In response to Greg’s post about how to interpret the Song of Songs (Solomon, etc.), I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Greg’s inclination to add an interpretive level to the book for God’s love for His people. I picked the text (Song of Songs 2:4) and intended that to be one of the applications. I also agree that the primary point of the text is about the love of a man and woman for one another. However, scripture routinely uses that relationship as a metaphor for God’s love for His people. I think that one would be remiss in preaching from a text like this to ignore the aspects of God and His people. We cannot think rightly about love or relationships anywhere from scripture without first thinking about God’s love. All of our loves are derivative from God. Where’s Keith on this question? Surely this is a good opportunity to trot out one of the church fathers . . .

I would just add that in Psalm 83 we seem to have both sides of the coin–a call for temporal judgment and a call for some kind of redemption.

The author of the psalm made the plea against his enemies, “O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind.  As fire consumes the forest . . . so may you pursue them with your tempest. and terrify them with your hurricane!”  Then, in the very next verse, the psalmist seems to hope that in the process their hearts might be changed by God, “Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O LORD.”

I find it interesting that here is a prayer, in the Old Testament, for both God to execute immediate justice and to bring mercy.  It is not unlike what we find in Acts 8 after Simon pays money to receive the Holy Spirit Peter’s first response is a curse!  He calls him to perish with his silver but a verse or two later he urges him to repent and seek forgiveness.

Is it possible that in Psalm 139 there is an unstated expectation on the part of David that should his enemies see the just hand of God about to destroy them it would be a good thing if they sought the name of the LORD?  The text does not say but that would seem consistent with other Scripture.  David hating them as enemies of God does not mean he cannot ultimately want them reconciled with their Maker.

In any event, in a world where unspeakable evil takes place I do think there is a role for Christians to pray boldly for swift, temporal judgment.  However, I think it should be accompanied by prayers for redemption (c.f. Psalm 83:16).  I think our biggest problem is we don’t pray enough and we don’t pray with enough vigor and boldness for justice.

Keith has been pushing for it and tonight we finally slipped over the edge and sang two, yes two Christmas carols. The time has come to sing about angels and tender scenes of Mary holding her baby while the animals are quietly lowing in the background. It is all so sweet. So Keith, why should we take weeks of the church’s life thinking about Christ’s nativity? In asking the question, I know that you and others will immediately label me as a Scrooge, etc. I am really not entirely opposed to the observance of the holiday at home or in the church. To declare my position up front though, I am more like Kevin C. and like the Christmas songs that are in a minor key or plainsong and which are more theological than sentimentally narrative. But Keith is all about angels winging their flight and the ever blessed Virgin Mary holding her blessed Son. I could go on Keith, but please, why not state a theological basis for obligating us to observe multiple weeks on the nativity. The floor is yours.

Let me clarify the question that Glenn Lucke has about the T4G statement for Greg or any other elder that wants to take a crack at an answer.  Glenn, of Common Grounds Online, is not arguing that a statement of faith cannot include second order issues.  He is arguing that in the T4G statement, complementarianism is made a first order issue.  In other words, if the denial of complementarianism is significant enough to damage one’s witness to the Gospel (as Article 16 of the T4G statement asserts) it must be a first-order and not a secondary issue.  Does that make sense?  So the question Glenn seems to be posing is, how is it that the women’s issue is a second-order issue and yet rises to the level of damaging one’s witness to the Gospel?

Hey Greg, have you seen this at Common Grounds Online?  Glenn Lucke is asking whether Dr. Mohler is contradicting himself by saying complementarianism is a second-order issue but including it in the Together for the Gospel statement of faith.  Glenn brought this issue up a few weeks ago in reference to the T4G quartet, but in this article, he references Mohler specifically because of an August 23 BP article where Mohler specifically calls the women’s issue a second-order issue.

Glenn seems to be asking: Look doesn’t including a statement on complementarianism in a statement of faith automatically make it a first and not a second order issue?  Here is Glenn, himself — referring to the T4G statement:

However, perhaps Mohler, et.al. do NOT use the term “the Gospel” in this ultimate, first-order sense when they use it in Article XVI.   Maybe they have one of the many alternative meanings of the Gospel in mind, a meaning that is not about the first order issue of justification.

If I’m reasoning correctly, and I may not be, and thus I invite gracious correction, it seems to me that either Mohler means something of a second-order nature when he uses “the Gospel” in Ariticle XVI or he has contradicted his words in the theological triage article about women issues being second-order.

Or, still another alternative, perhaps Mohler believes that even errors on second order issues damage a church’s witness to the first-order matter of the Gospel.

Greg (when you are done preaching this weekend), or any other elder, do you want to address this question?

In a few weeks, Greg and I will lead a discussion in Sunday School — soon to have the more hip name, “Christianity Matters”–on the emerging/emergent church.  In the meantime, you may want to read up on the latest 9Marks postings by some leading thinkers, including our own, Jonathan Leeman.

Greg is probably on the road somewhere and has no idea how Aaron and I have hijacked the blog with poetry. I will dull his shock slightly by trying to answer the question from his last post: what has theology (I assume he means Christian) done for humanity? Before I answer the question though, surely no one is naive enough to think that science is an unmixed “gift” to humanity. What about Chernobyl, Love Canal, and eugenics?

My initial brief answer to Greg’s question is that Christian theology brought to human civilization a heretofore unknown concern for the weak and helpless. In current terms: the victims. Sparta threw its weak and “deformed” children over the cliff, and other civilizations have been doing the same things in various ways through the centuries. The Judeo-Christian theology of man in God’s image results in a very different view of the human person and how she or he may be treated. Both testaments of scripture witness God’s concern for the weak and poor sometimes over and against the strong.

It is ironic that secularists at times view Christians poorly because they feel we do not have enough concern for the “victims” of our cultures. They feel we have been co-opted or have deliberately perpetuated violence against the helpness around the world. What they don’t realize is that their concern for the helpless does not come from Darwin, Nietzsche, Einstein, etc. — it comes from Christianity. They have “radicalized” it and claim that it is a self-evident truth. It is not. It is Christian, and it needs to be reclaimed as such.

Most of what I said comes from a thought provoking book entitled I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by Rene Girard. It’s very interesting but dense.