While I have my own problems with some of the motivations behind the revived adoption movement in evangelicalism, this article from Mother Jones is very disturbing.
If the state can determine that teaching your worldview to an adopted child would be harmful, how soon before they determine teaching your worldview to your OWN children would be harmful? And then how soon before that worldview is considered simply a form of hate-speech?
I’ve posted a couple of comments over at Spiritual Sounding Board that touched on the question of pastoral competency, and thought that some of those thoughts deserved to be better organized and more completely fleshed out.
There are some theologians that are very gifted in their particular area. Dr Morton Smith is one of the most gifted and underrated systematicians in the United States. Dr Joel Beeke is an incredibly gifted instructor of homiletics. But then there are other theologians who seem to be good at everything. Dr D.A. Carson and Dr Gregory Beale are two men that are truly phenomenal crossbenchers. I’ve rarely read anything that either of them have written that wasn’t thought-provoking at a minimum. Even when he’s wrong, Carson will give you an intellectual workout. Continue reading
“Good education is not regeneration. Education may chain up men’s lusts but cannot change their hearts. A wolf is a ravenous beast, though it be in chains.” —Thomas Boston, Complete Works, 8:139.
You need to read the article found here if you want what is perhaps a glimpse of the near future.
“Above all things, O Lord, preserve thy Kirk from bondage to the Universities. Persuade them to rule peaceably, and order their schools in Chirst; but subject never the pulpit to their judgement.” —John Knox
I suppose I should begin by thanking Richard (a.k.a., Stephen Francis) over at In Unitatum Fidei for inspiring this post. While I was reading one of his excellent articles, the following statement (taken from the middle of a sentence) jumped out at me. Richard wrote,
…we profess our Faith with more detail than the ”sinner’s prayer” generally ever has.
which set my mind to thinking about my own relationship to the historic ecumenical creeds, and the Westminster Standards, which is the confession of faith for the Presbyterian church.
The statement above set my mind to pondering the way that Presbyterian and Reformed churches use our creeds and confessions in worship. One (somewhat) regular aspect of the church’s worship every Lord’s Day in most Presbyterian churches is the inclusion of one of the creeds or a portion of the Westminster Confession as part of the worship of God. When I transitioned to worshiping in a Presbyterian church, this practice stuck out to me as different, but just another one of the odd things that separated Presbyterians from the Baptist churches of my childhood.
This post (or one like it) has been lurking in the back of my mind, and as an incomplete draft, for well over a year. It’s only recently, as I’ve been reading some of David Murray’s posts on this subject (here, here, and here) that I have determined to write out some of my own thoughts on this subject. I should also point out that I do so with great trepidation, for fear that some of those on the biblical counseling/nouthetic counseling “team” will read this and immediately go on the attack, rather than patiently considering what I have to say.
For those who are interested in such things, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts published a very readable post regard the existence of “Q” that you can read here.
I freely admit that I don’t have a lot of use for much of the so-called “New Calvinism,” if only because there wasn’t anything wrong with the old Calvinism, and the “new Calvinists” don’t seem to have the same emphasis on holiness that their predecessors did. Here‘s a great article worth reading on just that subject.