Just another thought about Dr. Bob's endorsement of Romney.
I have said to some that I personally wouldn't be prepared to endorse Romney at this stage, but I don't live in South Carolina. As this blog at Real Clear Politics points out, the SC primary is less than 100 days away. This makes it important for SC residents to make up their minds concerning their primary vote.
Some criticise Dr. Bob for not supporting someone like Huckabee. While Huckabee is an attractive candidate ideologically, it seems highly unlikely that he is going to lead the ticket, although there is some talk of him as VEEP. If Dr. Bob endorsed Huckabee (or someone like him), the endorsement would have a negligible effect on the outcome. It would also contribute to another possible effect, which I think is part of the political calculus that is behind the endorsement.
The other effect is the danger of a Third Party or Independent candidate. While none of the front runners for the GOP are completely satisfactory to me or to many other Christians, I like each of them well enough that I can support them in the general election. But some Christians (influenced, perhaps, by James Dobson) are considering getting behind an independent or third-party candidate if Romney or Giuliani are the nominee, especially if it is Giuliani. A reasonably strong third-party candidate on the right would almost ensure another Clinton White House.
For someone perceived to be as right wing as Dr. Bob, his endorsement of Romney may not have a huge effect on the primary or the nomination, but it might mitigate the attractiveness of a third-party option for the Christian Right. A sort of, "if he can swallow Romney's negatives, I guess I don't need to split the vote on the right" mentality.
So the endorsement makes sense from a couple of standpoints: the proximity of the SC primary and the general dissatisfaction of Christians with the front-runners in the GOP.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
on yankee politics
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Dr. Bob Taylor of BJU regarding his endorsement of Mitt Romney yesterday. You can find a transcript of the interview here.
Some find Christian involvement in political debate unseemly, I do not [see discussion here]. One does have to be careful about when and how to be involved, however. As a pastor of a church, my mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to be a political activist. As such, I don't tend to express political views too much, although I think our people have an idea of where I stand.
Individuals like Dr. Jones and Dr. Taylor are not pastors and are in somewhat different roles. They have to make their own judgements regarding what they say and do politically. Personally, I am not at the point where I could support a Romney and I am not as averse to a Giulianni as they appear to be. It does seem to me that the GOP side of the race has no entirely satisfying candidate this time around, but there are several who have sufficient acceptability that I could support them if nominated.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Some find Christian involvement in political debate unseemly, I do not [see discussion here]. One does have to be careful about when and how to be involved, however. As a pastor of a church, my mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to be a political activist. As such, I don't tend to express political views too much, although I think our people have an idea of where I stand.
Individuals like Dr. Jones and Dr. Taylor are not pastors and are in somewhat different roles. They have to make their own judgements regarding what they say and do politically. Personally, I am not at the point where I could support a Romney and I am not as averse to a Giulianni as they appear to be. It does seem to me that the GOP side of the race has no entirely satisfying candidate this time around, but there are several who have sufficient acceptability that I could support them if nominated.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Church Matters: 9Marks Blog
Church Matters: 9Marks Blog: "Shepherding a church's culture"
I regularly read the 9Marks Blog, while disagreeing with the rampant Calvinism, I find a good deal of wisdom in posts addressing church function. The string of posts that begin with this one involve the subject of those people who show up in church with a strong "conviction" about how church should be practiced - one that is at variance in one way or another with the practice of the local church.
- For example, we are talking about someone showing up who insists that all Christian parents must homeschool their children, and looks down on those who do not.
- Or someone insists that their children will sit with them in every service, regardless of the graded Sunday School (or similar programs) that may be going on at the same time.
What to do with such?
Well, the various writers on the 9Marks blog offer some good suggestions.
The only thing that I would add is that the pastor must be jealous of the unity of the local church while allowing individuals to hold their own views on some issues. If folks join the church and exhibit an agenda, the agenda needs to be confronted and ended. If folks join in and quietly practice their convictions while allowing others liberty in these matters, then give them the right hand of fellowship and pray that the Lord might keep them from becoming a problem.
I do think that those who exhibit strong convictions in unclear areas are susceptible to pride and to the cultic influences of some teachers. [Bill Gothard, Vision Forum, et al notably come to mind.]
For convenience, here is a list of the posts at 9Marks so far:
The first one ...
the second one
the third, fourth, fifth, and last (to date)
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Monday, October 15, 2007
on the 10.14.07 sermons
Our morning message saw us take a significant leap forward in the exposition of Romans. In message number 4, we rushed into the second verse of the 1st chapter! It was a daring gambit, but seemed to be succesful!
Seriously, Lloyd-Jones outdoes me. He had five messages on the first verse, I only had three. If you have the opportunity, I would recommend reading his fifth message on "The Gospel of God". The message is worth the price of the book by itself. I was sorely tempted to make the same phrase my text this morning, but I determined to soldier on.
Our message today was entitled The Promised Gospel. The interesting thing about our verse is that Paul seems to pause before giving us the content of the gospel (the person and work of Christ, vv. 3-4ff.) to instead make a comment about the ancient character of the gospel. We might think the words about the promise coming through the prophets in holy writings is something of a throw-away, a 'by the way' type of statement. After all, the gospel is the central thing, and Christ and his work are the heart and soul of the gospel. But the reference to the prophets and the promise is a characteristic of apostolic preaching, especially Paul's preaching. He mentions it at least three times in Romans itself, in the second verse, in 3.21, and in the second last verse (16.26). His comment is no incidental comment. He is establishing a notion that the gospel is the heart and soul of the ancient plan of God, even, I think, pointing back to that earliest hint of a promise found in Gen 3.15. It is important to realize that God's promises are ancient, plentiful, and now fulfilled - note past tense of 'promised'. It is important to realize that the Lord used the prophets to propagate the promise of the gospel. It is important especially to realize that God 'put it in writing', moving his prophets to record things they didn't fully understand, carrying them along by the Spirit as a disabled ship is carried about by the wind. And it is important to realize that this good news is more than simply a word, but it is a real thing that can belong to us. "Gospel" is no academic exercise, it is the long-standing promise of God, fulfilled in Christ, and made available to any who would believe.
Our afternoon message continued the series on the Church with It's a Temple. Some of my ideas for this message came from a post by an on-line friend, Ryan Martin. My focus was different from his, as Ryan was talking about what the church does and I am focusing on what the church is. Nevertheless, his post stimulated my thinking in this regard. Our understanding of the temple metaphor for the church must be informed by the OT temple and its meaning. As I understand the passages (and the OT), I think the primary meaning of the temple is holiness, and this holiness is meant to be reflected in the NT metaphor of a local church as a temple of the living God, a place that must be kept holy by those living stones who inhabit it. [I do see this metaphor very directly referring to the local church, not the universal church. It is not that it is impossible to refer the metaphor to the universal, but that is not what the NT does.] Under this proposition: "You are the temple of God; you are called to holiness." I developed these points:
I. The holy temple is under God’s protection (1 Cor 3.16-17)
II. The holy temple is called to identify exclusively with God’s holiness and cleanse its premises (2 Cor 6.16)
III. The holy temple is the ground of holy living (Eph 2.19-22)
IV. The holy temple is intended to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt 2.5, 9-15)
~~~
All in all, it was a good day, although our crowd was definitely down after our big high last week on Thanksgiving Sunday. Still, the gospel was preached and we saw some young disciples show up who haven't been to church in a while. It was good to minister to them. Faithfulness and consistency take time to develop.
By the way, I thought of something in connection with the metaphor of the church as a temple in light of a discussion about mundane things like announcements and potlucks being part of worship services or not. The discussion occurred over at Chris Anderson's place, I hope I am not simply an agitator over there.
Here is the thought: the OT worship in the temple included many different kinds of sacrifices. I am impressed with the fact that one of the most common sacrifices was the peace offering, at which the worshipper sat at table before the Lord, in fellowship with him at a 'holy barbecue', if you will permit the expression. I suggest that our fellowship meals as a gathered church are as holy to the Lord as the songs, prayers, offerings, and preaching that occupy the bulk of our services. And I further submit that to announce the occasion of such acts of the lively stones in the worship services of the living God are no matter to be dismissed.
But yes, we can make our announcements and our fellowships an extremely trivial and earthly thing. Let us labour to not make it so.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Seriously, Lloyd-Jones outdoes me. He had five messages on the first verse, I only had three. If you have the opportunity, I would recommend reading his fifth message on "The Gospel of God". The message is worth the price of the book by itself. I was sorely tempted to make the same phrase my text this morning, but I determined to soldier on.
Our message today was entitled The Promised Gospel. The interesting thing about our verse is that Paul seems to pause before giving us the content of the gospel (the person and work of Christ, vv. 3-4ff.) to instead make a comment about the ancient character of the gospel. We might think the words about the promise coming through the prophets in holy writings is something of a throw-away, a 'by the way' type of statement. After all, the gospel is the central thing, and Christ and his work are the heart and soul of the gospel. But the reference to the prophets and the promise is a characteristic of apostolic preaching, especially Paul's preaching. He mentions it at least three times in Romans itself, in the second verse, in 3.21, and in the second last verse (16.26). His comment is no incidental comment. He is establishing a notion that the gospel is the heart and soul of the ancient plan of God, even, I think, pointing back to that earliest hint of a promise found in Gen 3.15. It is important to realize that God's promises are ancient, plentiful, and now fulfilled - note past tense of 'promised'. It is important to realize that the Lord used the prophets to propagate the promise of the gospel. It is important especially to realize that God 'put it in writing', moving his prophets to record things they didn't fully understand, carrying them along by the Spirit as a disabled ship is carried about by the wind. And it is important to realize that this good news is more than simply a word, but it is a real thing that can belong to us. "Gospel" is no academic exercise, it is the long-standing promise of God, fulfilled in Christ, and made available to any who would believe.
Our afternoon message continued the series on the Church with It's a Temple. Some of my ideas for this message came from a post by an on-line friend, Ryan Martin. My focus was different from his, as Ryan was talking about what the church does and I am focusing on what the church is. Nevertheless, his post stimulated my thinking in this regard. Our understanding of the temple metaphor for the church must be informed by the OT temple and its meaning. As I understand the passages (and the OT), I think the primary meaning of the temple is holiness, and this holiness is meant to be reflected in the NT metaphor of a local church as a temple of the living God, a place that must be kept holy by those living stones who inhabit it. [I do see this metaphor very directly referring to the local church, not the universal church. It is not that it is impossible to refer the metaphor to the universal, but that is not what the NT does.] Under this proposition: "You are the temple of God; you are called to holiness." I developed these points:
I. The holy temple is under God’s protection (1 Cor 3.16-17)
II. The holy temple is called to identify exclusively with God’s holiness and cleanse its premises (2 Cor 6.16)
III. The holy temple is the ground of holy living (Eph 2.19-22)
IV. The holy temple is intended to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt 2.5, 9-15)
~~~
All in all, it was a good day, although our crowd was definitely down after our big high last week on Thanksgiving Sunday. Still, the gospel was preached and we saw some young disciples show up who haven't been to church in a while. It was good to minister to them. Faithfulness and consistency take time to develop.
By the way, I thought of something in connection with the metaphor of the church as a temple in light of a discussion about mundane things like announcements and potlucks being part of worship services or not. The discussion occurred over at Chris Anderson's place, I hope I am not simply an agitator over there.
Here is the thought: the OT worship in the temple included many different kinds of sacrifices. I am impressed with the fact that one of the most common sacrifices was the peace offering, at which the worshipper sat at table before the Lord, in fellowship with him at a 'holy barbecue', if you will permit the expression. I suggest that our fellowship meals as a gathered church are as holy to the Lord as the songs, prayers, offerings, and preaching that occupy the bulk of our services. And I further submit that to announce the occasion of such acts of the lively stones in the worship services of the living God are no matter to be dismissed.
But yes, we can make our announcements and our fellowships an extremely trivial and earthly thing. Let us labour to not make it so.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
