Cleaning out my garage this week has been nothing short of a walk down memory lane. Going through old files, reviewing old letters, articles and mementoes from the past drew me once again into a world of memories. In particular, I was reminded of many of my earliest experiences as a pastor. When I first left seminary, I found myself having to deal with several doctrinal controversies – the greatest of which was the Lordship debate (as many called it then). In fact, it was during my first few years of pastoral ministry where I first experienced the intense heat that is often generated over this subject. The book The Gospel According to Jesus, by pastor John MacArthur, had been out for a few years already and had the approximate effect of spraying a wasp’s nest with a water hose – it got a lot of people buzzing mad and ready to sting anyone seen with it in their hand. I came to discover this very hostility right away, especially since I was confronted by scores of people who felt that I was personally obligated to answer for every noun, verb and preposition found in this book by MacArthur. For many, my credibility was deeply suspect because of my association with The Master’s Seminary, and they had the published books of Zane Hodges and Joseph Dillow to prove it. Frankly, you’ve not really lived until you’ve had the experience of returning from a trip with your family, only to find that a group of zealots have successfully passed around a petition seeking your removal as a pastor simply because they’ve come to realize that you’re a part of that ancient “cult” that is Reformed theology.

This long battle was one that was governed too much by this matter of guilt by association (GBA), and orthodoxy by association (OBA). I found that behind all the sparks and smoke there was a more fundamental challenge concerning authority. You see, these controversies were not so much about the specific doctrines themselves, but were about this matter of heralding Christ and His Word above all else – above John MacArthur, Zane Hodges or any other individual that might be used in a battle of pastoral personalities. By this I mean that I came to realize that the real challenge would be to call people into a dialogue over Scripture – rather than into a dialogue over their scruples over some books written by men. In fact, it doesn’t really matter what the doctrinal controversy is – if you can’t resolve the principle of Solus Christus or Sola Scriptura then you won’t be able to resolve anything at all. As a pastor, I found that this was the chief end of my ministry – that in dealing with any controversy, it had to be my goal to call others to herald Christ above all other servants in the church, and with that to embrace the nobility of the Bereans by searching out the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith. I came to realize that the real question for any individual or any church is this: Who’s in charge here? If the answer to such a question isn’t Christ, who is the head of His church, then you have a most serious problem. Above all, if a pastor isn’t committed to communicating the absolute supremacy of Christ above all else (no matter what pressure there may be to do otherwise), then you have an exceptionally serious problem on your hands. I don’t care what controversy may ever raise its ugly head within the local church – if the principality of Christ and His word are not affirmed in the church, then all is lost. He is the Chief Shepherd. It is His church that was purchased with His own blood, and it is to be ruled by no other authority than His alone. Well those years have come and gone. The important lessons of those trials have deepened my love for Christ in so many ways and I frequently reflect on the Lord’s faithfulness through it all.

Now before the garage cleaning project was to be complete, I came across an item that comes from a more recent event – one that didn’t involve me personally, but in many ways it serves as an illustration of those same important lessons drawn from my earliest years in the ministry. I came across this standard letter which was sent out by the Bible Broadcasting Network (BBN), on behalf of Lowell Davey, explaining why it is that the Grace to You program had been taken off the air. BBN is very popular here in the South, and when they made this decision, many were bewildered by it. Here are the three reasons supplied in their mass letter:

1. Election/ Hyper-Calvinism- This has brought much confusion to our listeners. There is no human answer to the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man. Both are clearly Biblical teachings but beyond our human comprehension. For every verse dealing with “God chose” there is one that says, “Whosoever will may come”. To over emphasize either will cause confusion. As someone has written, “this doctrine God established outside of our world. It was designed before creation and we must leave it there”. The best illustration I know is you look at a door and over the door it is written, “Whosoever will may enter”. As you pass through the door and look back it is written above the door, “Predestinated from he foundation of the world”.

2. One Naturism–Man only has one nature. We believe the Bible teaches man has two natures. The Old Man or old nature and the New Man, Christ Jesus.

3. His strong associations and identification with Reformed Theology. This has many implications for us. We hold to the dispensational positions in “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

The second point hardly seems like a solid reason at all – except to say, this is probably a veiled reference to Davey’s opposition to the doctrine of perseverance, or what he might term as lordship salvation. Points one and three bring us to the dreaded subject of Reformed doctrine. Particularly in point one, I found myself having to eyeball it two or three times – again:

As someone has written, “this doctrine God established outside of our world. It was designed before creation and we must leave it there”. The best illustration I know is you look at a door and over the door it is written, “Whosoever will may enter”. As you pass through the door and look back it is written above the door, “Predestinated from [t]he foundation of the world”.

When I read this once again, I did a double take. I had to reconsider the implications of what he said; consider the following:

1. “Election/Hyper-Calvinism” – It is always amazing to me that many will automatically link the doctrine of election to Hyper-Calvinism. I am only amazed in view of the absence of common sense and graciousness that this represents, but I am not ignorant of what this is all about; it is attempting to establish a guilt by association relationship. Hypercalvinism is a very deadly spiritual disease, which smacks of an absence of Gospel proclamation. Before flinging such terms around, people ought to tread more carefully – the charge of hyper-calvinism is a serious charge which has nothing to do with historic Calvinism.

2. Davey says: “The best illustration I know is you look at a door and over the door it is written, ‘Whosoever will may enter.’ As you pass through the door and look back it is written above the door, ‘predestinated from the foundation of the world.’” I have heard this used before, and it is fine so far as it speaks of the progression of learning experienced by the newly born believer. He enters into the realm of salvation through the Gospel call; but then he learns further about how that event took place by the sovereign election and drawing of God in Christ. That isn’t problematic per se, however he also cited this…

3. “This doctrine God established outside of our world. it was designed before creation and we must leave it there.”

I could not, for the life of me, wrap my mind around this idea of taking the God-glorifying doctrine of sovereign election and putting it back where it presumably belongs. Why would anyone dare advocate such a thing? Did God fail somehow by revealing this great truth of His in His word, such that the only way to fix this supposed failure is to take what he gave us and to give it back? All of this makes Mr. Davey’s notion of passing through the “door” of salvation rather disingenuous. By applying his own gag order on election, his “door” motif is revised as follows:

“…you look at a door and over the door it is written, ‘Whosoever will may enter.’ As you pass through the door just keep walking and don’t ask any questions. Should any of you look back upon what is written above the door, be reminded that no one is to talk about it – if they do, we’ll quickly censure them.”

Of course, some will suppose that I am making these points out of personal loyalty to one person, or out of personal angst for another. Nothing could be further from the truth. By God’s grace I can assure you that my grievance is over this derogation of Holy Writ. You see, hiding ourselves from the doctrine of God’s sovereignty will not make it go away. Denying this doctrine does nothing to change it whatsoever. The church has been ravaged with Arminian doctrine for centuries, and while men may believe it to be a victory to exalt creaturely freedom over God’s sovereignty, such a belief is nothing but a sham. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is crucial for many reasons:

• It gives the believer great hope amidst the trials of life (Romans 8:28-39).
  
• It is a truth which magnifies God’s glory and removes all human boasting (Ephesians 2:1-10).
  
• It is a truth which undergirds our perseverance, peace and joy as the disciples of Christ (Phil. 2:12-13; 4:9, John 15:1-11)
  
• It is a truth which heralds the matchless power and wisdom of God above all else (John 6:37-45).
  
• It is this very doctrine which gives us confidence that in Heaven there will be no repeat of the fall (Gen. 3), for the Lord will sovereignly keep His people in glory, forever without end (None will be so “free” as to fall in sin – Rev. 21:1-7).

None of us are entitled to monkey around with God’s Word. There will always be doctrines that are difficult and challenging to our thinking; but instead of responding to doctrine by rejecting it, we must bow in humility and prayerfully labor all the more in our study and meditation. What we will never have is the authority to leave anything behind. If a man has a ministry at all, then he must herald Christ and His Word – no matter how loud the donors or members may be. After all, if we’re to have a Christian ministry then Christ alone must be in charge – period.

In my last post (This is an Emergency) I concluded by bringing up yet another problem concerning the Emergent Conversation. There, I referenced Pastor Phil Johnson’s important article entitled Why The Emerging Conservation is Going Nowhere, and then said the following:

“In that post, the discussion moved from a theology-centered discussion, to a debate that centered on just one man, which I don’t believe was the original intent of the post. All in all, such a transformation of dialogue serves as an illustration; It is this very dynamic of redirecting discussions of doctrine to debates about pastoral personalities that I will have in mind next time.”

The dialogue over at Teampyro was quite interesting. Pastor Johnson made one brief reference to Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle WA) and, well, the rest was history. Ultimately, Phil’s comment was, if anything, complementary – though cautious. But apparently, it wasn’t enough. Immediately, a number of Driscoll advocates came out of the woodworks rendering their defense. Now of course, I am not making light of the important matter of the fair and right representation of another person; that is certainly a very important thing. However, I find that the interesting dynamic of personal loyalty often gets in the way of important discussions about truth, so much so that people will fight tooth and nail in a personality battle. This is a weakness that we all have, and we need to guard ourselves against it when we are tempted to place people above the truth.

I should know, I’ve done this myself a number of times.

Take for example the time when I invited a guest to join me at a Master’s Seminary Chapel service. The speaker was a very popular person whom I admire and respect greatly (no – I won’t mention the name here). This man preached a sermon that raised a great deal of controversy. He said some things that had many seminary students buzzing with controversy for weeks afterwards. When I heard the sermon, along with my invited guest, I remember feeling a sense of reservation about what he had said – and yet, this man was a spiritual hero of mine. After chapel I had lunch with my guest who complained about some of the points made by the speaker. I, as a devoted fan of this preacher, proceeded to defend what he said even though I too had doubts and concerns in my own heart. I was later rebuked for my hypocrisy and realized that I had placed my love and devotion to one of my favorite theologians over the Word of God itself.

We all have to recognize that we have this inherent weakness within us. There is this great temptation for us to say, as did the Corinthians – “…‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Knowing this, we must be on guard concerning such man-centered tendencies by looking to men like Paul, who did not seek the favor of men (Gal. 1:10) but was willing to stand up to and lovingly confront Cephas when he stood condemned before the brethren (Gal. 2:11-21).

You see – Christ and His truth are more important than our heroes and buddies.

In today’s generation many suffer from this problem. They try to establish the legitimacy of a theological movement by means of defending its supporters. In fact, just after posting This is an Emergency, I received the following e-mail message where I was rebuked for questioning the theology of Brian Mclaren and especially N.T. Wright:

“…and then…you go on to take a cheap shot on n.t. wright. are you kidding me? there’s not a more admirable theologian on the planet. the man has been studying justification before you could even spell the word.”

Lovely. This is a fine test for sound doctrine – popularity and old age. This is a clear case of a person who has side-stepped a discussion over Scripture by rendering a defense of a man – who’s aged and popular. In the case of Mr. Driscoll, I have seen some rather interesting battles along a similar pretense of popularity. For some, the Emerging Conversation is utterly legitimized by this man’s association with it. For others, they will point to theological heroes of their own who are publicly endorsing Mr. Driscoll with the formula of: MD + PPP (popular pastoral-personality) = GOOD. It is almost as if people feel compelled to treat popular movements like a light switch – they’re either entirely ON or OFF based upon who’s supporting them.

THE ON SWITCH MODE: This is the view of OBA (orthodoxy by association). A person’s hero, whoever it may be, can legitimize a movement with even the slightest association to it – at least in the mind of those who rely entirely on a blind OBA form of thinking. As in the case of the Promise Keepers and ECT movements, there was a great deal of emphasis placed on whose names were on the rosters of these movements. PK & ECT were both given a great deal of public credibility by this faulty OBA reasoning, thus they were not to be critiqued or called into question in view of the perceived merit of their most popular supporters. Such highly visible pastors, along with their books, their popularity, and their personal endorsements by other PPP’s, made these movements immune to criticism (in the minds of the supporters of these movements) – no matter how careful or gracious the criticism may have been.

THE OFF SWITCH MODE: Others will swing the pendulum in the very opposite direction by accepting any miniscule defection in a movement as justification to believe that everything about the movement is to be rejected – as in, turned OFF. One glitch in the past; some minor weakness in their doctrine and all is lost forever – ichabod. Thus, any associate within a movement with the slightest defections renders that movement as being without any merit! (This is the GBA [guilt by association] approach and Teampyro has recently posted on this method of making a critical analysis of other theologians – I recommend it to you: Regarding Guilt by Association).

As to the OBA methodology, let’s face it – we live in a marketing culture which thrives on a reputation-by-endorsements mentality. And why not? Like good little consumers, many are drawn to products because of the high-profile personalities who endorse them. Consequently, the consumer approach also prevails in the church such that many treat doctrine and theological movements like a cheap soda – they’ll drink it if their hero does too. By this sad standard, theology is no longer a matter of what “saith the Lord” but who’s who in the world of pastoral personalities. Clearly, both light-switch approaches are unbiblical extremes and are therefore unhealthy.

The biblical middle, between these extremes, lies in the realm of both biblical discernment and a spirit of grace – that is, being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We have a great need to reject error, uncompromisingly, while passionately clinging to what is good. We need to measure movements and individual men with care and wisdom, while heralding Christ and His word above all; but along with thus, it must be remembered that those who serve in the ministry must be willing to have their doctrine and their conduct examined if they are to serve in the Lord’s church at all:

Galatians 1:8: But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

Both forms of evaluation are important – a man’s words and his actions must be considered carefully – even in the case of an Apostle – like the Apostle Paul above. But we must avoid the light switch-GBA/OBA extremes by resisting the temptation to treat others with a mindless polarity. I often wonder how such extreme approaches would have been applied to a man like Martin Luther, after his conversion but before his departure from the Catholic Church. The OBA crowd would have been tempted to affirm Catholic doctrine in view of Luther’s association with Rome – but this would have been disastrous. The GBA crowd would have prematurely written Luther off as a compromising heretic. Clearly, both extremes would be unprofitable. Time always tells, for we will ultimately know men, not only by their words, but by their fruit. Eventually, Luther departed from the apostate Roman Catholic Church. Ultimately, his love for the truth was evidenced by his willingness to stand against the opposition and even risk his life in doing so. You see, it is not enough to talk about sound doctrine, a man in the ministry must be willing to stand up and fight for it for the glory of our precious Savior – above all else.

P.S. I wouldn’t drink Sprite even if John Calvin would. As well, I apologize for associating the fair image of Mr. Calvin with the likes of a cheap beverage – here – this should be better:

That’s much better…

Over the course of the next few weeks, The Armoury will be in my rear view mirror and will therefore be somewhat barren – relative to my normal writing patterns. I have been trying to secure time in order to complete my editorial labors on The First Institution – a work that is long overdue now. Every now and then I might throw in a tumbleweed here and there, but for the most part – I’ll be using up every second that the Lord gives me in order to complete this work and submit it for distribution.

In His precious, sovereign grace.

In the meantime, I leave you with Lydia and Wally the Warthog.

We are often exposed to “scientific” articles, books and television programs that ignore and even mock the Bible’s clear teaching concerning the Creator. Because of this, Christians are sometimes intimidated, especially in a culture which insists that science is the sole propriety of secular humanism; but if the study of Physics, Biology and Astronomy should do anything to the Christian, it should increase our own sense of wonder and awe for the One who simply spoke the vast cosmos into existence by His powerful Word (Hebrews 11:3, Psalm 33:6). Instead of avoiding these subjects, Christians must understand that genuine science is the propriety of God, and is therefore to be enjoyed by His children, both for personal edification, as well as for outreach and evangelism to the lost. With this in mind, I will be introducing book reviews (from time to time) on various scientific works that can be used by brethren in order to increase their understanding of the sciences in an age of scholastic misinformation.

One such book is Astronomy and the Bible, Questions & Answers, by Dr. Donald B. DeYoung.

Dr. DeYoung is Chairman of the Department of Physical Science at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana. He holds a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Physics, as well as an M. Div. from Grace Seminary. DeYoung’s approach to the subject of Astronomy is clearly Biblical. Refreshingly, he deals with many of the sticky questions that normally surround modern cosmology, but with the priority of Biblical authority. Within the brief span of just 176 pages, DeYoung manages to raise and answer one hundred popular questions dealing with Cosmology and Physics. In particular, he addresses the most common questions dealing with:

• Geocentricity (Is the earth at the center of the universe?).
• The Anthropic Principle (a term which speaks of the uniqueness of earth’s habitable environment).
• What is the big bang?
• What is the age of the universe?
• Should man be in space?
• What is background radiation?
• What’s wrong with studying astrology?

This small sample of his one hundred questions provides a preview of DeYoung’s very helpful review of Cosmology and Physics. Many of the questions that he raises are designed to bust certain modern myths. Others are designed to clarify matters that are often misunderstood in the popular culture. I find that his simple answers are thorough enough, and yet simple enough, to equip believers for personal edification as well as for sharing the Gospel with others. You don’t need a Physics degree in order to read and understand this book! At the same time, this work will certainly challenge your thinking about many discussions that have fallen prey to secular humanism. I offer it to you with my highest recommendation.

(1) First of all, there is space itself. The average temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin, or -454° fahrenheit. A human body subjected to such an extreme temperature would freeze instantly. However, even if you could remove the problem of temperature itself, the vaccum of space, along with the absence of breathable air, would kill you anyway.

(2) The nearest star to planet earth (the Sun) is a raging beast. Left to itself, it would eventually become a red giant before it collapsed into a white dwarf. In such a red giant phase, it would expand to such an extent so as to engulf the orbits of Mercury, Venus and the Earth. But even before this could ever happen, it would have increased in its energy output enough to destroy all life on Earth anyway.

(3) Then there is the constant threat of incoming asteroids. What most people do not know is that there is a branch of modern cosmology that is growing rapidly and is focused on tracking asteroids that may pose a risk to Earth. NASA itself is increasing its budget for the NEO program (Near Earth Orbit Program) in order to track possible risks. What has sparked interest in this subject recently are the several near misses have have occurred in the last three years, including a number of asteroids that were completely undetected because they approached the Earth from our astronomical blind spot – the sun. In fact, one astroid came so close that it passed between some of our orbiting satellites and the earth itself (2004 YD5).

My review of this film:

Romans 1:22-23: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

In lieu of blogging this week, I managed to construct my schedule such that my son and I could step away for two days of some father & son time. All this came about because Sandra and our four girls hosted a fellowship and sleep-over for the young ladies in our church – a good time to get out of everyone’s way.

Micaiah and I had a wonderful time together. On the first night of our two day camping trip, Micaiah asked if he could share a devotion from his readings in Pilgrim’s Progress. With Bibles opened, we talked about Christian’s encounter with Adam and his three daughters – Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eyes, and the Pride of Life (1 John 2:15-17). We then discussed the believer’s perpetual battle with sin and our continual need for grace.

Our times in prayer and in the Word were the highlight for me. But along with this we managed to find time to play checkers, throw a baseball and yes – do some fishing. This final activity was a good lesson in God’s sovereign blessings. The first day that we fished, we brought back nothing. On the second day, we caught nine fish (we could have kept them all, but we threw back five). We gave thanks for His provision and then headed home to our Beasley ladies. So all in all, The Armoury was utterly Unblogged for the week – But it was a great trade-off!

“Read this modern version of a Reformation classic and see why Christianity Today calls it ‘a thin book perfect for rolling up and using to smack whiny Christian brats upside the head!’”

Their satirical advertisement was not only funny (at one level), but it was also rather sad. What was sad about it was that it is more true to life than it should be. I must confess that it is too easy to be a whiny brat in our affluent, American culture. As Christians, we must guard ourselves against the superficiality and shallowness that saturates our culture. We must guard against shallowness in our relationship with the Lord; shallowness in our doctrine; shallowness in our relationships with brethren and with the lost; and we must also guard against shallowness in the books that we read, the movies that we watch and songs that we sing and listen to. In this last area, I would suggest to you that the church has been steadily losing ground for many years. Especially when it comes to church hymnody, the church has been systematically substituting doctrinally sound songs which the modern mush that the masses love to hear. Even when it comes to theologically sound hymns, many today are redacting their contents, one verse at a time. Tim Challes recently posted on the interesting habit that some worship leaders have of failing to sing all of the verses in a hymn. This common practice in the church runs the risk of reducing, or even altering, the message of a hymn. But there is another problem with the modern church’s approach to ancient hymnody, and it has to do with how hymns are actually published. Many times hymns are published in an abbreviated form such that the worshipper is unaware that the hymn has already been truncated – even before the worship leader gets to it. Last Wednesday evening, during our Bible study and prayer meeting, I led our flock in that classic hymn, The Church’s One Foundation, by Samuel J. Stone. In part, I did this after thinking more about Sacred Sandwich’s satire on Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, American Edition:

(1) The Church’s one foundation Is Jesus Christ her Lord she is His new creation by water and the word; from heav’n He came and sought her To be His holy bride; with His own blood He bought her, and for her life He died.

(2) Elect from ev’ry nation, yet one o’er all the earth; Her charter of salvation: One Lord, one faith, one birth; One holy name she blesses, partakes one holy food, And to one hope she presses with ev’ry grace endued.

(3) ’Mid toil and tribulation and tumult of her war, she waits the consummation of peace forevermore; Till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest, And the great Church victorious shall be the Church at rest.

(4) Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One, And mystic Sweet communion with those whose rest is won; O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we, like them the meek and lowly, on high may dwell with Thee.

This is the most common version of this hymn in print today. I have a collection of over 50 hymnals from the past 100 years and I can attest that nearly all versions of this hymn (with very few exceptions) contain the above four verses; and I’m sure that everyone who is reading this is familiar with them. What you may not know is that The Church’s One Foundation was one in a series of 12 hymns written by Samuel Stone amidst a great torrent of doctrinal controversy. Stone was so concerned about the weak doctrine of the church, and the encroaching error that was threatening it, that he resolved to write 12 pedagogical hymns that were designed to remind the children of God of what our calling and mission in life is. Consider the following summary offered by Osbeck in his work 101 Hymn Stories:

“[The Church’s One Foundation] was written by a Church of England pastor, Samuel J. Stone, in 1866. It was during this period that there existed much turmoil within the Anglican Church over a book written three years earlier by one of the influential Anglican Bishops, John William Colenso, in which this liberal bishop attacked the historic accuracy of the Pentateuch. The book, The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, Critically Examined, was vehemently opposed by another Anglican leader, Bishop Gray. Soon the theological dispute between these two leaders became a widespread controversy throughout the entire Anglican Church. Samuel Stone was deeply stirred by this matter and in 1866 wrote a collection of hymns, Lyra Fidelium (”Lyre of the Faithful”), containing twelve creedal hymns based on the Apostles’ Creed to combat the attacks of modem scholarship and liberalism which he felt would soon divide and destroy the church. This particular hymn was based on the Ninth Article of the Creed, which reads, “The Holy Catholic (Universal) Church; the Communion of Saints: He is the Head of this Body.” It was Stone’s conviction that the unity of the Church must rest solely with a recognition of the Lordship of Christ as its head and not on the views and interpretations of men.” [Osbeck, K. W. (1982). 101 hymn stories. Includes music and index. (243). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications.]

The background of The Church’s One Foundation is fascinating. Part of the original pedagogy of Stone’s hymn deals with the difficult subjects of doctrinal heresy, false brethren, suffering, church schisms and persecution from within and without.

You caught all that in the four verses listed above…right?

Maybe not. Actually, the verses that are typically left out of The Church’s One Foundation are the very ones that we whiny-brat-Americans need to hear the most. Let’s look at this hymn once again, but this time with the verses that are typically omitted:

(1) The Church’s one foundation Is Jesus Christ her Lord she is His new creation by water and the word; from heav’n He came and sought her To be His holy bride; with His own blood He bought her, and for her life He died.

(2) Elect from ev’ry nation, yet one o’er all the earth; Her charter of salvation: One Lord, one faith, one birth; One holy name she blesses, partakes one holy food, And to one hope she presses with ev’ry grace endued.

(3) ’Mid toil and tribulation and tumult of her war, she waits the consummation of peace forevermore; Till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest, And the great Church victorious shall be the Church at rest.

(4) Though with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed, by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed, yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up, “How long?” and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

(5) The church shall never perish! Her dear Lord to defend, to guide, sustain, and cherish, is with her to the end; though there be those that hate her, and false sons in her pale, against or foe or traitor she ever shall prevail.

(6) Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One, And mystic Sweet communion with those whose rest is won; O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we, like them the meek and lowly, on high may dwell with Thee.

Verses 4 and 5 are absolutely loaded with difficult, but very real truths: doctrinal heresy, false brethren, suffering, church schisms and persecution from within and from without.

No wonder they are often left out of most modern hymnals!

This reality of hymnal redaction makes it an even greater challenge for the modern worship leader to know whether he is dealing with a complete hymn or not. Many times he is not, and therefore it becomes necessary to have multiple resources with which to compare to his own resources. Such work may seem excessive – but it has become necessary in the modern day.

Samuel Stone wanted to leave the bride of Christ with the encouraging truths and sober warnings that she needed in order to face the many battles that surround her. But most modern publishers have taken it upon themselves to truncate Stone’s important message for reasons that are beyond me. Although I suppose that in a generation that seems to want to live in denial of the trials of life, along with the harsh realities of bearing Christ’s cross, such redactions should offer little surprise. For myself – I need Mr. Stone’s godly and sober reminders. I need to be reminded that following Christ means taking up His cross. I need to read this constant message in the Scriptures, and I need to meditate upon this truth in the songs that I sing. Yes, even the hymns that we sing should help us to remember that were are but strangers and aliens in this world. Because of this reality, we will face opposition for the Gospel that we proclaim; and for all we know, our generation may face persecution like that of the church’s past. Therefore, may the Lord make us His ready solidiers who stand in the strength of His might – lest we too become a bunch of whiny-Christian brats.

“If anyone wishes to know where the tadpole of Darwinism was hatched, we could point him to the pew of the old chapel in High Street, Shrewsbury, where Mr. Darwin, his father, and we believe his father’s father, received their religious training.” [The Sword and the Trowel, The Downgrade, April 1887].

The legacy of evolutionary theory has been around for more than a century, and its destructive influence has continued to make advances, not only in the culture at large, but even in the church. If there is a change at all, from Spurgeon’s day to the present, then it might be found in the way in which the church perceives and approaches this contest between evolutionism and creationism. In fact, in many ways, the modern church has capitulated to many of the tenants of evolutionary theory without even comprehending that it has done so – and this needs to change. It is this very issue that is addressed in One Blood, The Biblical Answer to Racism, co-authored by Ken Ham, Dr. Carl Wieland & Dr. Don Batten. Their approach to this subject is quite simple: Racism is an invalid ideology because there is no such thing as multiple races. Instead, there is just one race and it is called the human race. Thier assessment of this matter is fully developed in the book, but I would simply add here that the English word itself is often misused and misunderstood in the common culture. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (full edition), the term race refers to “A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.” Based upon that definition alone, it is better to assert that there is in fact just one race since we all have our “common descent or origin” from one man – Adam. The principle text that guides One Blood is found in Acts 17 where the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel in Athens:

Acts 17:24-26: 24“God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25“Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings…”

The Lord made from one blood, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. Clearly, verse 26 is the focal text of One Blood. Throughout this work, their approach is overtly biblical. Thus, every aspect of science, history, archeology, and biology is understood in view of the biblical record – not the other way around. Thier commitment to inerrancy is therefore refreshing, especially in a world of integrationist “scholars” whose design is to subject the Bible to what they see as modern “science.” But this is not the approach of Ham, Wieland & Batten. One Blood clearly shows that modern day racism has been fueled by Darwinian philosophy. When people in the modern day speak of racism, they are typically referring to the distinction of skin color, however One Blood clearly demonstrates that skin color is a useless and unbiblical distinction. It shows that skin color is simply a variation of the primitive skin pigmentation called melanin; in other words, the typical categories of skin color (white, black, brown or yellow) are just variations of this one skin pigmentation – melanin. They go on to point out that skin color is a very minor distinction between humans, since there is more He has made from one blood every nation of mengenetic variation between humans based upon eye color than there is between skin color!

Overall, I consider this to be a very solid and helpful work. It is also a work which challenges us to consider how we think of other people, and how we might reach out to them with the Gospel. I can tell you right now that if someone ever brings up the subject of racism – it is a wonderful Gospel opportunity (it certainly was an opportunity for the Apostle Paul with the proud and arrogant Athenians who were convinced of their own supremacy over the rest of mankind). Rather than talking to others about racism, feel free to speak to them about the oneness of the human race – how it is that we were made from one blood – the blood of the first Adam. This then presents the important opportunity to tell them about the shed blood of the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ!