When Atheists Attack: Christmas, Morality, and the Public Square

Recently, two events have surfaced that indicate a growing hostility by atheist organizations towards any Christian presence in the public sphere. The first event involves the American Humanist Association and their new campaign of bus ads in Washington, D.C. The ad depicts a quizzical Santa Claus and asks, "Why believe in a god? Be good for goodness' sake."

The message of these bus ads are clear: belief in God is not necessary for one to live a moral life. Ironically, the atheists have borrowed the quasi-Christian, cultural myth of Santa Claus to reinforce their message. Just like the song says, the basis or foundation for morality is rooted in an abstract alleigance to "goodness."

Is belief in God necessary to live a moral life? Can one account for morality apart from a belief in the Christian worldview? These are actually two separate questions. Yes. It is possible for an unbeliever to live a moral life. We must recognize, however, that the unbeliever cannot account for his moral actions. In his worldview, his morality has no rational basis. He may well appeal to an abstract, standard of "goodness" as the atheists do in this campaign, yet the question remains: "Who's standard of goodness does he follow?"

The unbelieving atheist is full of contradictions. He lives in God's world and as God's creation. He borrows God's logic. He attempts to live by God's standard of goodness. Yet he cannot account for why moral absolutes even exist. If the world we live in is based on randomness, chance, and survival, why live a moral life? If God is removed from our thinking, then, as Dostoevsky said, "all things are permissible."

The second event that has emerged to gain attention from the mainstream media is the Freedom from Religion Foundation's (FRF) sign at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington next to a Nativity Scene. The sign is a shrine to naturalistic reason and calls belief in God a "myth" and "superstition." Dan Barker, the head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, clarifies on the purpose of the placing of the placard. CNN.com reports:

"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

Well, it sure is insightful to know that the Nativity scenes across this country are pricking atheists' consciences and reminding them of their rebellion before their Maker. One thing is clear about this recent atheist resurgence: they view the cross and Christ as an intruder. Rather than being the divine, eternal Son who left the glories of heaven and came to earth in the form of a man, the atheists see Christ as some cosmic invader robbing them of their "Christless" festivities. The antithesis between the believing and the unbelieving world is evident, my friends. And this may only be the beginning of their militant endeavors.

Clarity on Covenant Theology

In the sphere of Reformed Theology, there are two types of covenant theology, not necessarily two contradictory types, but two types nonetheless. The first type is dogmatic covenant theology, and the second type is biblical covenant theology, which does not imply that it is any more biblical than dogmatic. Rather, biblical covenant theology means that it seeks to understand the unity of biblical revelation in terms of the historic biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) revealed in Scripture, not in terms of the theological constructions that are developed from Scripture, though such constructions may be just as biblical. As one might imagine, problems arise when the terminology of one type of covenant theology are confused with the other. Moreover, there are a variety of positions held by Reformed theologians in both types of covenant theology but especially with regards to dogmatic covenant theology. Thus, there needs to be some clarification, especially for the Christian who is a newcomer to Reformed covenantal theology, of the distinctions, the debates, and the positions within the various forms of covenant theology. Such clarification begins with the proper terminology.

First of all, in dogmatic covenant theology, there are two major covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In addition to this, most Reformed theologians add a covenant of redemption. Although generally comments can and should be made about each covenant, it is important to recognize that these general definitions will not hold true for every Reformed theologian, who engages in dogmatic and systematic covenant theology. In order to understand what an individual Reformed theologian means by "covenant of works," "covenant of grace," or "covenant of redemption," the reader must seek to understand how the specific theologian uses those phrases. For example, some Reformed theologians, like Jonathan Edwards, prefer to collapse the covenant of grace into the covenant of redemption, while others, like Charles Hodge, prefer to distinguish between the two covenants as separate covenants with separate promises, conditions, and so on. So then, with that being said, the reader could begin with the following definitions:

Covenant of Works: This is a covenant made by the triune God with Adam. It was a promise of life to Adam and his descendants upon condition of perfect obedience. As such, it is also called a covenant of life. When distinctions are blurred between dogmatic covenant theology and biblical covenant theology, it is called the Adamic covenant or the covenant of creation (cf. Hosea 6:7). However, it is usually best to reserve such terms for biblical covenant theology, as they have a slightly different nuance in such contexts. For example, the discussion of merit is treated differently in dogmatic covenant theology than in biblical covenant theology. Biblical covenant theologians have the tendency to deny that Adam would have merited life for himself and his posterity if he obeyed, but dogmatic covenant theologians certainly have a place for merit in their conception of the covenant of works on account of Romans 5:12-21. Of course, biblical covenant theologians resist the tendency of dogmatic theologians to read Romans 5:12-21 back into Genesis 1-2. So then, again, clarity is achieved by seeking to understand what an individual theologian means by his terminology. Most importantly, the reader should always avoid the inclination to assume that a theologians means X by term or phrase Y, when he may in fact mean Z.

Covenant of Grace: Broadly speaking, and remaining parallel with the covenant of works, the covenant of grace is made by the Father with his Son Jesus Christ and his descendants. In this covenant, the triune God promises life to those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. More specifically, however, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the covenant of grace, which is a covenant between the triune God and his elect, and the covenant of redemption, which is an intertrinitarian covenant made between the Father and the Son (There is a debate about whether or not the Holy Spirit is included in the covenant of redemption. He is certainly included in the work of redemption, but Reformed theologians debate his inclusion in the covenant of redemption.).

The reason that this distinction is important is because in order for Christ to become our Second Adam, he had to fulfill the covenant of works. On account of our solidarity with Adam in the covenant of works, he sinned, and we die in him our covenant representative. The only way for us to be saved, then, is for God to (1) decide within himself to extend grace to those whom he chooses to save, and (2) send a new covenant representative who will fulfill the terms of the covenant of works for his people. So then, the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace must be maintained because our salvation was a covenant of works to Christ, our representative, while it remained a covenant of grace through Christ, our mediator. The Father covenanted with his Son to redeem his elect by sending his Son to fulfill the demands of the covenant of works so that he could offer to us the covenant of grace. In other words, the intertrinitarian covenant of redemption is the foundation of the covenant of grace.

Covenant of Redemption: Again, in terms of reading specific authors, the reader must seek to understand what the author intends. However, the covenant of redemption almost always refers to the eternal covenant made between the Father and the Son to save the elect from their sins. As such, it becomes the foundation of the covenant of grace, which is then administered in time under various dispensations, namely, law and gospel.

God is God-Centered

John Piper recently spoke at the Evangelical Theological Society, and his lecture was entitled, "Why God is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to Be Worshiped."

I highly recommend that you read his theses on the God-centeredness of God. The American evangelical church is simply wasting away on anthropocentrism. In other words, our main focus is man: his hopes and dreams, his felt needs. It is extremely rare to read books and to hear sermons that consistently exalt the triune God. Piper is an exception. He is a rare breed. Of course, his theology comes straight from Jonathan Edwards and goes way back to the Apostle Paul. Enjoy this God-centered, God-saturated read!

Consumerism Gone Homicidal

Consumerism (n.)- the belief that personal happiness is obtained through the purchase of material possessions. Homicidal (adj.)- capable of or conducive to murder. When does consumerism become homicidal you may ask? Well, by now I am sure that many of you have heard of the outlandish story coming out of Long Island, N.Y. where a worker was trampled to death by a stampeding mob ( read the full story.) During an annual rite known as Black Friday, a crowd of over 500 surged through the doors of a Walmart, scrambling for the holiday discounts. In the process, Jdimytai Damour was killed. But it gets worse. According to witnesses, the crowd continued to storm the building even as co-workers tried to rescue the man.

Friends, we are living in a culture where consumerism has become the common mantra. We are surrounded every day by media and technology which tells us that we are deficient or incomplete until we possess the next thing. Especially in this season, we are bombarded every day by advertisements that tell us we deserve to buy something for ourselves. The goal of each of these 30 second segments is to create some kind of need in us, the consumers, and then provide us with its solution. Or, to put it another way, the goal is to remind us we are in some kind of "consumer Hell" and we need this "savior product" to get us to "consumer Heaven."

We would be naive to assume that this phenomenon was happening only outside the church. Many times we view a strict dichotomy between the world and the church, as if what is occuring in the world will not inevitably effect the church. Thinking this way is dangerous. It causes us to constantly depict the deadly "isms" as something outside of us when really it is all around us. We, like Aristotle said, are as fish in water--we don't realize we are wet. The question is: how wet are we?

Let's just take one example: the corporate worship setting. Many of us see the corporate worship time as a place to go and be entertained. Like shopping for a new coat, we can't "put on" fellowship in a local church until we are convinced that it "feels good" and fits our "style." I have even heard someone tell me once that people "cannot believe until they belong." So we go to the worship time expecting to be pleased. Anything that does not aim first at entertaining must be discarded. Music can be entertaining (provided that it fits our preferred style, be it traditional or contemporary) but we must make certain to get professional vocalists for that to be the case. Sermons are anything but entertaining. They are old, doctrinaire and outdated. This means either we replace the sermon with something else altogether (i.e. as with dialouge in the emergent church) or we complement it with DVD clips, drama skits, and jokes. And by all means, we reduce the length. Everyone knows that the average American's attention span is twenty minutes (including commercials). We also eschew doctrines like repentance and hell because they do not have popular consumer feedback. Instead, we provide psychological pep talks which consumers love because we all need the ego coddled now and again. And finally, we provide two options for Sunday morning worship because, after all, consumers love choices! If all this fails, you can always go shop for another church. There are plenty around and most remember the cardinal rule: the consumer is always right!

Resisting the consumeristic frenzy of the culture, we as Christians must stand ready to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel will never be popular with the consumer. It is inherently offensive because it claims that Christ, not possessions, is the greatest reward. Rather than saying the consumer is always right, the gospel says the consumer is always wrong and desperately in need of the life-changing power of the sovereign grace of God. Let us be faithful in the task of the Great Commission. Soli deo gloria!

Ten Reasons the Altar Call Can Be Destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ

1. Sinners will equate "coming down the aisle" to "coming to Jesus" and may not really be experiencing any true conversion at all.
2. Most preachers who perform altar calls assume an inherent capacity in man to come to Christ, which is dangerous and not Biblical (see Romans 3:10ff).
3. Altar calls are often joined with a sinner's prayer. These prayers can be wrongly viewed as a magic formula that guarantees the salvation of the sinner, even when no true inward change has taken place.
4. There is no record of an altar call anywhere in Scripture.
5. The very term "altar call" is a misnomer because the front of the church is not an altar. There is only one altar upon which Jesus made the once-for-all sacrifice. Coming to him is not about coming to the front of the church but coming to him by faith.
6. Many altar calls rely upon emotionally manipulative techniques to boost results such as playing "Just as I Am" over and over.
7. Altar calls take the focus away from the merits of Christ and put the focus on the efforts of the sinner.
8. Altar calls wrongly assume that God sovereignly saves through an invitation rather than through the gospel (Rmns 1:17-18).
9. When true preaching takes place, those who are convicted will not need an invitation to come to Christ.
10. Altar calls put pressure on the pastor to produce results. This will mean that he might feel tempted to reduce every sermon to a four spiritual law, evangelistic message. Whenever this happens, the gospel has undoubtedly been watered down.

The Holiness of God- Part Two

Moral Purity

When we come to verses 4-5 of Isaiah's temple vision, we are presented with an earthquake and smoke. This signifies the might and power of the one who sits enthroned. Isaiah's response in verse 5 is the only response a sinful creature can give in the presence of a holy God. This is the secondary definition of holiness that I alluded to in part one. It has to do with moral purity. In view of his wickedness and God's purity, Isaiah pronounces the oracular woe from prophetic language upon himself! In the OT prophets, the "woe" was an anathema. It carried the meaning of divine curses. The woe is even employed by Jesus when, in his prophetic office, he curses Chorazin and Bethsaida (cf. Matt. 11:21). When Isaiah brings the divine woe upon himself, he is invoking the anathema of God because he is a "man of unclean lips (v. 5)." He recognizes that in the presence of a being who is absolutely pure he is completely "undone."

What application then does this temple vision have for our worship? FIRST, it should be noted that it is still necessary for those who are clothed in the righteousness of Christ to have the "holy tremors" in the presence of God. We are doubly unworthy of God both as finite, creatures and as wretched sinners. Our finiteness causes us to tremble at God's transcendence and our sinfulness causes us to quiver at his absolute, moral purity. The only way for us to stand in this kind of reverential awe is for us to be brought into the presence of the holy. And the only way for us to be brought in the presence of the holy is for us to return to serious, solemn expository preaching.

SECOND, consider that before Isaiah appreciated his justification, he had to recognize the horror of his condition. In verses 6 and 7, we have a beautiful display of justification as Isaiah's guilt is removed when the coal from the altar is placed on his lips. The wonder and awe of justification is not fully experienced, however, until the horror and terror of our undone state is recognized. We recognize our horror and God's holiness when we catch a glimpse of God's moral perfections as contained in the law. Though it has become unpopular in many evangelical churches, a proper exposition of the law will drive us to the cross. In many churches of the past, the law was a vital part of the corporate worship service as a means of directing the congregants to the great divide that exists between our holiness and God's.

FINALLY, the entirety of the passage is radically, God-centered. Isaiah is not the central figure in this passage but God is. Instead of extolling God, most modern preaching has become man-centered. It is concerned with addressing man's "felt-needs." In reality, man has one need and that is for God. I pray that we would recapture this God-saturated, Biblical vision of trembling before the Almighty. Soli deo gloria!

The Ignominy of the John 3:16 Conference

On November 6th and 7th, Jerry Vines hosted the "John 3:16 Conference" from First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia. The lineup was a veritable "who's who" of Southern Baptist speakers including: Johnny Hunt, Paige Patterson, Richard Land, David Allen, Steve Lemke, Ken Keathley, and Charles Stanley. Though a disclaimer was issued that the conference would not be a "Calvinist bashing" event, that is precisely what transpired. While I have had to rely on secondhand sources to learn what was said, it is quite apparent that no positive position was put forth at the conference. Most of the sessions denigrated to ad hominim attacks. Dr. David Allen accused James White of being a "Hyper-Calvinist" based on Phil Johnson's definition. Read Phil Johnson's response here . After all the material I have read, I have found no serious interaction with the Biblical text. Mostly the same old, strawmen arguments ("Calvinism kills evangelism", etc.) were employed but, alas, I guess such is the case when you define your conference by what you are against rather than what you are for.

Some of you may wonder why I did not consult firsthand resources. My response to that is that I would have loved to listen to the messages themselves if they had not had been fifty dollars to purchase! One blogger remarked that the fact that no Calvinist presence was represented (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders' Ministries were both turned down booths without justification) and that the materials were so costly stood in complete contrast to the free materials and welcoming format of such conferences like Together for the Gospel. Perhaps the John 3:16 conference should be more aptly titled, "Against the Gospel."

If you have the patience, you can read some live blogging from the conference at Tim Challies' site. For a critique of the conference, James White has provided several responses as well. Soli deo gloria!