.
Unless it is interrupted, consideration will lead to permission. At some point, an individual decides that the object of temptation is worth embracing. The overt act has not yet occurred—indeed, it may never occur, for the individual may never encounter an occasion to follow through on the decision. Nevertheless, by ceding permission to the temptation, the individual is inwardly agreeing to commit the deed whenever it becomes possible. Often, some less obvious act may become a substitute for the full and obvious sin. As Jesus pointed out, character assassination is murder, lust is adultery, and loophole language is perjury. Once the decision is made, an individual is already implicated in the sin.
Naturally, permission is often followed by participation. This is the overt commission of the sin (or omission of the duty), no longer merely as a matter considered in the heart, but as a willful deed. Even for sins of attitude some transition takes place between consideration and participation. Some point exists at which an individual stops struggling against the forbidden attitude and indulges in it. Very often, participation represents a turning point in one’s relationship to the sin. Once one has indulged in deliberate commission, the will is weakened and repeated instances of the sin become easier. Additional indulgence in the sin is likely to follow.
As indulgence continues, temptation moves to the level of habituation. As John Donne noted, inconstancy begets a constant habit. Each indulgence in the sin weakens the will, leading to further indulgence. Eventually, the sin becomes a regular part of life. As the sinner grows accustomed to the sin, it begins to seem normal. It becomes part of the sinner’s environment. It becomes so transparent that it operates as a lens through which the sinner interprets reality. At this point, the individual is not merely a sinner, but a slave. The sin holds the sinner under bondage and begins to color everything.
The last and worst stage occurs when temptation turns into identification. The sin becomes so much a part of life that it begins to shape the sinner’s identity. Sinners reach a point at which they begin to understand their selfhood in terms of their relationship to the object of temptation. It becomes part of them. They can no longer imagine living without the sin. If they lost it, they would no longer know who they were. The sin does not merely characterize their outer conduct, but even their inner frame of reference. At this point, trying to divest one’s self of the sin feels very much like trying to kill one’s self, for the sin has become part of one’s identity.
One other stage may occur, though it occupies no particular place in the order of temptation. It is the step of legitimation. A person who legitimates a sin no longer sees it as a sin, but has found a way to justify it. This stage does not always occur. Many sinners know and acknowledge that they are sinning, even when they have progressed through the stage of identification. Still, some do attempt to vindicate themselves by finding a way to redefine the sin so that it is no longer sinful (at least in their own thinking).
Every temptation must be dealt with at the earliest possible stage. To wait for later stages is to multiply exponentially the difficulty of resisting the sin. It is also to involve one’s self increasingly with the sin itself. The first stage—inclination—brings with it no necessary guilt, but each of the succeeding stages involves growing participation in the sin. At no level is a sinner beyond the ability of God’s grace to deliver, but to presume upon deliverance at some later stage is to put God to the test in the way that Jesus refused to do. Consequently, every Christian must seek God’s grace early and employ those means that God has ordained for securing sanctification in the face of temptation.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Father, in Thy Mysterious Presence
Samuel Johnson (1822-1882)
Father, in Thy mysterious presence kneeling,
Fain would our souls feel all Thy kindling love;
For we are weak, and need some deep revealing
Of Trust and Strength and Calmness from above.
Lord, we have wandered forth through doubt and sorrow,
And Thou hast made each step an onward one;
And we will ever trust each unknown morrow,—
Thou wilt sustain us till its work is done.
In the heart’s depths a peace serene and holy
Abides, and when pain seems to have her will,
Or we despair,—O, may that peace rise slowly,
Stronger than agony, and we be still!
Now, Father, now, in Thy dear presence kneeling,
Our spirits yearn to feel Thy kindling love;
Now make us strong, we need Thy deep revealing
Of Trust and Strength and Calmness from above.
I Love Christmas. And I Hate Christmas.
If the ghost of Christmas past is composed of the memories of our earlier Christmases, then I am haunted by a splendid one. When I think of Christmas celebrations during my childhood, every memory shines like a Christmas candle. I remember decorating the tree in our big, country home: stringing lights and tinsel, hanging bulbs, crowning the tip of the tree with a star, and then covering everything with a layer of lead-foil icicles. I remember my grandmother’s Christmas tree, always flocked, with blinking lights and colorful strings of beads. I remember strolling downtown from my other grandmother’s home, gazing at the giant candy canes that graced the lamp-poles as we walked toward the illuminated snowmen and reindeer in the municipal display. I remember being allowed to raid the Christmas stockings as soon as I got up on Christmas morning—always earlier than Mom and Dad—and I remember the excitement of ripping bright paper from eagerly-awaited presents. None of my Christmas memories is bad.
Nevertheless, I recall that my father was ambivalent about Christmas. He enjoyed the holiday at home, and as a new believer he delighted in reading the Christmas story from Luke 2 before we opened presents. All the same, he worked in the transportation industry, and for him Christmas brought unique stresses. The crowds were larger than usual. People were in a bigger hurry. No one seemed to bear much goodwill toward those whose labors were necessary to make their day special.
When I was in college, I spent a Christmas working in the toy department at Montgomery Ward. It was a good experience in one way: I made more money than I had ever made during a comparable period in my life. On the other hand, it was hard work. Sometimes I would spend ten hours at a stretch just standing behind a cash register ringing up people’s purchases. About every fifth person took time to berate me: we were too slow, the prices were too high, we didn’t have the toy they wanted, or the store’s music was too annoying (I actually agreed with that). I began to wonder whether after all there wasn’t special meaning to the phrase, “Bah! Humbug!”
Through all my youth I never quite appreciated the wonder of the incarnation. Of course I knew about and believed in the virgin birth of Christ. I understood that it was a miracle. What I did not grasp was just what the miracle accomplished or why it was important.
That perspective (or lack thereof) began to change with Myron Houghton’s seminary course in Christology. I’m sure I’d been exposed to some of the same teaching earlier, but Myron exegeted text after text as he took his class through a guided tour of biblical Christology. Under his mentorship I began to grasp the doctrinal and practical connections, both within Christology itself and for other doctrinal fields. Ancient heresies like Cerinthianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, and Nestorianism ceased to be mere labels and now loomed as monstrous denials of the gospel. The great symbols of the Church—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the formula of Chalcedon—stood out as heroic attempts to defend the truth about the person of Christ and the way of salvation.
Through Myron’s instruction I learned to love the truth of the incarnation as never before. The more I thought about the subject, the more impenetrable the mystery seemed. How can one person be both divine and human? What does it mean to add a complete human nature to a divine person? How complete does the human nature have to be? How do the properties of the deity and the humanity communicate to the person, and how (if at all) do they communicate to each other? How is it possible to affirm opposite truths of the person according to the individual natures? The questions were so many, and so profound, that I began to understand why we Christians decided to set aside a season every year simply to ponder them.
In the long run, I ceased to think of Christmas as a single season (for it is a season and not just a day). I began to see three distinguishable Christmases. I respond to each of these three Christmases differently.
One is the Commercial Christmas. This is the Christmas of jammed aisles, crowded planes, cash registers, and the resentful giving of unwanted gifts. This Christmas rouses irritation in all who observe it and creates stress for those who serve it. The Commercial Christmas begins as a celebration of the lust of the eyes and often ends in the idolatry of covetousness. While I cannot entirely escape this Christmas, my attitude toward it is, “Bah! Humbug!”
Next is the Cultural Christmas. The Cultural Christmas overlaps with the Commercial Christmas, but it is not identical to it. It is the Christmas of red berries and green ivy, of bright lights and glistening tinsel, of Tannenbäume and wreaths, of elves and reindeer, of mirth and good will. Honestly, I love the cultural Christmas. I love to gawk at brightly decorated homes. I love a good eggnog (spiked with just a splash of Vernors, not with alcohol). I love the lighting of the tree, the jingling of the bells, and the faces of children as they open their gifts. For me, the Cultural Christmas is a holly-jolly good time.
Fun as it is, though, the Cultural Christmas has little to do with the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. For that reason, I see less and less place for it in church. A Christmas tree in the living room is a grand thing, but in the church’s corporate worship space it becomes a distraction (at best). So I keep the tinsel at home, for it has no part in the Christian Christmas.
The Christian Christmas is a contemplation and celebration of the incarnation of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is a time for joy but not jollity, for reverence but not rollicking, for wonder but not wassail. While it is a mighty celebration, the Christian Christmas is also a steadfast consideration of the majestic condescension of God the Son who, though He subsisted in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be selfishly grasped, but emptied Himself by receiving the form of a slave and by coming to be in the likeness of humans.
I would exclude the Cultural Christmas from our churches, not because I disapprove of it (far from it!), but because I love the Christian Christmas even more. The Christian Christmas can and should spill over into the Cultural Christmas (caroling, anyone?), but when the Cultural Christmas invades the church it runs dangerously close to idolatry. I can enjoy each, but I want to enjoy it in its place.
God rest ye merry.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Hail to the Lord’s Annointed
James Montgomery (1771–1854)
Hail to the Lord’s Anointed,
great David’s greater Son!
Hail, in the time appointed,
His reign on earth begun!
He comes to break oppression,
to set the captive free,
to take away transgression,
and rule in equity.
He comes with comfort speedy
to those who suffer wrong;
to help the poor and needy,
and bid the weak be strong;
to give them songs for sighing,
their darkness turn to light,
whose souls, condemned and dying,
are precious in His sight.
He shall come down like showers
upon the fruitful earth;
and love, joy, hope, like flowers,
spring in His path to birth;
before Him on the mountains
shall peace, the herald, go;
and righteousness, in fountains,
from hill to valley flow.
Arabia’s desert ranger
to Him shall bow the knee,
the Ethiopian stranger
His glory come to see;
with off’rings of devotion,
ships from the isles shall meet,
to pour the wealth of ocean
in tribute at His feet.
Kings shall fall down before Him,
and gold and incense bring,
all nations shall adore Him,
His praise all people sing;
for He shall have dominion
o’er river, sea, and shore,
far as the eagle’s pinion
or dove’s light wing can soar.
For Him shall pray’r unceasing,
and daily vows ascend;
His kingdom still increasing,
a kingdom without end;
the mountain dews shall nourish
a seed in weakness sown,
whose fruit shall spread and flourish,
and shake like Lebanon.
O’er every foe victorious,
He on His throne shall rest,
from age to age more glorious,
all-blessing and all-blessed;
the tide of time shall never
His covenant remove;
His name shall stand forever—
that name to us is Love.
Why the Virgin Birth? The Necessity of the Incarnation
God made humans to rule the earth (Gen 1:28–29). Conversely, He made the earth to be ruled by humans (Psalm 8:6–7). When humans flourish the earth will flourish, and because humans have sinned the earth suffers (Rom 8:19–22). Human rule has been partly thwarted by sin (Heb 2:8). God’s purpose, however, has been to restore humanity to its rightful station of dominion over the created order.
To restore humans, God first had to deal with the problem of sin. The fall into sin brought humanity under the penalty of death (Gen 2:17). The word death stands as a synecdoche for the whole of God’s judgment. It includes physical death, present obtuseness toward God (in which people are dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1), and judicial condemnation to a second, eternal death (glimpsed in Rev 20:11–15).
Because of human sin, the devil exercises a kind of dominion within the sphere of death (Heb 2:14). This dominion does not mean that the devil directly causes every human to die. Rather, it means that the presence of death in the human race (and in the created order) is directly traceable to the sin that Adam committed at the devil’s instigation. The devil’s lordship over death has made humans slaves to the fear of death. Only when they are freed from this slavery can they resume their rightful station as rulers of the earth.
Death is a just penalty for sin. Because God is just—indeed, because God is Justice—He cannot cancel a just condemnation. He cannot overlook sin, so He will by no means clear the guilty (Exod 34:7). Consequently, humans were enslaved to the fear of death and could only be freed if the penalty of death was paid first.
That is why Jesus came into the world: to save His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). He came as the lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). To speak of Him as the lamb of God is sacrificial language. In the Jewish sacrificial system, the lamb died in the place of the sinner who offered it. It is also language that evokes the imagery of Isaiah 53, where the Messiah is brought “as a lamb to the slaughter” (v 7) because “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (v 6). In other words, Jesus “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death . . . that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb 2:9). In this way He was able “through death . . . [to] destroy him that had the power of death, the devil” (Heb 2:14).
Jesus did not come into the world simply to communicate religious teaching or to set a moral example, but to redeem humanity from sin and death. He would work this redemption by bearing human guilt and offering himself as a sacrifice for sins. Only He could perform this task because only He was qualified.
What qualifications did He have to meet? The first was the qualification of personal sinlessness. All sinners must bear their own guilt; they cannot bear the burden of someone else’s sins. Jesus met this qualification as one who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners (Heb 7:26).
Second, Jesus had to be able to bear the guilt of many (Heb 9:28). The guilt of even one human sin is infinite because it is an attack upon an infinitely pure and perfect God. That is why hell lasts forever: the guilt of sin cannot be expunged by any passage of time. Yet each sinner is guilty of many sins, and those many sins are multiplied among many sinners. Such crushing guilt, such staggering, colossal, infinite blame, could be borne by no finite being. Not even a mighty angel could have paid the price of human sin. To bear an infinite guilt, the Lord Jesus had to be an infinite person. To become our savior, Jesus Christ first had to be our great God (Titus 2:13). The deity of Christ is essential to our salvation.
Third, to pay for human sins Jesus had to die a human death. That is why, for a little while, He was made lower than the angels: so that He could taste death (Heb 2:9). It was by dying that He was able to destroy the power of the devil and to liberate those who were enslaved by the fear of death (Heb 2:14–15). To die this death, however, He had to be fully human.
In sum, to save humans from the consequences of sin, Jesus had to be both divine and human. How could such a person be possible? To be human is to be a descendant of Adam. How could God—Adam’s maker—be born as one of Adam’s children?
This is the very question that occurred to Mary at the Annunciation. Gabriel announced to Mary that she would give birth to a son who would be called the Son of the Highest. Astonished, Mary asked, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34).
Mary’s question has two parts. One has to do with the facts of biology: no other woman has ever borne a child without male involvement. The other has to do with the nature of generation. Like gives birth to like. Cows bear cows. Sheep bear sheep. Humans bear humans. How could any human being give birth to the Son of the Highest?
Gabriel’s answer to both questions is the same: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Mary would bear a son, and He would be the Son of God, by virtue of a virgin conception and birth.
Without a human birth, Jesus would not have been truly human. Without a virgin birth, Jesus would not have been God. If He had failed to meet either of those qualifications, He could not have become the sacrifice who would redeem humans from the penalty of sin. All the redeemed of all ages owe their salvation to the virgin birth of Christ.
The virgin birth is not a tangential doctrine located on the periphery of the Christian faith. It is a theological nexus that holds many important doctrines together. Without a virgin birth there could have been no God-man. Without a God-man there could have been no sacrifice for human sin. Without a sacrifice there could have been no human salvation. Without human salvation God’s plan for creation would have failed. The virgin birth of Christ is one of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Hark the Glad Sound! The Savior Comes
Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)
Hark, the glad sound! The Savior comes,
the Savior promised long!
Let ev’ry heart prepare a throne,
and ev’ry voice a song.
He comes the pris’ners to release,
in Satan’s bondage held;
the gates of brass before Him burst,
the iron fetters yield.
He comes the broken heart to bind,
the bleeding soul to cure,
and with the treasures of His grace,
t’enrich the humbled poor.
Our glad Hosannas, Prince of Peace,
Thy welcome shall proclaim;
and heav’n’s eternal arches ring,
with Thy beloved Name.
Why the Virgin Birth?
Old-line liberals used to argue against the virgin birth of Christ. They saw it as an unreasonable and unscientific theory that was, on their view, completely dispensable. Whatever was special about Jesus they held to lie in His unique but quite human God-consciousness, not in His actual deity. These old liberals and modernists became quite dismissive and even derisive toward those who insisted that the virgin birth was essential to the Christian faith.
The liberal view, now rusting away after more than a century’s antiquity, was unfaithful to biblical revelation. Furthermore, it left gaping holes in the system of doctrine that the Bible teaches. To remove the virgin birth of Christ is to damage fatally the Bible’s message of God’s dealings with humanity.
One reason is because Jesus Christ claimed to be the rightful king of Israel, and the legitimacy of this claim rests upon matters of parentage. To rightly claim the throne and scepter of Israel, Jesus had to be able to trace His descent from certain individuals. Just as importantly, He had to be able to deny His descent from others.
Most obviously, only a descendent of David could occupy the throne of Israel. This qualification was not humanly imposed but rested upon God’s own promise (2 Sam 7:11-16; 1 Chr 17:11-14; 22:9-10; 28:5-7). In the Davidic Covenant God promised David that his biological descendants (seed) would be the rulers of Israel. He further promised David a perpetual throne, dynasty (house), and kingdom. This complex of promises would only be fulfilled when a descendant of David permanently established David’s dynasty by forever occupying the throne of the kingdom of Israel.
Part of the Davidic Covenant pertained to David’s son, Solomon. God promised not to reject Solomon but to establish his kingdom and throne. Interestingly, however, God did not promise perpetuity for Solomon’s descendants. The absence of this promise becomes important in view of later events.
We might ask why it matters. After all, how could Solomon have a perpetual kingdom and throne without having descendants who would rule it? The question seems trivial, but its importance is determined by the curse that God placed upon Solomon’s descendant, Coniah (Jehoiachin).
Coniah was the next-to-last king of Judah before the Babylonian Captivity. Grandson to the godly Josiah, he was a terribly evil king. Nevertheless, he was the king through whom the Solomonic line was to be perpetuated. God was so angered by Coniah’s wickedness that He sent Jeremiah to pronounce a curse upon him (Jer 22:24–30). Part of the curse was that none of Coniah’s descendants would ever occupy the throne of David.
This curse seemed to be terrible news for the Davidic Covenant. God had promised that a descendant of David would permanently occupy the throne of Israel. God had further specified that the throne and kingdom would belong to Solomon’s house. When Coniah brought himself under God’s curse, however, it became impossible for any of Solomon’s descendants to fulfill that promise. How could God ever keep His covenant with David?
This question is made even more interesting by the fact that Joseph, the husband of Mary, was a direct descendant of Solomon through Coniah (Matt 1:1–16). In other words, at the time Jesus was born, Joseph was the official representative of the royal house of David. He had the legal right to the throne—but he was also under the curse of Coniah. As the offspring of Coniah, neither he nor any of his descendants could ever actually rule the kingdom to which they had a right.
The virgin birth of Jesus introduces a new and important element into this problem. Joseph was the husband of Mary, to whom Jesus was born. Matthew 1:16 clearly states that Jesus was born only to Mary—the pronoun is feminine, disallowing Joseph as a biological parent of Jesus. Nevertheless, for all legal purposes Jesus was reckoned as the son of Joseph. Joseph is sometimes called the “adoptive father” of Jesus, but Jesus did not have to be adopted. By completing his marriage covenant with Mary, Joseph legally claimed Jesus as his own. As the eldest son, Jesus would inherit all the rights, honors, and privileges of the Solomonic line. Since he was not an actual biological descendant of Joseph, however, He did not come under the curse of Coniah. Jesus stood legally in Solomon’s dynasty and inherited the right to the throne and the kingdom, yet He was not barred from these privileges by the curse on Coniah.
So far so good—but did God not promise David that an actual, biological descendant would occupy the throne? Since He did, then how can Jesus fulfill the Davidic Covenant, even if He meets the provisions that pertain to Solomon? Joseph might give Him legal standing in the line of Solomon, but if Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, then Jesus cannot trace descent from David through Joseph.
The answer to this problem lies in Mary’s family tree. While Matthew traces Jesus’ legal genealogy through Joseph, Luke traces His biological ancestry through Mary (Luke 3:23–38). This genealogy discloses that Mary was also a descendant of King David, but not through Solomon. Mary’s ancestor was David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). While Nathan and his offspring were not the ruling line, they were nevertheless true children of David.
This means that Jesus can trace His family tree to David on both sides. Through Joseph His legal parentage includes David, Solomon, and Coniah. From them He receives the legal right to rule Israel. Through Mary His biological parentage includes David and Nathan, so Jesus is a true son of David. In other words, Jesus received both the legal and the biological right to the throne of Israel—but because of the virgin birth, He does not fall under the disqualification of Coniah’s curse.
God always keeps His word, and He never delivers less than He promises. Furthermore, He never offers a substitute fulfillment. Yet He may fulfill His promises in surprising ways. He may add elements in addition to the fulfillment that could not have been guessed from the original promise.
The curse on Coniah imposed an apparently impossible contradiction upon God. He had promised David that his descendant would occupy the throne. He had further promised that the right to the throne and the kingdom would be transmitted through Solomon’s house. How could God ever keep this promise in view of His curse on Coniah?
The answer is the virgin birth. Only the virgin birth allows Jesus to inherit from Joseph the legal right to rule and from Mary the biological qualification to rule. If Jesus were not legally the son of Joseph, He would have no claim to the throne. If Jesus were the biological son of Joseph, He would be disqualified from the throne. If Jesus were not a true son of David through Mary, He would lack true royal descent. The virgin birth is essential to Jesus’ right to govern Israel. Without the virgin birth, Jesus could not be the Christ, the Messiah who will bring in the promised kingdom.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
From Heav’n Above to Earth I Come
Martin Luther (1483–1546); tr. Catherine Winkworth (1827–1878)
From heav’n above to earth I come,
to bear good news to ev’ry home;
glad tidings of great joy I bring,
whereof I now will say and sing:
To you, this night, is born a Child
of Mary, chosen mother mild;
this tender Child of lowly birth,
shall be the joy of all the earth.
’Tis Christ our God, who far on high
had heard your sad and bitter cry;
Himself will your Salvation be,
Himself from sin will make you free.
Now let us all, with gladsome cheer,
follow the shepherds, and draw near
to see this wondrous Gift of God,
who hath His own dear Son bestowed.
Glory to God in highest heav’n,
who unto man His Son hath giv’n,
while angels sing, with pious mirth,
a glad New Year to all the earth.
Can We Be Thankful?
At the end of 1990 I left the church that I had pastored for six years and moved my family to Dallas so I could pursue doctoral studies. I had no source of income, no friends in Texas, and no family nearby. After a few weeks I found a job in a factory. Even though we lived quite frugally, my pay did not cover our expenses. As our savings dwindled I looked for every opportunity to pick up overtime or extra shifts, sometimes working sixty hours or more during the week. In moments of financial stress I was forced to sell prized possessions. I worked third shift and went to class in the mornings, so I was tired all the time. We had trouble finding a church with an expository pulpit; after almost a year of looking we settled for one that was weakly biblical. As we approached Thanksgiving Day of 1991 we were still largely on our own; we had no friends or family nearby with whom to share the day.
Our circumstances were difficult, but we had few or no distractions on Thanksgiving day. We did not even have a television. We just had each other. We spent time playing games with our children. We lacked funds for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, but Mrs. Bauder fried a chicken and it seemed like a feast. The central event of the day was taking time to enumerate what we were thankful for.
Mrs. Bauder and I were still growing in love (we still are), and happy to have each other. Our children were a delight to us. I had recently gained recognition at work, leading to a cash prize that helped to provide the Thanksgiving meal. Our extended families, while distant from us, were a source of encouragement. We had an adequate home to live in. My education was moving ahead; in fact, a significant obstacle had recently been eliminated. We were getting acquainted with our neighbors—Mexican immigrants on one side, African-Americans on the other, and Anglo senior citizens across the street—and found them all to be kind and generous people. We had begun to get used to Texas weather, habits, and speech. We had never missed a meal or failed to pay a bill on time. Our needs were met, and if we had nothing to spare, we also owed nothing to anyone.
Most of all, we knew and felt that everything in our lives, the good and the bad, had come from the hand of a loving, wise, and sovereign God. In many ways the past year had been the most difficult in our lives together. We recognized, however, that God was disposing of us according to His will, and that His dispositions would ultimately prove very good. We had always known this, but now the truth of it was like a keen breeze on a hot day. We had less (at least materially) than ever before, but we were more grateful for the little that we had.
That Thanksgiving became one of the high-water marks in our family’s story. It stands out in memory as the best and most meaningful that we have ever enjoyed. On every other Thanksgiving we have had more, yet neither before nor since have we felt so profoundly grateful as we did that day. I have often asked myself what made that Thanksgiving so remarkable.
One important answer is that our attention was more focused on our blessings. Why? For one thing, we had felt want, and felt it acutely. For us, passing through hardship and necessity highlighted by contrast the sufficiency of the blessings that we had received. Because we had received less, we appreciated the little that we were given more. It was enough! We understood at an experiential level that simply having enough was really a rich blessing from God. He was taking care of us.
Furthermore, that Thanksgiving was remarkably free from distractions. We didn’t plan to go anywhere because we couldn’t afford to. We couldn’t entertain anyone because no family or friends were nearby. Mrs. Bauder didn’t labor over a huge dinner because a simple fried chicken was a treat to us. Since we owned no television we watched no programming, and we did not miss it. We took time to pay attention to each other, to play with our children, and to enjoy the process of taking up and examining the blessings that God had provided. With fewer distractions we had more freedom to focus both on God’s gifts and on Him as the giver.
Gratitude is not a function of how much we have been given. It is a function of how much we pay attention not only to God’s gifts but especially to Him as One who gives graciously, kindly, and wisely. We do not become thankful because we receive, but because we acknowledge having received.
For many, 2020 has been a year of loss. We might easily become preoccupied with what we do not have. Instead, let us recognize that we have been subject to the dispositions of a generous, kind, loving, wise, and almighty God. While we may mourn our losses, we must also recognize the sufficiency of the blessings that we have received. These blessings flow from the hand of our heavenly Father. The sorrows are real enough, but so is the generosity and goodness of the One who, watching over us, neither slumbers nor sleeps. Let us at least take a day to free ourselves of distractions, to acknowledge what we have received, and to give thanks to God.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
O Lord of Heav’n and Earth and Sea
Christopher Wordsworth (1807–1885)
O Lord of heav’n and earth and sea,
to Thee all praise and glory be;
how shall we show our love to Thee,
who givest all?
The golden sunshine, vernal air,
sweet flow’rs and fruits Thy love declare,
when harvests ripen, Thou art there,
who givest all.
For peaceful homes and healthful days,
for all the blessings earth displays,
we owe Thee thankfulness and praise,
who givest all.
Thou didst not spare Thine only Son,
but gav’st Him for a world undone,
and freely with that blessed One,
Thou givest all.
Thou giv’st the Holy Spirit’s dow’r,
Spirit of life and love and pow’r,
and dost His sev’nfold graces show’r
upon us all.
For souls redeemed, for sins forgiv’n,
for means of grace and hopes of heav’n,
Father, what can to Thee be giv’n,
who givest all?
The Ministry of Central Seminary and Give to the Max Day
Higher education is becoming more difficult, even among secular schools. Among Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries the challenges are even greater. Ongoing anxiety over COVID-19 multiplies these difficulties, and Central Baptist Theological Seminary has had to face them like every other school.
Surprisingly, God has chosen this moment to expand Central Seminary’s ministry around the world. On the one hand, we still have local students who move to Minnesota to attend seminary. For example, last year John Marshall joined us. John has his undergraduate and master’s degrees in Classics from the Catholic University of America. He wanted to train for the pastorate, so he moved from Washington, D.C. to Minneapolis. This year he was joined by his father Brent who just retired from his position as a lawyer with the Justice Department. Now the entire Marshall family is living in Crystal. Brent’s wife Lyn volunteers in our library.
On the other hand, more and more of our students live far from the seminary. In one of my theology classes I don’t have a single student in Minneapolis, but I am teaching students on three continents. If you were to visit our campus, you would see fewer students, but in fact we have more. It’s just that more of them join us from remote locations.
Several years ago Central Seminary began a transition toward in-person distance education. Distance students from many locations join together with on-campus students from Minnesota. They meet in electronic classrooms where the discussion flows as freely as if everyone were sitting in the same room. Pastors in Zambia and the Pacific Islands connect with others in Brazil and Bolivia. Church leaders in Romania and Ukraine pray and learn with students in New York City, Kansas, and (of course) Minnesota.
Our move to distance education has rescued us from COVID-19. Because we were already committed to on-line learning, we could make a seamless transition when Minnesota’s governor clamped restrictions on the number of people who could meet in person. While other schools struggled to meet new challenges, we hardly noticed a difference. Our enrollment has remained steady and has even increased. The ministry of WCTS radio has also expanded with a new FM translator in Plymouth, Minnesota.
Our donors have also remained faithful, in spite of limited public opportunities to give. When we had to cancel our annual “Friends and Family” banquet, the seminary’s friends still responded generously. We are excited to see the ministry of Central Baptist Theological Seminary moving forward during difficult days. Together, we are reaching the world with the gospel.
One opportunity that we have not lost is the annual “Give to the Max” day. Central Seminary has participated in Give to the Max since it was started over ten years ago. The day was originated by GiveMN, an organization that coordinates giving for Minnesota non-profits. Over the years, some of Central Seminary’s most generous donors have taken a special interest in Give to the Max.
This year a donor has offered a $50,000 matching gift. In other words, this donor will match every dollar given (to either Central Seminary or WCTS radio) up to a total of $50,000. Every dollar that you give will turn into two dollars. Together we can turn $50,000 into $100,000. That’s what it takes to keep training church leaders in Europe, Africa, North and South America, and other places.
You can give today by visiting the seminary’s website at www.centralseminary.edu/give or www.wctsradio.com. You can call the seminary between 8AM and 3PM (Central time) at (763) 417-8250. You can mail a gift to Central Baptist Theological Seminary at 900 Forestview Lane North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441. All gifts given before November 19 will count toward the $50,000 matching donation.
College and university students often graduate with heavy debt—sometimes into six figures. If seminary students had to pay for the full price of their education, they too would owe more than they could pay. Debt would cripple their usefulness. They would not be free to give themselves to ministry for years. Because of donors like you, however, our students pay only a fraction of the cost of their education. When they graduate, they are free to throw themselves into the work to which God has called them.
Central Baptist Theological Seminary sends out In the Nick of Time free of charge. We don’t sell your name to advertisers. We don’t spam you with ads. Only once each year do we let you know about this unique opportunity to Give to the Max. Would you consider supporting Central Baptist Theological Seminary with your donation—a donation that will be doubled as soon as you give it—a donation that will help to prepare Christian leaders around the world? Would you please Give to the Max? I am going to.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Thou, Whose Almighty Word
John Marriott (1780–1825)
Thou, Whose Almighty word
Chaos and darkness heard,
And took their flight,
Hear us, we humbly pray;
And, where the Gospel day
Sheds not its glorious ray,
Let there be light!
Thou Who didst come to bring
On Thy redeeming wing
Healing and sight,
Health to the sick in mind,
Sight to the inly blind,
O now, to all mankind
Let there be light!
Spirit of truth and love,
Life-giving, holy Dove,
Speed forth Thy flight!
Move on the waters’ face,
Bearing the lamp of grace,
And, in earth’s darkest place,
Let there be light!
Holy and Blessèd Three,
Glorious Trinity,
Wisdom, Love, Might;
Boundless as ocean’s tide,
Rolling in fullest pride
Through the world, far and wide,
Let there be light!
Patience
As I write this essay, the 2020 presidential election is still undecided. After two days of counting, some states are still not certain which candidate won—and until those counts are complete, their votes in the electoral college are hanging in the balance. Neither candidate presently has enough to win the presidency.
The state of Minnesota has endured more than seven months of restrictions related to COVID-19. My church canceled its prayer meeting last evening because the virus was confirmed within the congregation. At work I wear a mask whenever I step out of my office. I’m also a chaplain in the Civil Air Patrol, where masks have become mandatory for all meetings and activities.
My daughter and son-in-law live in Toronto. The border has now been closed for months. My wife and I have not been able to visit them face-to-face all year, and that situation doesn’t look like it’s going to change any time soon. I’ve been told that Canada will allow Americans to visit immediate family, but only if they can guarantee a stay of fifteen days or more. That’s out of the question for us.
A beloved friend appears to be spinning out of control in his spiritual life. He is engaging in the very kind of destructive behavior against which he has warned others. I’ve tried to remain his friend because a friend loves at all times. Still, his choices are making our relationship increasingly difficult.
Churches that I care about are suffering. Some of them don’t know how to respond to COVID-related governmental mandates. Others have shrunk to the point that they can no longer support a pastor. Some have become divided and are threatening to split or close. Unlike Paul, I am not charged with the care of the churches, but I still care about these churches. It pains me to see them drifting, divided, or declining.
In none of the above am I unique.
Many others are presently facing these same kinds of pressures. Some are enduring much worse. Some have endured severe personal illness—or have watched their loved ones go through it. Some have suffered bereavements. Some are struggling in their callings. Some have faced betrayals and abandonments. Compared to what these people are enduring, my little afflictions pale to petty annoyances.
Nor are these pressures unique to our age. I’ve just finished reading Augustine’s City of God, written at a time of invasion when Christian women were asking whether it was better to commit suicide than to endure rape. I have never (yet) had to face grinding poverty, a totalitarian government, the depredations of war, or the humiliation of imprisonment. Compared to most people through most of the world’s history, my life has been one of unimaginable peace and prosperity.
Nevertheless, the stresses of the present are real. They are also widely shared. Perhaps you feel them yourself. If so, then the question for us is how we should face these perplexities.
May I suggest that the first answer is prayer? Perhaps this answer is too obvious to have to state, but God expects us to pray. God responds to prayer. Prayer was a regular feature of Jesus’ ministry. It was also prominent in the lives of the apostles, especially Paul. We should be bringing up our concerns in our regular prayer (proseuche). These concerns should also be spilling over into our desperation prayer (deēsis). We should pray for our situations and for ourselves. We should also pray for each other. I’m not too proud to say it: I wish you would pray for me.
The second answer is to revisit our duties. When stresses increase, they tend to distract us from the things that matter most. We need regularly to return to the question, “What are my duties?” If I wish to be a good Christian, a good husband, a good father, a good minister, and a good professor, then I become responsible for an entire list of obligations. I dare not allow myself to be drawn away from these matters by concerns that may be immediate but are really secondary—if I can do anything about them at all. I must make sure that the most important concerns get addressed.
The third answer is that we should take heart. In fact, we should be brimming over with hope. Our hope has sure foundations. It is grounded in the Providence of God, who works all things according to the counsel of His will and who causes all things to work together for good for us. Our hope is also grounded in the fact that God has given us permission to cast all our cares upon Him, for He cares for us. There is no point worrying and wasting emotional energy on matters that are completely beyond my control but that God has well in hand.
The fourth answer is that we need to encourage one another. Discouragement leads to despondency, and despondency to despair. To despair is to say that we are beyond God’s reach—and that is neither right nor true. We need to remind each other that God is still working in our lives. We need to assure each other that none of us stands alone. We need to bear one another’s burdens, and we also need to hold one another to account. Each of us should stop worrying about where we will find encouragement; on the contrary, each of us should commit himself to becoming a font of encouragement to others. Nothing is more encouraging than to be used to encourage someone else.
In sum, when we are faced with hardship, we must show patience. Endurance is the name of the game. James says that a farmer plants a field, but he must then wait for the crop. While he is waiting he may feel as if little useful is happening, but the crop is growing. Our job is to endure, i.e., to keep doing what we need to be doing, unto the coming of the Lord. His return is drawing nearer. It is approaching one day at a time, and we must persevere one day at a time. Whoever is elected president. Whether or not we can hold prayer meeting. Even if we must wear masks. Or miss family. Or watch friends disintegrate and ministries decline. Prayer. Duty. Hope. Courage. Patience. Today. Tomorrow. Until Jesus comes.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Hallelujah! Who Shall Part?
William Dickinson (?–1889)
Hallelujah! Who shall part
Christ’s own church from Christ’s own heart?
Sever from the Savior’s side
Souls for whom the Savior died?
Dash one precious jewel down
From Immanuel’s blood-bought crown?
Hallelujah! Shall the sword
Part us from our glorious Lord?
Trouble dark or dire disgrace
E’er the Spirit’s seal efface?
Famine, nakedness, or hate,
Bridge and Bridegroom separate?
Hallelujah! Life nor death,
Powers above nor powers beneath,
Monarch’s might, nor tyrant’s doom,
Things that are, nor things to come,
Men nor angels, e’er shall part
Christ’s own church from Christ’s own heart.
How to Vote 2020
The church’s place is not to address political questions. Rather, its work is to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Christian individuals, however, are responsible to act upon moral and spiritual concerns before they address merely temporal ones. Matters of principle should take precedence over matters of preference. Therefore, part of the church’s responsibility is to instruct the people of God in every moral principle that applies to their political decisions. In other words, while churches should not tell their members who to vote for, they should teach them how to vote.
Political contests raise many issues that are not directly moral. Christians can certainly weigh these issues, but non-moral concerns should never take priority over moral ones. For example, candidates’ religious beliefs and affiliation do not usually determine how well they will govern. Christians might better vote for an unbeliever with just policies than to vote for a fellow-saint whose policies are naïve or misguided.
Furthermore, governments have no moral duty to manage the economy, and when they try, the result is usually destructive. Governments have no moral duty to create jobs. Governments have no moral duty to increase the wealth of their nations. Governments have no moral duty to supply the financial or medical needs of their citizens. Governments do not even have a moral duty to educate children.
Citizens may wish that their governments would do some of these things. Since these are (at best!) matters of convenience, however, they must not be the primary issues that Christians consider when they are deciding which candidate to support. Rather, such issues must take a very distant second place to genuinely biblical and moral concerns. I here suggest seven biblical concerns that Christian people must weigh as they consider their voting choices, and an eighth that also comes into play.
Right to Life
From the time that government was established (probably Gen 9:6), its most important duty has been to protect the lives of the innocent. Civil authorities must use their power to defend those who are too weak to defend themselves. No one is more innocent than the unborn, who are clearly presented as human persons in Scripture (Psalm 51:5). No candidate is worth a vote who will not work to end the holocaust of abortion on demand.
Rule of Law
The clear teaching of the Bible is that law binds civil authorities. Any law that contradicts God’s law is, of course, unjust (Acts 5:29). More than that, rulers are bound by the law of the land that they rule (Ezra 5:13; 6:1-7; Acts 16:36-38). In the United States, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. But a Constitution that can mean whatever five justices want it to mean is exactly the same as no Constitution at all. Christians should support candidates who will read the Constitution for what it says, not for what they think it should say. Most of all, Christians should support candidates who will only appoint or confirm judges who will abide by the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Restraint of Evil
One of the most central functions of government is to restrain evil (Rom 13:3-4). Externally, this means that the government must both maintain a strong defense against national enemies and control the country’s borders against intrusion. Internally, it means that government must both maintain the peace through effective policing and enforce retributive justice against criminals through a just judiciary.
Respect for Property
The right to private property is protected by God Himself (Exod 20:15). Few rights are more critical than this one. Great wealth rightfully gained is not a wrong but a blessing. Governments act immorally when they disintegrate the accumulation of wealth, whether directly through confiscation or indirectly through “progressive” taxes on income, estates, and capital. Christians should support candidates who resist the pressure to make the government an expression of envy and an agent of economic redistribution.
Recovery of Moral Responsibility
God makes able-bodied people responsible for their own welfare (2 Thess 3:10). He has mandated that we should live by working. He expects mature people of every station to earn their living and to prepare for times when they cannot. For those who are overcome by circumstances beyond their control, God has ordained institutions such as family (including extended family) and church (a second family for believers) as agencies of support. Such institutions can provide help while holding individuals accountable. Casting government in the role of provider inevitably uncouples assistance from accountability and, consequently, is deeply immoral. It is especially dangerous when the government’s activity supercedes the role of the family and negates its responsibility.
Recognition of Israel
God has not canceled His blessing for those who bless Israel, nor His curse for those who do not (Gen 12:3). While the modern state of Israel is not equivalent to the biblical Israel, it is related. Christian respect for and friendship to Jewish people ought to include support for the existence, autonomy, and liberty of Israel.
Responsible Use of Nature
God has given humans dominion over nature and has authorized humanity to subdue the natural world (Gen 1:26-28). Pristine preservation of nature is the opposite of what God intends. We must use nature responsibly. While we do not wish to pollute or defile, we recognize that the earth has been created for human use. Contemporary “environmentalism” often thwarts this divine design, and it must not be advanced by governmental regulation or policy.
Reputation for Integrity
The Bible teaches that when the wicked rule, the people mourn (Prov 29:2). The personal character of political candidates is important for their ability to serve in office. A candidate whose word cannot be trusted is one who cannot govern well. Integrity is particularly important when it comes to a candidate’s sworn word. For example, a man who will violate his marriage oath is the kind of person who will violate his oath of office. Yet a candidate who has erred in the past may show a change of heart by consistent promise-keeping in the present.
In our present situation we may find no candidate who displays truly commendable character. In this circumstance some of God’s people may choose to vote for none of the candidates. If, however, one candidate has demonstrated commitment to biblical perspectives on other moral issues, then Christians can vote for that candidate’s policies without endorsing his character.
For the record, in the last election I took the first approach. We had two candidates with despicable character. I could not bring myself to vote for either the Wizard of Oz or the Wicked Witch of the West. This time around we again have two candidates with bad character. One of them, however, has actually kept good promises and made good changes. I don’t believe that voting for that candidate betrays any Christian principle.
Christian people must resist being driven by material concerns. Their primary interests are not economic. Their duty is to seek first the kingdom of God, so biblical principles should take priority over personal preferences at the polls, just as they should in every area of life.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
O Gladsome Light
Anonymous (c. 200); tr. Robert Bridges (1844–1930)
O gladsome Light, O Grace
of God the Father’s face,
th’eternal splendor wearing;
celestial, holy, blest,
our Savior Jesus Christ,
joyful in Thine appearing!
Now, as day fadeth quite,
we see the evening light,
our wonted hymn outpouring;
Father of might unknown,
Thee, His incarnate Son,
and Holy Ghost adoring.
To Thee of right belongs
all praise of holy songs,
O Son of God, Life-giver;
Thee, therefore, O Most High,
the world does glorify
and shall exalt forever.
Death and Funerals
To everything there is a season . . . a time to die (Eccl 3:1–2).
It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better (Eccl 7:2–3).
The past several months has been a season of bereavement. My father’s younger brother was the first to die. The next was my mother’s oldest brother, an uncle who invested a great deal in me when I was a child and young man. Then two mentors and friends died within weeks of each other. Two weeks ago, my father’s youngest sister passed away; she was one of my favorite aunts.
Both mentors were radiant believers. My father’s brother and sister both professed faith. My mother’s brother resisted the gospel all his life, but my aunt reports that he called upon God to save him before he died. I have at least some hope of meeting all these people again.
Nevertheless, the sorrow and the sense of loss have been real. These feelings have been intensified by the fact that I was not present for three of the funerals, which were restricted by COVID-19. Previously, I had not much considered how important the funeral or memorial service is as a way of providing closure for those who remain. Subsequently, I’ve been thinking about death and funerals. Funerals serve two great purposes: first, to comfort the living, and second, to offer spiritual guidance in a time of need. Three current trends tend to thwart the accomplishment of those purposes.
The first trend is to redefine the funeral as a “celebration of life.” No, funerals are not celebrations of life. Birthdays celebrate life. Graduations celebrate life. Weddings celebrate life. Baby showers celebrate life. No celebration, however, draws us to a funeral. We gather because death summons us. We must never forget that death is an interloper, an intruder, an enemy, and a divine judgment upon human sin. Christian funerals (i.e., those conducted by Christians) must display death in its proper context and then explain its character rightly.
Christian funerals must also provide the bereaved with an opportunity to mourn. Funerals are not a time for celebrating. They are a time for sorrowing (though not as others who have no hope). Even if we expect to meet the deceased in heaven, we know that we must endure the pain of separation, perhaps for many years. Funerals are a time for saying goodbye. The funeral is not for the dead, but for those who live and grieve.
The second harmful trend grows out of the first. It is the tendency to shift the focus toward memories of the deceased, whether happy or otherwise. Of course, funerals do constitute an acknowledgement of the departed, and certain expressions of personal interest are natural and appropriate. For example, a funeral should include an obituary or some other recollection, normally presented by the officiant. Believers’ funerals should always feature their testimony of conversion. These are ordinate ways of personalizing a funeral.
Incidentally, when I conduct funerals, I always ask to see the Bible that was used by the deceased. Surprisingly, even very secular people usually own a Bible and have often read it. Those owned by Christians are usually well thumbed and heavily marked. I look for verses that are marked or underlined, and I use these verses as a starting place to design a service that is more personalized to both deceased and family. If possible, I will preach from that copy of the Bible, and then place it in the hands of the family after the burial.
Personalized funerals are good. Obsession with the deceased is not. The funeral is a time for letting go, not a time for holding on. It is a time for turning the minds of the mourners away from the deceased and toward other things. An intensified focus on the deceased works against an effective funeral.
One of the destructive trends in recent funerals is the practice of featuring extended reminisces by family members. Even worse is opening the microphone to anybody who wants to share a memory. This practice is the funeral equivalent of karaoke: an opportunity for the self-obsessed to put themselves on display. Occasionally—rarely—these remarks end up honoring both the deceased and the occasion. More often they become exhibitions of maudlin sentimentality, or sometimes even of hostility as a family member vents a lifetime of anger against the departed. These eruptions must be discouraged at all costs.
The final trend, and the one that distresses me most, is the neglect of the gospel. The main point of a funeral should be hope, and hope is grounded in the gospel. Even gospel-believing churches and ministers, however, are offering less and less of the gospel in their funerals.
My aunt professed belief in the gospel, and her life gave evidence of conversion. I have some reason to suspect that the minister who conducted her funeral also knew and believed the gospel. Yet not one word of gospel was spoken. The entire focus was on memorializing her. Well, I loved her and honor her memory, but neglect of the gospel was no fitting tribute to the things she held dear.
The gospel can and should be preached, even at the funerals of the lost. When the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, he begged Abraham to send someone to warn his surviving brothers (Luke 16:27–28). The minister at the funeral is God’s messenger, and God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). The gospel message is a message of deliverance, of hope, and of ultimate triumph. It is the message that our great enemy, death, has been defeated. It is the very message that people need to hear when they tread the valley of the shadow of death. A minister who neglects the preaching of the gospel when people most need to hear it is shirking a fundamental duty of his calling.
By the way, when I arrived at my aunt’s funeral, I was told that it wasn’t really a funeral. I was told that Governor Gretchen’s mandate forbade gatherings for funerals. Since the governor was allowing protests, however, the family and funeral director had decided to hold a protest against the death of my aunt.
Well, death is worth protesting, but none of our protests can do anything about it. The one truly effective protest was registered on the cross. There the Prince of Life submitted Himself to the demands of death and, by dying, defeated that great enemy. He Himself bare our sins in His body on the tree, and by doing so He canceled our guilt and guaranteed the salvation of those who believe. We who trust Him have every confidence that our sins have been forgiven, that we enter His presence when we die, and that our resurrection is certain. That message must dominate every Christian funeral.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Our Journey Is a Thorny Maze
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Our journey is a thorny maze,
But we march upward still;
Forget the troubles of the way,
And reach at Zion’s hill.
See the kind angels at the gates,
Inviting us to come!
There Jesus the Forerunner waits,
To welcome travelers home!
There, on a green and flowery mount,
Our weary souls shall sit,
And with transporting joys recount
The labors of our feet.
No vain discourse shall fill our tongue,
Nor trifles vex our ear:
Infinite grace shall fill our song,
And God rejoice to hear.
Eternal glories to the King
That brought us safely through,
Our tongues shall never cease to sing,
And endless praise renew.
APPLICATION & AID