Rhoda Rabbit Says Hello

 

You are what you Worship

I have been continuing my reading of G.K. Beale, ‘A Biblical Theology of the New Testament.‘ It is dense but extraordinary reading. My work schedule and other responsibilities do not allow me to devote as much time to it as I would like, but I am somewhere around the center point of the book. Beale is insightful and proves his breadth of knowledge of scripture.

Today I read his chapter on ‘Resembling the Image That is Revered–i.e.–idolatry. I’ve long maintained that idolatry is  destructive, because in part it takes away from the dignity not only of God, who alone is to be worshipped, but also man, who bears his image. An interesting phenomenon that Beale does a good job of hashing out is the fact that time and again, both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that you will reflect that which you worship. In other words, if you worship something other than God Almighty, you begin to resemble or image that more so than you do the living God.

Take for example, the incident of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32. As Moses is on Mount Sinai  fellowshipping with the Lord, Israel incredibly and quickly turns their back upon the Lord and Moses when Aaron calls upon the people to offer their gold and silver to make a golden calf, which they worship and attribute to having brought them out of Egypt. Beale notes that in this chapter Israel is depicted as a wild and rebellious cow needing to be regathered (pg. 367). Beale also says, ‘The likelihood is that this is a narrative taunt directed against Israel as rebellious cows out of control because they are worshiping a cow ( pg. 367). Israel’s actions cause both the Lord and Moses to burn with anger at how ‘stiff-necked’ the people are in their devotion. There is a In other words, they are stubborn or even obstinate, as the NASB translates the word ‘qasheh.’ Their rebellion against the way showed them to be as stiff-necked and rebellious as a lowly beast, that beast which they worshiped.

There are a number of implications that Moses wants the reader to grasp from this passage. First, we must consider the golden calf, as an inanimate lifeless object. Just as the golden calf can not move, God compares Israel’s obstinacy and unwillingness to follow the Lord in the same way. They will not follow and obey the Lord. Thus, as the golden calf can not move its neck, because it is lifeless, so too is Israel. This same concept is found time and again throughout the scriptures. The point of the text is not that Israel had become a heifer or cow, but that they more resembled an ornery calf than they did God Almighty.

Another more explicit example is Psalm 115. Speaking of the nations, the psalmist says:

4 Their idols are silver and gold,

The work of man’s hands.

5 They have mouths, but they cannot speak;

They have eyes, but they cannot see;

6 They have ears, but they cannot hear;

They have noses, but they cannot smell;

7 They have hands, but they cannot feel;

They have feet, but they cannot walk;

They cannot make a sound with their throat.

When those in rebellion against God live in their idolatrous ways, they are in the same condition as the things which they worship, lifeless.

Paul certainly had these points in mind in Romans 1:25. As man rebelled against the one true living God whom they know from nature, God has allowed them to give themselves over into their own depraved minds, which is their own idolatry in that they are substituting their own sinful lusts in place of God. Simply speaking this is no different from the incidents recounted in Exodus 32. Sinful man is what they worship, making them out to “29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,  30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;  32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.“ Romans 1:29-32

Apart from Christ, this was our identity. There was nothing good in us. Our throats were an open grave. Spiritually speaking we were in the same position as an idol, unable to utter the blessings and promises of God. We were spiritually dead and unable to follow after the true living God.  Our identity was arrogant, inventors of evil, etc. Take a look at 1Corinthians 6:9ff. Apart from Christ, our identity was a murder, an idolater, a fornicator, a blasphemer, etc. In essence, I maintain that all sin is idolatry, because we chose to make those things whether it is power, pleasure, possessions, or a golden calf our god.

Just as God had mercy upon the offending Israelites in Exodus 32, when Moses offered himself as a substitutionary atonement for the people’s sin, those of us in Christ have received eternal life through his atonement on the cross. For Christ offered himself upon the cross that our idolatry may be forgiven. Therefore, your name is no longer idolater or blasphemer, but it is son and daughter of the most high God. Our joy, therefore, is no longer to substitute the glory of God with created beings, but to more fully reflect his image as we are called to do.   11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 You have been created to reflect the God who have regenerated your heart of stone, which could not praise him. But you have received fleshly living, beating hearts which will cause you to perfectly worship the creator for eternity. Amen.

I would like to write one more post on this topic, discussing Beale’s treatment of how idolatry is reversed. Stay Tuned.

Dunkelweizen

My new hobby, making beer. Have you ever noticed how good quality beer is expensive. I’ve never been a big fan of the mass produced beer like Miller, Coors, etc. I suppose I’m a beer snob. I have always enjoyed craft beers. Living in the Pacific Northwest was a real treat since the region is bursting with hops which results in numerous microbreweries.

Are your kids, children of God?

Are you comfortable telling your very young children that they belong to God? Do you hesitate to regard your infants and toddlers as children of God? This is something that Kristen and I have been pondering for some time, even though we do not yet have any living children. I would be very comfortable telling our children that they belong to God. This does not in anyway take away their need for a profession of faith. I’m in no way insinuating baptismal regeneration. I’m simply illustrating the biblical model of children’s role inside the community of faith.

Many Christians refuse to acknowledge that their young children are in any way in covenant with the Lord. But is this the biblical model? The result is that many Christians treat their children like little pagans who have no relationship to God.  We send our children to evangelistic para-church ministries and to children’s junior church so that they might be converted. We pray for opportunities to pray the sinners prayer with them. Even some Calvinistic parents regard their children’s conversion in a very Arminian fashion. By saying that we should wait until a child’s profession of faith for baptism strikes me as very Arminian. What we are saying is that even though we believe in God’s unconditional election we should not bring the promises of God to the child until they accept it on their own (Romans 4:11). This is not at all the biblical model.

The scriptures repeatedly promise believers that he is ‘your God and the God of your children‘ (Genesis 32:9; Acts 7:32). Believers in every era of redemptive history are instructed to teach their children the promises and law of God (Deu. 6). These teachings are not only for those who profess faith, but is clearly for their children as well (Genesis 17:14; Romans 4:11; Colossians 2:11-12). Furthermore, Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:13-15 clearly shows that Jesus desires that little children be brought to him. This is not just an illustration of Jesus’ love for little children, but his words betray so much more. Jesus confessed that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children such as these. This was not a future statement in that it would belong to them when they became older and professed faith. It was a clear statement that covenantal promise for the family was indeed true then as it is now.

Those who are members of the covenant of grace are instructed to bring our children to the Savior, through baptism. This in no way negates the priority of our children’s own profession of faith. When we hear Jesus say that ‘the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,’ we hold our children before him and say, ‘Yes Lord I believe that promise, and I claim it for my child.’ (How our Children Come to Faith: Basics of the Christian Faith by Stephen Smallman).

Our children’s spiritual rearing is biblically found in the home and church. Children ought not to be taken out of worship as a nuisance or to learn how to worship in any other way than to be with their own parents. By taking our children out of corporate worship we rob our children and the church of many spiritual blessings. If we are going to take our children to Jesus, we must risk the inconvenience of crying and other distractions so that they might hear from God in the way that he has ordained, that being the means of grace. God is not present in the same way in junior church or CEF (Children’s Evangelism Fellowship) in the same way he promises to fellowship with us in the reading and preaching of the Word of God on the Lord’s Day. It may be uncomfortable and distracting to include our children in corporate worship, but this is the biblical model.

For those of my friends and family who embrace believers baptism, what do you believe the scriptures to teach regarding how are children are to be brought to Christ? How do you understand Jesus’ words in Matthew 19? Is it possible that the kingdom of heaven belong to your beloved little tikes?

PSU Board and Joe Paterno

Fox Sports posted this article about Joe Paterno and the ongoing horror of the Jerry Sandusky molestation and rape allegations at Penn State. I have kept somewhat quiet about this topic, at least on the internet. Honestly, it has been embarrassing. To see the image of a school you have loved and an athletic program you have watched for your whole life go down in smoke is disheartening and down right depressing. My heart goes out not so much for these things as much as for the victims of these assaults.

But honestly as a life long Penn State football fan, the boards continued attempts to beat Paterno, even after his death calls for a solid retort.  Rather than let a dead man lie they continue to place blame upon Paterno even after his death. Their continued vilification of Paterno is tantamount to high treason considering the ways in which Paterno positively influenced not only the university but countless others. They have shown that they learned very little from a man as great as Joe Paterno.

I already know that many of you may already be rushing to judgment against me in my defense of Joe Paterno. But let me set the record straight on my position. In no way do I support the actions of Jerry Sandusky or the inaction of those who witnessed Sandusky’s criminal behavior. Rape, especially against children, is a perverse sinful action, which is deserving of capital punishment.

But I maintain that Joe Paterno not only fulfilled his legal, but also his moral obligation. His confession that he wished that he had done more is not an admission of guilt. It is an honest desire to have had done more had he really known more details about the events and also the investigation. Paterno said as much in his interview with Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post.

On the one hand, it is not terribly surprising that Paterno is held to such a high standard of moral conduct. The man has epitomized moral character and virtue for the 46 years he served as head coach. Paterno is the coach that refused to tolerate mischievous and immature behavior from his players. Getting in trouble with the law or neglecting academics could cost one a spot on the roster, no matter their talent.

But on the other hand, Paterno’s continued vilification postmortem by the Penn State Board is reprehensible and betrays more of the university board’s lack of leadership than Paterno’s. In effect, the board is continuing their vain attempts to make us think that their image shines without a single spot of dross. I am gratified to know that the people of Pennsylvania and Penn State fans everywhere are now getting the real picture.

Joe Paterno’s image, in my estimation and opinion, still stands strong, because he was simply a man who only had so much knowledge and power. He had much influence, but in a university the size of Penn State (1 in 32 college grads in this country is from PSU), it would have been impossible for anyone person to know all the ins and outs of what was going on in University Park. It is silly to assume that Joe Paterno had endless knowledge pertaining to the investigation. Quite frankly, are we to have assumed that details of the investigation were reported to Paterno? What happened? Did the investigative body all congregate in Paterno’s office in Beaver Stadium to seek his approval for their work? Did Joe grade the evidence presented? Come on. Paterno was a football coach who only ever knew cursory details of any inaction by Jerry Sandusky. He admitted as much when he told Washington Post reporter, Sally Jenkins, that McQueary “didn’t want to get specific” about details in his 2002 allegation involving Sandusky, who he claimed was showering with a boy in the Penn State football facility.

Furthermore, Paterno even admitted that the relationship between him and Sandusky was merely professional. Paterno admitted that the age difference between the two as well as personality differences never made them intensely close. Paterno was more of a private person, while Sandusky (for whatever reason) was more outgoing and sociable. Considering these factors, it is not beyond belief that Paterno would not know details of Sandusky’s personal life.

Let’s put a little perspective on the matter. A young assistant coach came to Joe Paterno with a startling testimony which was devoid of numerous details. Paterno knew that McQueary was upset and that he had seen something inappropriate. What do you think Paterno might have asked?

I would think that Paterno might have asked, ‘What did you do about what you saw?’

McQueary’s response was, ‘Nothing, I walked out of the locker room.’

So now Paterno is made aware of a serious situation where the witness did nothing to assist the victim in a moment of distress. I would imagine then that Paterno might have agreed to do the right thing and report to the proper authorities that a serious crime may have been committed. But what else was Joe Paterno supposed to have done? Was he required to follow up on the investigation? Truthfully what Paterno reported may have appeared somewhat unbelievable, seeing as that the young assistant coach did nothing. A grown man did nothing to help the victimization of a child. That would warrant an investigation in and of itself. But Paterno reported what he was told, and never hindered in the investigation. He feared upsetting the investigation and not allowing it to take its own course.

What else was Joe Paterno required to have said, about a situation in which he knew so few details? Do you really believe that investigators shared intimate details of an investigation with him or anyone else for that matter? Regardless of what the naysayers may tell you, Joe Paterno did not run the university. He was not head of the police force nor even was he the college president. Sure, Paterno exerted influence, but why would we believe that Joe Paterno had a say in any and all matters pertaining the university. Paterno had no right to march into the police station and demand that a full report be made to him on this matter.

It would have been laughable for Paterno to have continued exerting his influence over a matter where he knew so little. If Joe Paterno is guilty of anything, it is that he did not know enough about protocol procedures and handling over a matter in which he was unable to deal with on his own, not because of incompetence or unwillingness to act, but because he simply lacked the knowledge of how to do so.

Here is Paterno’s confession:

“I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was,” he said. “So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

In other words folks, Joe Paterno left the matter to people who were more capable to handle a sensitive matter than himself. The fact that they failed to do so, does not in any way incriminate Joe Paterno.

Therefore, I have no choose but to conclude that the university boards attempts to lash out at Paterno even after death is more of an indication of the boards lack and failure of leadership than that of Paterno. It is even more convenient for the board to do so now that Paterno is gone and they have no more chances to receive his monetary donations.

Anyone who knows anything about good leadership knows that a good leader does not throw their people under the bus. In doing so, the university board has exhibited for all to see their own incompetence and unwillingness to acknowledge their own faults regarding this despicable crime. They have betrayed their own desires to make themselves look good at the cost of others. And therefore, they have no business being in any sort of leadership whatsoever. Obviously the leadership of a man like Joe Paterno has in effect meant nothing to them and they do not deserve to have worked with and among a man as great as Joe Paterno.

It is inappropriate to not listen to what Joe Paterno has said about the matter when he has told us the truth in the past. I realize that the need for a scapegoat is quite real in this situation. Someone rightly has to take responsibility not only for the actions performed, but also for the inaction that allowed a sick individual to wreak havoc on so many young men. Joe Paterno, however, is not that man.

Harold Camping Changes his Mind

About time.

Good Christian….What?????

ABC has a new ‘comedy’ show out by the name of Good Christian Bitches (GCB). It is based off a book by Kim Gatlin. I am not familiar with the book, but this supposed comedy is nothing short of despicable and is certainly not entertaining. ABC has sunk to a new low in their attempts to promote the secularist dogma of tolerating anything but Christianity. Christians, especially Christian women, ought to be severely offended by the way that ABC has mocked and demoralized them.

To be fair, ABC received a lot of flack about the name of this show, not only from Christian groups but also from women’s groups who took offense at calling women, bitches. Some people have alternatively referred to GCB as ‘Good Christian Belles’ a reference to its location in the south. But there is no way to get around the fact that this show improperly seeks to poke fun at Christian women by depicting them without any virtue whatsoever.

The main character and protagonist of the story is a widow by the name of Amanda Vaughn, who moves back to Texas after her businessman husband dies in a car accident with his mistress after he has stolen billions of dollars from investors. Her life is in shambles and moving to Texas is her last and only resort. She is not one of the good Christian Bitches (GCB) but instead is in numerous ways oppressed by her ‘Christian’ mother and high school friends. She is outwardly a ‘non-Christian’ and is presented as a hero for being as such. Is it ironic that the protagonist in this story is the non-Christian? Instead the antagonists are the ‘Christian’ women!

Amanda Vaughn is forced to deal with a mother who propogates her faith to her minor grandchildren while at the same time encouraging her granddaughter to dress risque by showing a lot of cleavage and instructing her minor grandson in the art of preparing alcoholic beverages. But it gets even worse.

The primary antagonist in the story is Carlene Cockburn. While in high school, she was previously a frequent target of Amanda’s bullying and teasing in high school due to her short height and ugly appearance, but after several plastic surgery procedures, is now extremely good looking and the new leader of the GCBs. While she claims to be a good Christian, she is judgmental of Amanda, refusing to accept her apology of past mistreatment and abuse. Instead of providing a witness to Amanda of God’s forgiveness, Carlene works to try to drive Amanda out of town. Carlene appears to have a pent up share of pride for her supposed good looks and wishes to use them for her own gain against a person who has in the past oppressed her. She is also a plastic surgery addict and, as Amanda reveals in church, the owner of a local Hooters-like bar.

I don’t know of a single Christian woman who would be proud to be described in these ways. Instead of promoting the virtues of a godly woman, this show has instead made out Christian women to be gossiping backstabbing mean spirited females, who promote lack of decency and revenge. I take offense at this as a Christian man, because my own wife is none of these things, but is instead a woman who seeks out numerous ways to love me and her family on a daily basis. She worships God and avoids self-centeredness but is compassionate and understanding of those in need. Plus she has helped me to become a better man. She has made me want to be a better man. Personally speaking, our lives may not be a nominee for a sitcom, but my wife is a woman of God who exhibits godliness so well.

The scriptures give a wonderful description of a godly woman.

Proverbs 31:30-31 30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. 31 Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Titus 2:3-5 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

There is no reason to be surprised at such disgusting conduct by ABC, yet it is still saddening to know that godly women are so intentionally being misrepresented by everything that they are not. To often they are under appreciated and it is disgusting that their virtues are so poorly represented.

Review of _The Escondido Theology_, General Considerations

Review of _The Escondido Theology_, General Considerations.

Answer Me This Question

Trip to Punxatawney, PA and State College, PA

My wife is a proud Scott

Kristen with Joepa