Robert Gonzales on the Danger of Reformed Traditionalism

Robert Gonzales, Dean and Professor at Reformed Baptist Seminary, has written a couple of excellent articles on "The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism." In part one he identifies the basic problem of subtly allowing faithfulness to a particular Reformed confession to undermine our commitment to the authority of Scripture. This is a problem I have encountered myself, particularly when dealing with people who have recently come to embrace Reformed theology. They allow their understandable excitement for all things Reformed to overwhelm the Bible in their thinking, and they usually don't see that they are doing it. As a matter of fact, they very often don't really even have a sound understanding of Reformed theology anyway, so that they are actually sifting Scripture through a distortion of Reformed theology. So in reality they are faithful neither to Scripture nor to Reformed theology!

But Gonzales is dealing with those who do accurately understand Reformed theology, but who nevertheless may succumb to the danger he is warning against. Here are a couple of excerpts from the first article:

I’m not implying that Reformed churches today are unconcerned with the Bible. On
the contrary, one of the reasons churches like ours appreciate the Reformed tradition is because of its emphasis upon the Scripture. Along with the Reformers, we continue to affirm the principle of sola Scriptura. But here is where the danger lies: whereas the Reformers evaluated the faith and practice of the church in the light of Scripture; some Reformed leaders today seem to evaluate the faith and practice of the church in the light of the Reformed tradition, especially in light of their Reformed Confession of Faith.
Actually, the danger is really more subtle. Few Reformed pastors today would begin their sermon by asking the congregation to turn to page 250 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or to chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Like the 16th century Reformers, modern Reformed pastors endeavor to take God’s people back to the Scripture. With a growing interest in and appreciation for the Reformed tradition, however, there can be a tendency to look at the Bible only through the lens of Reformed tradition. In other words, there is a real danger of imposing the Reformed tradition as a grid over the Bible and then insisting that every interpretation and application must agree with that tradition.

In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction.

By the end of the article, Gonzales begins to direct his attention specifically toward the Reformed Baptist tradition:

I am, nevertheless, sensitive to the danger of creating the impression that our Baptist Confession is incapable of improvement or that the Confession has said everything that needs to be said or that teachings of the Bible must conform in proportion and emphasis to the teaching of our Confession. In order to prevent our esteem for the London Baptist Confession in particular or our Reformed heritage in general from subtly weakening our commitment to sola Scriptura, I suggest that (1) we beware of the danger of traditionalism and (2) we be aware of the limitations of our own Baptist Confession. In this post, I’ve tried to alert us to the danger of Reformed traditionalism. In the next post, I hope to provide an example of a limitation (or weakness) in our own 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

In part two, Gonzales not only cautions us more specifically about not allowing the Baptist Confession of 1689 to overwhelm our commitment to Sola Scriptura, he also suggests some changes to the confession in the process, even though he knows he may be sticking his neck out a bit.

So here’s where “the rubber meets the road.” It’s one thing to affirm one’s commitment to sola Scriptura and offer a general warning against an imbalanced commitment to one’s Confession of Faith. Most won’t object too strongly. It’s quite another thing, however, to venture suggestions as to how one’s Confession of Faith might have some deficiencies that need improvement. I don’t expect that all my readers will fully agree with all of my suggestions—at least immediately. But I do hope that you’ll give the matter careful prayer and reflection. In general, I think there are at least three ways in which the 1689 London Baptist Confession can be improved.

The three improvements Gonzales goes on to suggest are: 1) "updating the language of the confession," 2) "adding theological affirmations to the confession" (such as a clear statement on the Biblical roles of men and women), and 3) "making modest refinements to some doctrinal formulae" (such as "fine-tuning" some of the confession's statements about covenant theology).

I highly recommend reading both of these articles, and I am grateful to Robert Gonzales for having written them. Let me know what you think.

Publicly Praying Written Prayers: Good or Bad?

Today I read an interesting article by Isaac Gaff at the Worship Studies blog. The brief, but thought provoking, article is entitled, Why I Write Down Public Prayers. I recommend reading it and considering Isaac's point of view. I also recommend reading the comments to the post, which include some equally thought provoking interactions about both the pluses and the possible pitfalls of praying written prayers. Here is the main body of Isaac's post:

First, let me say this loudly and clearly: I like spontaneous prayer. All prayer that originates from us is, in a sense, spontaneous. That being said, there are several reasons why I like to think about prayers that I am going to pray in public worship services early and write them down.

I get a chance to reflect on the words I use and see whether or not they are true and make sense. Sometimes my spontaneity breeds unclear or untrue statements. Leading people in prayer is too important a job to be ambiguous or incorrect. After all, we’re not a group of individuals all praying different things in public prayer, we should be united around one prayer when we’re together.

I get a chance to see if this prayer is really voiced from the church’s
perspective or if it’s simply my own personal agenda. My own personal prayer needs are not unimportant; but when I’m gathered with the church, I want to make sure I have the church’s needs and responsibilities in the front of my mind. In the early church, the term “amen” really meant “so be it” or “we agree.” The prayers that have survived from the early church were written so that the entire church could say “yes, we agree with this and pray it as well” at the end of the
prayer.

I get a chance to make sure I’m purposeful in the prayer. Prayer often plays different roles in a service and I want to make sure this prayer does what it was intended to do. If I’m supposed to pray and thank God at communion, I want to make sure I’m really doing that.

I get a chance to soak in this prayer and make it more real than most things I could think up on the spot. Thinking about my prayers and writing them down before the service gives me a chance to let my heart, mind, will and imagination all work together to pray instead of quickly drawing from only one or two of them in spontaneous public praying.

Perhaps readers of this blog will want to go and weigh in here.

Voddie Baucham Speaks Out on Women in Office

The following video contains an interview with Voddie Baucham on CNN. I am thankful for his faithfulness to Scripture and his willingness to take a stand.



I also encourage you to check out a couple of articles at Voddie's blog, where he addresses the matter of whether or not we Evangelicals should really be pleased with McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate.

In the first article, entitled Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?, Voddie asserts the following:

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck
speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick....

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job....

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles....

I encourage you to read the rest of the article to find out more about why Voddie thinks this way. You may just agree with him, as I do.

Then you may want to read the second article, which follows after not only the first article (and some apparent fallout from it?) but also after the above linked CNN appearance. In this second article, Voddie continues to make his typically Scriptural and intellectually rigorous arguments as he discusses the recent debate among Complementarians regarding the Palin candidacy.

As for me, I am in agreement with Voddie's position, and I want to thank him for taking the stand he has taken. Be encouraged, brother, you are not alone.

Recommendation: Michael Marlowe's Bible Research Website

Perhaps some of the blog's readers have already visited Michael Marlowe's Bible Research website from the link on this page, but if you haven't already checked it out, I highly recommend it.

Marlowe has a wealth of articles and information at the site, covering areas such as study of the Greek New testament, the Hebrew Old Testament, ancient Bible versions, the canon of Scripture, the history and methodology of English Bible versions, and Biblical interpretation and theology.

Marlowe also has a helpful web directory of other sites useful for Bible study. And he has written a number of excellent articles himself, including some very good reviews of various English Bible translations. He is Reformed theologically and holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Give the site a look and let me know what you think.

Back to the Source: A Cool, Fun, Free Movie on Keys to Bible Interpretation

I have stumbled upon an interesting new Bible study software program called ScriptureDirect, which is dedicated to study of the New Testament. The makers of this software have also made a fun little movie called Back to the Source, which can be viewed or downloaded for free. The movie takes you on a journey with Phil, a detective who is trying to figure out the meaning of a small piece of text that was left to a woman by a deceased relative. Although she doesn't understand what the text is or where it came from, she really wants to know what it means because it refers to a mysterious treasure. As it turns out, the text comes from the New Testament and, as Phil tries to find out the meaning, he discovers four keys to interpretation of the New Testament.

If you want to have some fun, check it out. There is no ScriptureDirect advertisement until the very end of the movie. I must say, though, that this looks like both a very useful and an ultra-cool piece of software. Rubén Gómez has given some background about it at his Bible Software Review website:

First of all I should mention a new and innovative program called ScriptureDirect. Bennie Wolvaardt, the developer, worked alongside Johannes Louw himself, who dedicated years of his life to this project after his retirement as professor. The interlinear translation has been prepared specifically for this program, and both the links between the Greek and English and the selection of the most likely meaning from Louw-Nida for each word of the NT have been done one by one. Similarly, it has been proofread word by word. The program does not include a library of books integrated by a search engine. Rather, it is very specific tool for diving into the original meaning of the Greek New Testament. This can be done starting from the English text (typing practice will yield five different semantic domains — i.e., 41.28, 42.3, 42.10, 68.20 and 90.45), the list of semantic domains itself [e.g., 10. Kinship Terms D. Kinship Relations Based Upon Marriage (10.53-10.61)] or the Greek text itself (φυλακή). It is very useful when you follow the designed workflow, but it does not offer yet the ability to make complex command line or dialog searches.

Are there any blog readers who can tell us more about this software? I would like to hear your comments.

John Piper on Fundamentalists

Back in June, John Piper wrote an interesting article at the Desiring God Blog. The article was called 20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists. I was intrigued by the title and got to thinking that, in too many Evangelical circles, those "fundamentalists" have become the whipping boys from which most appear to want to distance themselves. In fact, in the wider culture and in the media, the term "fundamentalist" has even been taken so negatively as to be applied to the most extreme and even cruel elements of any religious group. How many of us, after all, have not heard the media refer to those wacky terrorists who want to blow people up as "Islamic Fundamentalists."

But there was a time when the term referred to those who were the most faithful to Scripture and who refused to allow their Christian faith to be watered down or to succumb to the twin threats of modernity and relativism -- and now post-modernity. Anyway, Piper's article reminded me that, although there have been some extreme types who have given the rest a bad name, there are still many good openly professing fundamentalists out there. Here are the twenty reasons that Piper has given for his unwillingness to "take postshots" at fundamentalists.

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I've met).

2. They believe in truth.

3. They believe that truth really matters.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.

5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper.

11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don't have any better track record than non-Christians.

12. They resist trendiness.

13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.

14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

15. They still sing hymns.

16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.

19. My dad was one.

20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

One of those things that kind of makes you go, "Hmmmm...."

Asking the Right Question About the Problem of Evil

I first saw this video at the Contemporary Calvinist blog, and I liked it so much that I wanted to share it with my readers as well. In it Voddie Baucham discusses the need to ask the right question about the problem of evil. He had me almost shouting, "Amen!"

Two Ways to Live

Some of you may have noticed the addition of the Two Ways to Live Gospel presentation link on the blog's right panel. It has been included on the homepage of Immanuel Baptist Church (where I serve as an elder) for quite some time.

However, I thought it was worthy of a post on the blog as well. Here is a description of the approach of this Gospel presentation from the Matthias Media website:

At the most basic level, Two Ways to Live is simply a memorable summary of the Christian gospel. Or to put it more accurately, it is the Christian gospel including ome of its necessary presuppositions and background.

In the New Testament, the word 'gospel' usually refers to the proclamation of Jesus Christ crucified. It is the announcement that God's kingdom has arrived in the person of his Son, the powerful Messiah, who inaugurates his worldwide reign by dying and rising again so that repentance and forgiveness can be preached to all nations. This Jesus Christ now rules at God's right hand, from where he will come again to judge.

In other words, Jesus himself is the focus of the Christian message or 'gospel'. However, Jesus does not arrive in a vacuum. He arrives as the culmination of God's plans, and their outworking in history. He comes and dies and rises, "according to the Scriptures". He arrives in the context of all that God has already revealed about himself and humanity.

All this is part of the background or 'worldview' that the biblical authors took for granted, but which many modern (or postmodern) people do not share. If we are to know and tell the gospel in a world where these basic assumptions about God and human guilt are no longer shared, or even common, then we need to fill in some of the rest of the story. We need to provide some of the background.

This is what Two Ways to Live seeks to do. It fills in some of the wider story of the Bible, some of the biblical theology, so that the message about Jesus makes sense.

On the same page where this summary is found, there is also this endorsement of the presentation from D.A. Carson:

At the risk of oversimplification, most evangelistic tools in the Western world are subsets of systematic theology. By this I mean that they tend to ask atemporal questions, and give atemporal answers… There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this pattern, as long as the people to whom it is presented have already bought into the Judeo-Christian heritage…

But if you present these atemporal outlines of the gospel to those who know nothing about the Bible's plotline, and who have bought into one form or another of New Age theosophy, how will they hear you?…

In short, the good news of Jesus Christ is virtually incoherent unless it is securely set into a biblical worldview… In the last few years, several evangelistic tools have been created that are far more sensitive to the Bible's 'story line'.

The first of these to be prepared is still one of the most effective: Two Ways to Live presents Christ in six steps, the six steps offering, in contemporary English, something of the Bible's plot-line as the necessary framework in which to understand the gospel.

The Gagging of God, 1996, Zondervan Publishing House, pp 501-504, (used by permission).

Check out Two Ways to Live, and please let me know what you think. You can find a link to add to your blog or webpage here.

Ben Witherington's Response to Pagan Christianity

Some of you may already have discovered Ben Witherington's ongoing critique of Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, by Frank Viola and George Barna. But for those who haven't, I want to recommend his review here. Of course, as a Reformed Baptist I would not share many of his views, but this series still looks to be very helpful and informative. Dr. Witherington is especially knowledgeable about Church history, but he offers some very solid responses to Viola & Barna on Biblical and theological matters as well. He has written a series of articles which interact with the book one chapter at a time, and he may yet add to them, so keep tuned in for the whole series, as it promises to be a good one. Here are the links to the first four of his posts:

PAGAN CHRISTIANITY: by George Barna and Frank Viola [Part One of the Review]

PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART TWO

PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART THREE

PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART FOUR

And here is the link to a fifth post:

Pagan Christianity--- Postlude

Pay attention to the Comments following each article as well, where you will find interactions between Dr. Witherington and Jon Zens, one of the leading figures of the House-Church Movement. I think it worth pointing out, by the way, and think you will soon discover, that Zens has some good points of his own to make in rebuttal.

Dr. Witherington has also reproduced Howard Snyder's Review of 'Pagan Christianity' at his blog.

I hope you find these posts and comments helpful in sorting through the issues.

Keith

P.S. As far as a thorough response to the book goes, I still think the best guy for the job is James White.

More e-Sword Resources

Many of the blog's readers know of my recommendation of e-sword and of the many e-sword resources I have made available at Pastor Throop.com (Just click on the 'Select Category' drop-down menu).

But today I would like to let you all know about a couple of other nice websites for e-Sword.

First, there are a number of good modules available at Robert Hommel's Original Language Library page. These include a number of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek modules. And, for you really hard-core original language types, there are even modules in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Ehtiopic.

Second, for those who would like to have e-Sword available without downloading the whole program, there is e-Sword Live. Although it doesn't yet include most of the resources, it does promise to be an excellent online Bible study application and does currently offer basic word study capability.

Enjoy!

George Washington's Prayer for the United States

The following prayer for the Untied States of America was composed by George Washington on June 8, 1783, and sent to the governors of the states:

Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in thy holy protection, that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

And finally that Thou will most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

Grant our supplications, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(Cited from The Sailor's Pocket Bible, © 2004 Holman Bible Publishers)

A Biblical Theology of Preaching

Recently I read James White's excellent book Pulpit Crimes: The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word. In the first chapter entitled "What is at Stake?" he insightfully observes:

A tempest in a teapot. No big deal. Just a matter of opinion. Something about which "good men" have disagreed (and hence, no one actually has a clue about it. All ways of saying. "It's no big deal, and, if anyone makes it a big deal, they are being difficult and disagreeable over nothing." That is how the vast majority of humanity would view passionate discussion of the manner, purpose, content, and goal of the Christian ministry of preaching, something for obscure theologians to argue about, but surely nothing of major import.

I have become convinced that nothing less than the very gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake when we speak of the proclamation of the gospel in preaching. I am painfully aware of how often strident, strong statements such as that are misused in a sensationalistic attempt to inflame the passions of one's audience, and I surely have no intention of engaging in my own form of pulpit crime, albeit in written form. Yet I believe I have a very firm basis for my statement. In fact, I may be selling the reality a bit short, since I am not using language as strong as that found in Scripture. I refer to a passage in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. It is a passage that I confess I heard very little about in my seminary education. Despite taking a class or two in homiletics (the science or art of preaching), I have no recollection of ever having heard a discussion of this text. I confess I do not know why this passage is not emblazoned by command of authority of the eldership upon the memory of every elder candidate. I do not know why it is not engraved upon the doorway leading to every pulpit in the church. It should be, but it is not. Maybe it is because it is said almost in passing. All I know is this: if it were to be taken seriously by every man walking into the pulpit this coming Lord's day, the church would be turned on its head. The vast majority of what masquerades as preaching would have to come to an end. Listen carefully to the words of scripture: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void" (1 Cor. 1:17).

White then goes on to discuss the key concepts found in 1 Corinthians 1-2, a passage that I agree has crucial implications for the proper preaching of the Gospel. And I am saddened with him that this passage is not taken more seriously by every Bible college and seminary in the training of pastors. But I would like to let everyone know that there has been a school where this passage has been taken very seriously indeed. That school was Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International University), where Dr. Richard Belcher drilled this text into the minds of generations of prospective pastors in his homiletics courses.

In fact, even though Dr. Belcher is now retired from teaching at Columbia, his textbook – Preaching the Gospel: A Theological Perspective and a Personal Method – may still be purchased, and I highly recommend it as essential reading to all prospective pastors and preachers. It outlines a theology of preaching that is derived directly from the Scriptures and it encapsulates the training that made Dr. Belcher an unsung hero of the recently touted "Calvinist comeback" among Baptists in particular. Here is a description of the book from the website of it's publisher, Richbarry Press:

One of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century is that the art of biblical preaching has fallen on hard times.

So wrote Dr. Belcher to introduce the reader to one of the burdens of his heart some years ago. Using I Corinthians 1-4 and II Timothy 3:1-4:4 as the basis of study, Dr. Belcher sets forth the nature of the gospel we must preach and the nature of the methods we must employ in the task. He argues that we are not free to determine the nature of the gospel nor the method of its presentation. The presentation of the gospel must be consistent with the grace and mystery nature of the gospel itself. Failure to understand that is what has led to the modern-day demise of biblical preaching.

So there has been a man who for may years faithfully taught just the kind of theology of preaching that Dr. White laments being absent in so many schools today. But with the retirement of Dr. Belcher, I can only hope and pray that others will take up the mantle and carry on the task. I am thankful that Dr. James White has sought to be such a man, and as a student of Dr. Belcher I can assure the readers of this blog that I too will continue to labor to fill this void. I call upon all of you who are able to join us!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Blog Update

Although I try to post at least once a week, many of the blog's readers may have noticed that I haven't posted anything in a couple of weeks. I haven't forgotten about the blog, but have been unable to devote any time to it recently due especially to a series of recent events in my life surrounding my wife's diagnosis with ovarian cancer.

She went to the hospital at the end of April with abdominal pain, which turned out to be diverticulitis, but when they ran the CT scan they also discovered a large ovarian cyst that had a mass in it. We praise the Lord that in His providence the diverticulitis led to an early discovery of the cancer and that the prognosis for my wife's recovery is very good. She has undergone major surgery and is currently going through at least three courses of chemotherapy. She is currently maintaining a CaringBridge website where she is keeping everyone informed of her status.

I usually do not like to post personal things on the blog, because it is my desire that this blog not be about me. However, I thought the readers may want to know why the activity here has slowed down some, and I definitely desire your prayers for my wife's recovery and for my family as we go through this trial. It is our desire that Christ be magnified in our lives and that God be glorified.

I intend to begin posting regularly again, perhaps even by the end of this week. And for those who have been following it, I will continue the series responding to the House-Church Movement.

I am thankful that this blog has been helpful to so many and pray that God will continue to use it for His glory.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Keith

VocabWorks: Free Hebrew and Greek Flashcard Program

Often it is a struggle to keep up with the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary learned while in Bible college or seminary, but VocabWorks is a free flashcard program that really helps. It includes vocab sets for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek. It also includes sets for Meroitic, Ugaritic, and Middle Egyptian, for the really hard core ancient language types.

The Hebrew downloads section includes a vocab set for Jan Verbruggen's Workbook for Biblical Hebrew. And the Greek downloads section include vocab sets for John H. Dobson's Learn New Testament Greek, William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, and J.W. Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek.

The program is also helpful for professors who want an easy way to develop vocabulary tests for their students.

Although it doesn't appear that the software is still supported, I have never had any trouble using it. At any rate, it's free! So why not give it a shot?

Willow's Creek's Continued "Repentance"

Back on April 11, the Out of Ur blog at the Christianity Today website reported on the continued effort of Willow Creek Community Church to implement big changes based upon an extensive survey that they had done. Here is a significant portion of the article:

Because it’s the mature Christians who drive evangelism in the church Hawkins says, “Our strategy to reach seekers is now about focusing on the mature believers. This is a huge shift for Willow.”

One major implementation of this shift will occur in June when Willow ends their mid-week worship services that had been geared toward believers. Instead the church will morph these mid-week events into classes for people at different stages of growth. There will be theological and bible classes full of “hard-hitting stuff.” Hawkins said most people are very enthusiastic about the change.

On the seeker end of the spectrum, Willow is also changing how they produce their weekend services. For years the value people appreciated most about the seeker-oriented weekend services was anonymity. This is what all their research showed. People didn’t want to be identified, approached, confronted, or asked to do anything. But those days are over.

“Anonymity is not the driving value for seeker services anymore,” says Hawkins. “We’ve taken anonymity and shot it in the head. It’s dead. Gone.” In the past Willow believed that seekers didn’t want large doses of the Bible or deep worship music. They didn’t want to be challenged. Now their seeker-sensitive services are loaded with worship music, prayer, Scripture readings, and more challenging teaching from the Bible.

Willow has been wrestling with the research from REVEAL since 2004. Hawkins said, “We’ve tried incremental changes for four years, but now we know we have to overhaul our whole strategy.” Small steps are no longer the method; Willow is revamping everything. “It would be malpractice for us to not do something with what we’re learning.”

In the larger REVEAL survey taken by 200 churches, people were asked what they want most from their church. Three of the top four responses were:

1. Help me understand the Bible in greater depth

2. Help me develop a closer personal relationship with Christ

3. Challenge me to grow and take the next step in my faith

Hawkins said that sometimes Willow gets accused of managing the church based on market research; of simply giving people what they want. “Look at what they want!” he said while pointing to the screen. “They want the Bible, they want to be close to Christ, they want to be challenged. Yes, I will give them what they want!”

Of course I am happy that many who attend Willow Creek are recognizing what their leaders should have themselves known all along. And I am glad that they are making some of the changes they are making. But I am still troubled by at least a couple of things.

First, I am disturbed that what is driving the changes and motivating the leadership to implement them is yet another survey of what people are saying they want, rather than a commitment to Scripture as the guide to church practice. Nowhere is there any apparent repentance for having abandoned Scripture in this regard. Nowhere is there a clear indication that they are driven by what the Bible has to say about what we should be doing in the church.

Second, because they are apparently are not driven first and foremost by a desire to obey Scripture as their final authority, I am not surprised that we are not reading that one of the proposed changes is to stop the practice of placing women in positions of authority in the church. For example, I believe at least three of their current elders are women, which is in direct opposition to Scriptural teaching (see, e.g., 1 Tim. 2:11-12; 3:1-5).

True repentance must come from a Biblical conviction of sin, and there doesn't seem to be enough regard for what the Bible actually has to say about their practices for the leadership at Willow Creek to even see this. I am hoping that when they do start teaching the Bible more fully — as their current plan suggests — they will also begin to be convicted about how they are still ignoring so much of what it has to say. Let us pray to that end!

Response to the House-Church Movement – Part Six

What is the proper understanding of Hebrews 13:17?

In a previous post responding to the House-Church Movement (HCM), I addressed the tendency among many of its adherents to either downplay the notion of elder authority or, in some cases, to completely deny it as a Biblical idea. In that post I sought to demonstrate the Scriptural case for elder authority, but many of you may have noticed that I did not treat one particular passage that has often been understood to clearly assert this concept. This passage is Hebrews 13:17 which – at least as it is commonly translated – would appear to give HCM advocates some trouble. Here is the way this verse is rendered in a number of the best translations available:

1) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB): “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

2) English Standard Version (ESV): “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

3) King James Version (KJV): “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

4) New American Standard Bible (NASB): “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

5) New English Translation (NET): “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.”

6) New International Version (NIV): “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

7) New King James Version (NKJV): “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.” (Bold emphasis mine.)

These translations are indicative of the scholarly consensus about the meaning of the Greek words translated obey (peíthō) and submit/be submissive (hupeíkō) in this verse. The scholars responsible for each of these translations clearly think that these words carry these meanings in this particular context, which has to do with the proper response to leaders in the churches. But this is problematic for HCM advocates because words such as obey and submit imply an authority possessed by the one obeyed or submitted to. So how is this verse treated by the HCM advocates to which I have been responding? Let's take another look at the writings of Steve Atkerson, who seems to be representative of the kind of arguments I have been hearing from HCM advocates. I will cite and respond to portions from two of his articles. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture references by me are from the New King James Version.

Steve Atkerson's Treatment of Hebrews 13:17

In an article entitled New Testament Church Leadership, Atkerson says the following:

Based on such texts as Acts 20:25-31, Titus 1:9, Ephesians 4:11-13, 1 Timothy 1:3, 3:4-5, 5:17, 6:20, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2, 15, 3:16-17, 4:2-4, Titus 1:9, 13, 2:15 and Hebrews 13:17, the function that leaders are to serve in the church becomes clear. Leaders are to guard and protect against false teachers, train other leaders in apostolic tradition, lead by example, guard the truth, beat off wolves, and help achieve consensus. To sum up, church leaders are men of mature character who oversee, teach, protect, equip, and encourage the church. Further, every now and then they will need to call on the obstinate to “submit” (Heb 13:17 ) to their leadership. (Italics mine.)

A similar sentiment to that contained in the last sentence may be found in an article entitled Consensus Governing, in which Atkerson asserts the following:

All elders are senator-servants to the whole senate (church). However, the senate will occasionally find itself in grid-lock, unable to resolve an issue. In such cases, the elders serve as predetermined arbitrators, or tie breakers, and in such unusual instances those in opposition are to “submit” to the elder’s leadership and wisdom (see Hebrews 13:17). (Italics mine.)

Aside from the questionable analogy with the U.S. Senate, several questions immediately come to mind. For example, where does the author of Hebrews say that believers are to submit to their leaders only “now and then”? And where does he say that only the “obstinate” are to submit? And does he really intend that believers submit to their leaders only in “unusual instances”? Such notions are nowhere to be found either in this verse or in the context. As a matter of fact, the author of Hebrews is addressing the entire group in the context, not just those who might be considered “obstinate.” In addition, in the Greek text both the command to obey and the command to submit are in the present tense, indicating an ongoing rather than an occasional submission. So, the author has in mind the way that leaders should consistently be treated by everyone in the body, not just what must be demanded in more extreme circumstances or “unusual instances.” Atkerson has clearly read into the text notions that are not there. However, he does attempt to deal with the meaning of the Greek terms later in the same article:

In Hebrews 13:17, believers are encouraged to “obey” church leaders. Interestingly, the Greek behind “obey” is not the regular Greek word for “obey.” Instead, peitho is used, which literally means “to persuade” or “to convince.” Thus, Hebrews 13:17 should be rendered “let yourselves be persuaded by.” This same verse also instructs believers to “submit” to the authority of their church leaders. As with “obey,” the common Greek word for “submit” is not used. Instead, hupeiko was chosen by the author, a word that still does mean “to give in, to yield”, but after a fight. It was used of combatants. The idea behind hupeiko is seen in Southern General Robert E. Lee’s letter to his troops concerning their surrender at Appomadox: “After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.”

Although he has not cited any particular lexical source in support of the meanings he gives for either peíthō or hupeíkō, I assume he has consulted some such source. At any rate, it is clear that Atkerson has once again engaged in his habit of being selective and misleading in his use of such information. (For other instances see Part Two and Part Five of this series).

The Meaning of Peíthō

With regard to the meaning of the Greek word peíthō, Atkerson says that it “literally means 'to persuade' or 'to convince,'” and he is correct. The word is often used with such a meaning. But this is not the only meaning the word may have. I have already cited above multiple translations that demonstrate this fact with respect to Hebrews 13:17. But here I would like to include definitions from several of the more notable lexical works. I will cite enough of the lexical definition in each case so that the range of meaning will be apparent:

(1) active (except for second perfect and pluperfect); (a) convince, persuade (AC 18.4); (b) in a bad sense seduce (by persuasion), mislead, coax (MT 27.20); (c) in a milder sense win over, strive to please (possibly with bribes or promises) (AC 12.20); (d) as allaying fears assure, conciliate (MT 28.14; 1J 3.19); (2) second perfect and pluperfect with the present meaning; (a) strictly have become convinced; hence trust (firmly) in, rely on, be confident about (MT 27.43); (b) as an evaluative orienter for indirect statements be convinced or persuaded, be sure or confident that (RO 2.19; 2C 2.3); (3) passive (except perfect); (a) be convinced or persuaded, believe (LU 16.31); (b) as an evaluative orienter believe (that) (HE 13.18); (c) obey, follow, with the dative of person or thing (HE 13.17); (d) perfect passive be convinced or certain of something (LU 20.6). (Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, BibleWorks #21220)

1. Active; a. to persuade, i. e. to induce one by words to believe.... 2. Passive and middle (cf. Winer's Grammar, 253 (238)); a. to be persuaded, to suffer oneself to be persuaded; to be induced to believe... b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with.... [Heb. 13:17 is listed here.] (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Joseph Thayer, BibleWorks # 4114)

3. pass. and mid., except for the pf.: to be won over as the result of persuasion.... a. be persuaded, believe.... b. obey, follow [Heb. 13:17 is listed here.]... c. Some passages stand betw. a and b and permit either transl., w. dat. be persuaded by someone, take someone's advice or obey, follow someone. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, BibleWorks #5754)

All three of these lexicons do indeed give the meaning of persuade or convince for peíthō. But if Atkerson made an attempt to consult even the standard lexicons that he has elsewhere cited (such as Thayer and Bauer), he apparently didn't read them closely enough, because both of these lexicons say that, when used in the passive voice, peíthō can mean obey. In fact, all three of the lexicons I have cited specifically list Hebrew 13:17 as having this meaning.

But why do the various translations and lexicons cited above all understand peíthō this way in the verse under discussion? Why do they use an English word that implies an authority relationship? This is no doubt due to to the fact that, not only is peíthō used in the passive voice here, but the response called for is also in relation to the leaders of the church. The Greek word referring to the church's leaders is hēgéomai, which is actually a participle here, the plural form of which is employed as a substantive by the author to refer to “those who rule over you.” And, as I pointed out in an earlier post (Part Four of this series), this word clearly carries connotations of authority.

But there is another possible reason why so many translators take obey as the best rendering for peíthō here, namely that it is used in a context where submission to those in authority is called for. And this leads to a discussion of the other Greek word that Atkerson treats, the verb hupeíkō.

The Meaning of Hupeíkō

With regard to the meaning of the Greek word hupeíkō, Atkerson argues:

As with “obey,” the common Greek word for “submit” is not used. Instead, hupeiko was chosen by the author, a word that still does mean “to give in, to yield”, but after a fight. It was used of combatants. The idea behind hupeiko is seen in Southern General Robert E. Lee’s letter to his troops concerning their surrender at Appomadox: “After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield /*to overwhelming numbers and resources.”

Aside from the use of an analogy that has nothing to do with the kind of situation into which the author of Hebrews was speaking, Atkerson once again distorts the meaning of the text through the misuse of lexical information. In order to demonstrate this, I will again cite several of the more reputable lexicons for the meaning of hupeíkō:

Literally yield, retire from, give way; figuratively submit to someone's authority, resist no longer, do as someone says (HE 13.17). (Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, BibleWorks #21220)

To resist no longer, but to give way, yield (properly, of combatants); metaphorically, to yield to authority and admonition, to submit: Heb. 13:17. (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Joseph Thayer, BibleWorks # 4114)

Prim. ‘withdraw, give way to’, then by fig. extension to yield to someone’s authority, yield, give way, submit... w. dat. of pers. to whom one submits... Hb. 13:17. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, BibleWorks #5754)

So, not only do the major translations all disagree with Atkerson, but so again do the lexicons. Certainly each of these lexicons does agree that hupeíkō was used in contexts having to do with yielding to someone else and could also refer to yielding “after a fight” as Atkerson suggests. However, each of these lexicons also points out that there is a special, metaphorical or figurative usage in Hebrews 13:17. And the reason for this is obvious from the context, which does not assume that there should be fighting going on between the Hebrew believers and their elders as Atkerson seems to suppose. His treatment gives the impression that believers should yield or submit to their elders only after a fight, as though the elders have to best the members of the congregation in every argument before they can expect submission!

That Atkerson has mistaken the meaning of hupeíkō in this passage is also apparent when one considers the latter part of the verse, where the author further admonishes his readers that they should respond to their leaders in such a way that they may undertake their charge with “joy and not with grief.” Does having a combative attitude toward them really help to make the elders' work a joy? And even if one agrees with Atkerson that the use of hupeíkō here indicates that the Hebrew Christians had been exhibiting such a combative attitude, it is clear that the author is calling them to stop doing this by yielding and submitting to their leaders. He certainly cannot be encouraging such an attitude!

Why the Author of Hebrews May Have Chosen to Use Peíthō and Hupeíkō

Although Atkerson has not fairly presented the lexical evidence, he is nevertheless correct when he asserts that peíthō is not the common word for obey in the New Testament and that hupeíkō is not the common word for submit. He is also correct in assuming that this may be exegetically significant in helping us to determine the kind of obedience commanded with respect to church leaders.

However, as we have seen in the above citations from Atkerson, he apparently thinks that the author of Hebrews chose to use the terms peíthō and hupeíkō to refer to obedience and submission because he really didn't mean to say that actual obedience or submission was expected, at least not usually. But I disagree with Atkerson's apparent conclusion and, although we cannot say for certain why the author of Hebrews chose to use this specific vocabulary with respect to church leaders, an examination of his use of the more typical words for obey (hupakoúō) and submit (hupotássō) may at least provide a likely reason. Here are the instances of the author's usage of hupakoúō (obey):

NKJ Hebrews 5:9 “And having been perfected, He [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey [hupakoúō] Him....”

NKJ Hebrews 11:8 “By faith Abraham obeyed [hupakoúō] when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.”

Notice that in both instances the author of Hebrews has obedience either to God the Father or to God the Son in mind when he uses hupakoúō. A similar picture develops when examining the author's usage of hupotássō (submit):

NKJ Hebrews 2:5 “For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection [hupotássō] to angels.”

NKJ Hebrews 2:8 “'You have put all things in subjection [hupotássō] under his feet.' For in that He put all in subjection [hupotássō] under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under [hupotássō]
him.”

In chapter 2 of Hebrews the author clearly sees Psalm 8 – which he is citing there – as Messianic and employs it to argue that Jesus is greater than the angels because all things have been put under subjection to Him and not to them.

NKJ Hebrews 12:9 “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who
corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in
subjection [hupotássō] to the Father of spirits and live?”

Notice again that in each passage the author of Hebrews has subjection either to God the Father or to God the Son in mind when he uses hupotássō. So, the author of Hebrews apparently restricts his usage of both hupakoúō and hupotássō to instances in which obedience or submission to God are under consideration. Thus it is possible – and perhaps even likely – that he didn't want to use either of these terms with respect to church leaders because, although he clearly did want to command obedience and submission to the elders, he did not intend the same kind of obedience or submission one owes only to God. And, if this hypothesis is correct, then he is only indicating what we already know from the rest of Scripture, namely that no man possesses an authority over us equal to that of God.

I am certain the Apostle Peter, for example, would say that in cases where there is conflict between what God has told us in His Word and what the elders are saying, “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Of course, Peter also warns elders against lording their authority over the churches:

NKJ 1 Peter 5:1-4 "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”

So, although the Bible clearly does teach that elders have authority in the church and that believers should obey them and submit to them, it is also clear that this is not an unqualified authority. There is a higher authority to which we must all submit – the authority of God as revealed in His Word – and this authority must always take priority. This is why Atkerson is right when he says that an elder's “primary authority is based on his ability to persuade with the truth” (New Testament Church Leadership). Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepherd, and the Word of God is our ultimate authority. As the Baptist Confession of 1689 puts it, “the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience” (1.1). But as I have demonstrated in this series, the Holy Scripture also clearly teaches the authority of elders in the churches.

How Jesus Saved Me

I hope all of the blog's readers have taken time at some point to read the entry on the right hand column of this page entitled "How Jesus Saved me." I used to have the "About Me" section toward the top of the page as it is by default in the Blogger template, but I didn't want the blog to be about me. So, when I moved that section lower on the page, I also moved the section containing my testimony lower with it.

However, my testimony about how Jesus saved me is not really about me. It is about Him. It is about the way in which He - as Great God and Savior - bestowed the grace of salvation upon me. So, to draw attention to His gracious work in my life so that He may be more fully magnified through this blog and so that God might be more fully glorified, I have included this testimony here to highlight what He has done in my life through His death and resurrection and my gratitude for His having done it!

The Lord graciously saved me when I was twenty years old and serving in the U.S. Navy. Although I had been going to church most of my life and wanted to know the Lord Jesus as my Savior, I believed that salvation was based upon my own efforts to live righteously and thus to prove my faith to God. This false belief was easy for me to accept, especially given several factors in my childhood. For example, I came from a broken home and experienced much isolation and loneliness. I just could not bring myself to believe that anyone could love me just as I was. This led me to frequent bouts with deep depression throughout my childhood and into my adult years.

However, through the witness of believers in my life, and through His Holy Word, the Lord opened my eyes to the truth that He loved me even though I did not and never could deserve it. He showed me that I could never earn His love and forgiveness, and that I didn't have to try. I praise God for His saving grace, by which He enabled me to trust in Him alone for salvation! Through his work in my heart, I came to understand that the Lord Jesus has done all that needs to be done for my salvation through His sinless life, atoning death, and resurrection from the dead.

If you do not already know Christ as your Savior, I pray that you will come to know Him too!

Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 3:23;6:23). When it speaks of the "wages of sin," it is speaking of what we deserve for having done wrong in the sight of God, but it also teaches us about the "gift" of eternal life which we do not deserve. Thus God offers us freely through Jesus that which we cannot earn. He offers to do for us in Christ that which we cannot do for ourselves.

Will you put your faith in Jesus to save you from the punishment your sins deserve? He is willing to forgive you and give you eternal life if you ask Him. "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).

Help Being a Good Hearer of the Word

Solid Ground Christian Books has recently re-published Jay Adam's Be Careful How You Listen: How to Get the Most out of a Sermon. Here is a word about it from the author:

Preaching will never be out of date. And there are seminary courses without number to prove the point. But where can one find a course about listening for laymen? If it exists, I am unaware of it! Good listening is at least half of the equation when communicating God’s truth. Yet, no one seems to care about it. Originally, by publishing this book, I had hoped to do something to remedy this deplorable situation. But—alas—when it was published, the publisher went out of business and it was never advertised. Thus, through it, I never had the opportunity to offer the help that I had hoped it would provide. Now, at the request of Solid Ground Christian Books for a book that had gone out of print — and shouldn’t have — I am delighted once again to offer it anew to listening congregations.

While simple to understand, this is a serious book. It deals with one of the major problems of the modern church—and there are plenty of them! Yet, to my mind, few more neglected. Preaching lacks much today. It has succumbed to various nefarious influences. Even in Reformed circles there is need for rethinking the practices that, like barnacles, have attached themselves to it. These practices need to be addressed. But there is help for the preacher. Many, recognizing the problem that such accretions cause have been writing about them. But, while cracking these off helps greatly, it does not solve one of the major the problems with preaching. As most Christians know, much preaching produces little fruit. Thoughtful believers wonder why, week after week, even when the Word is faithfully proclaimed, so little change takes place in the lives of listeners. Many preachers are discouraged by this fact, and
congregations themselves often drift into a state of malaise.

It is not always the fault of the preacher that this is so. The second element in the
preaching context is the congregation. Even good preaching falling on untilled ground that is full of weeds will be choked out. Our Lord was quite clear about that. It is because of the condition of the ground itself that much —perhaps, most—preaching fails. It is time that something is done about this. In this book, the thoughtful Christian who wants to learn how to get the most out of preaching will find specific, concrete help. In one sense, the book is a call for change in the listening habits of God’s children. In another, it is a handbook for how to change for the better. I hope that the right blend of exhortation and direction may be found in it for most Christians. It is my experience, that, while examining my own patterns of listening to the preaching of God’s Word in the light of Scriptural injunctions, I have improved
significantly, and I am convinced that any willing child of God can learn to listen better if he so desires. But that is the difficulty: so little has been said or written about the obligation to listen well, that the subject is virtually unknown and untouched. It is my earnest hope that this book will at least go some way toward making a difference. In the Scriptures, there is more instruction about listening than about preaching! Leave it to us sinners to reverse things, putting all of the stress on the latter at the expense of the former!

Now, ask yourself, "If I were asked to set forth principles of good listening and how to develop them, what would I say?" Perplexed? Rightly so. But, after reading this book, I trust you will be able to do so. And not only to articulate them, but be able to put them into practice. It is my hope that there will be boards of elders that distribute the book to the members of their flocks. I can think of few more profitable ways to expend the Lord’s funds than to do so or, at least, to make such books available in church bookstores or libraries. I can almost certainly assure you that you will readily find an empty space on the shelf for it.

So, I am pleased to be able to make this book available again (largely, for the first time), and I send it forth asking God to bless its use in the lives of many.

Jay E. Adams March 30, 2007

In the same vein, James Renihan posted a helpful entry today called How to Profit from Preaching over at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog.

American Idol Changes "Shout to the Lord" Lyrics

Notice that they remove the name of Jesus from the lyrics of the song. Instead of beginning, "My Jesus, My Savior," they begin the song with "My shepherd, my savior." So the song is robbed of it's Christological center and becomes a generic song that resonates with the popular trend of people referring to themselves as "spiritual" and as believing in "god" so long as that god remains undefined and tailor made to fit the idolatrous spirit of the age. The name American Idol really does say it all.

One hopes that any Christians who watch the show will realize what is happening, namely that the program is trying to win over Christians as viewers while at the same time rejecting outright any clear reference to Christ.

Probe Ministries Highly Recommends 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'

Ray Bohlin, President of Probe Ministries, has written a great review of Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he discusses the fate of three scientists featured in the film, who showed an openness to Intelligent Design, or at least did not show a bias against it. The three scientists are Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, and Guillermo Gonzalez. The article is well worth checking out.

In fact, just about everything at the Probe Ministries site is well worth checking out! As some of you may already know, Immanuel Baptist Church, where I serve as an elder, supports Rick Wade, a Research Associate for Probe. I especially recommend checking out his many articles at their website. Also, several of his apologetic resources (both for e-Sword and in PDF) are available on the Downloads page at my website.